Grenadier vs 2024 Land Cruiser

[Mussels]

Interesting discussion.

I’m wondering how a Poll of owners / confirmed buyers would look like if the following question was asked (and honestly answered):

Would you still buy your Grenadier if you had to pay the current pricing?

Hi bigleonski

I think this is a very interesting and valid point which has not gained traction in the forum.

I have told several people that I am pleased as punch with my 6 door commercial / utility / Station Wagon. I only ordered two extras, the central lockable stowage armrest and the tow ball, as I realised that the factory fit is the way to go. Mine was the only vehicle which was delivered complete as ordered when I picked it up from my dealer. I have now done over three thousand miles in it without any problem, apart from a few of the usual ’software issues’.

I can honestly say that the good price I paid was my maximum budget and after the first price increase I would have been out.

Cheers

 

[DesertGecko]

I count myself amongst those that want old school analogue running gear but your example is a poor choice. At least it is in this day and age.

I'm not a "car guy" and neither is my partner. We haven't looked everywhere and I'm sure someone here will give an example otherwise but...

I don't know of any currently manufactured volume 4X4 available in the all countries where the Grenadier is sold that has an anologue instrument cluster. It's no longer an option due to varying regulations and standards and redundant, heavy, and expensive as well. Yes, you have dash components that appear to be analogue in most vehicles - but they're not. They are electronically controlled facsimiles (or simple screen images) that are wholly controlled by a vehicle's PCM/ECM/DME. There are no mechanical speedometer cables, no copper tubes carrying pressurized engine oil, no simple temp senders or wax pelletor switches or vaccum lines or bi-metal spring gauges independently running standalone instruments anymore. Everything is run from multiple processors through the vehicle's main computer and out through a canbus system to whatever nonsense the manufacturer wants you to experience as a "dash". The newest cars we own at nearly 25 years of age mostly don't have true gauges and what's there can still go dead in an instant if there's loss of connectivity to the PCM and are each individually subject to failure as well. What's the point of that?

I'm sure you're aware of this. I'm not trying to lecture anybody here but Ineos - and the vehicle designer himself - has said (to paraphrase) "why bother to come up with an artificial dash design with a bunch fake gauges when all we need is a single screen?" They didn't do it (ala Tesla) to be cool. They did it because it was simpler and less complicated.

I'm trying to see the bright side here without being an apologist. In a way Ineos has done us a favor despite much gnashing of (my) teeth. Now all we need to carry is a spare screen (laptops get replacements all the time) and maybe a back-up ECM (if Ineos will get/flash us spares) and we're set. Carrying some sort of OBDII reader may even suffice for a failed screen as far as knowing basic engine functions are concerned.

There are plenty of cars with analogue gauges. They are probably electronic though. Is that any better than an electronic display? The only cable speedos were pretty bad..

Suzuki Jimmny.
New 78 Toyota.

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/08/n...raded-with-fresh-styling-and-new-turbodiesel/

 

[DesertGecko]

The thing is with the new 76, 78 series landcruiser and Prado, even if they go up 10 or 20k they will still be significantly cheaper than the grenadier. Like by a massive amount. So you could spend a bit on "upgrades" and still be well in front.

And the other thing too is Ineos have been putting their price up by 15k every 9 months or so without even delivering any cars. Probably by this time next year the base model will be 140k.

 

[Farglebah]

I don’t need to follow this thread. My brother has had Prados for years so the various pros and cons are moot. The Prado will remain a shopping trolley, mall crawler, school bus etc.

 

[Jiman01]

How will we go forward from here with what Ineos is delivering is the challenge. How do we, on the enthusiast end, cover our bases in the middle of nowhere? A spare screen with a removable bezel upgrade (of some sort) or a bank of aftermarket gauges mounted somewhere in the cabin?

I’d think an effective method would be to include a cell phone dock (Apple/Android) which would show all the data on your vehicle streamed through your phone, once you pair your device with the vehicle‘s VIN + password.

In theory, even a second or third phone could be paired with the proper authentication if your primary went down, adding redundancy.

 

[Norb-TX]

Looks easy enough for aftermarket to add a binnacle instrument panel over the warning light hole.

Like this but custom made for the Gren.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BNM6VH93/?tag=globalgrena0b-20

 

[MrMike]

I am just kidding off course.
I don’t these comparisons are making a lot of sense.
There are to many pros and cons for any of the cars that would come in consideration.
In the end a lot of emotion an influence comes into play anyway.

But I couldn’t find the negative reviews you are talking about, not even in Australia.

2023 GWM Tank 300 Ultra review

Petrol-powered Tank 300 is off-road-ready and comes with an enticing price tag

www.whichcar.com.au

2023 GWM Tank 300 review

With retro looks, a lovely cabin, and a spec sheet wanting for little, the Tank 300 will no doubt put 4x4 brands like Jeep on notice.

www.carexpert.com.au

2023 GWM Tank 300 review: Australian first drive

The 2023 GWM Tank 300 is finally here, and it's safe to say Aussies have been looking forward to this new 4x4.

www.drive.com.au

etc.

Could you send me some links Mr. Mike?

Enjoy, Fabio

My comment was more to the level of tech in them

 

[Sam]

I’m wondering how a Poll of owners / confirmed buyers would look like if the following question was asked (and honestly answered):

Would you still buy your Grenadier if you had to pay the current pricing?

or how 'bout

Would you still buy your Grenadier [at current pricing] if you [knew the future] pricing?

what's it matter? what choice you got son?

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

In theory, this sounds sensible. In practice, I have never had a speedometer or tachometer fail (the ones with the needle). Screens in cars seem to go black far more frequently by comparison. Maybe your experience is different than mine...

Good points by both you, Stickshifter, and @255/85 - I think I actually agree with both of you. Vehicles have become way more reliable in general, and part of that is because a lot of the "electronic wizardy" that we lament making it's way into the Grenadier. In effect, running sensors through a CANBUS is actually conceptually simpler than having a unique mechanical system for each gauge/reading -- you have a cheap electronic sensor programmed to pass through a particular voltage in particular context, and then a computer picks up that voltage and knows if things are OK or not OK and can do so in consideration of lots of other contexts from other sensors. And, it's conceptually the same for every sensor on the rig -- contrast that to an older car where your fuel gauge is a float pump, your oil sensor is a pressure sensor using a vaccum, and your speedo is using a steel cable -- that's three uniquely mechanical systems, all with a wide variety of bits and bobs involved, and the more complex bits and bobs you get, the more likely you are to experience a failure.

Where the old-school method wins out though is on the repair side. Even with the added complexity of older systems, you can often fix them with a leatherman multitool, some electrical tape, maybe a bit of chap stick if you wanna be real professional with an analog to dielectric grease, and a trouble light or multimeter. In other words, it was very fixable in the bush with basic tools and cannabalized parts from the local auto shop. The Canbus model of design makes things way simpler in the workshop and in the factory where parts and diagnostic tools are available, but less so trailside -- sure it's often easy enough to swap sensors but if there's a problem with your ECU what are the odds that the local parts shop will have your exact ECU in stock in the middle of nowhere? Pretty low.

That's not to say it's a dealbreaker but it does require a different mindset/approach. For example, there was a fellow who took his Triumph Tiger across the world from Europe to Australia and he had a big off in Mongolia. Bike was totally trashed - a write off by any measure. But, he had the right attitude and was able to patch it back up/fix it in a shipping container. The Tiger is a great example of both of these design philosophies at play actually; that era of Tiger has quite a bit of manual stuff (i.e. clutch and throttle work on old fashioned cables), but also has a CANBUS system for some of the complexities. This guy was able to replace things like the broken headlight by stealing some lamps off a wrecked Lada and wiring them up -- an easy, old school, bush fix that is actually not doable on newer bikes, because even the headlights route through the CANBUS. But he was also forced to order an entirely new center console (or "Clock" as it's called) as there was no repairing the smashed circuit boards that controlled all the canbus-related systems.

 

[255/85]

They are probably electronic though. Is that any better than an electronic display?

Not really. It's still the ecm that communicates conditions to the "gauge". AFAIK there's no direct info coming from a specific engine/drivetrain system itself.

EDIT: As per the above post.

Suzuki Jimmny.
New 78 Toyota.

Not available in the U.S. so not a global vehicle. If they were I wouldn't be here.

 

[stickshifter]

Good points by both you, Stickshifter, and @255/85 - I think I actually agree with both of you. Vehicles have become way more reliable in general, and part of that is because a lot of the "electronic wizardy" that we lament making it's way into the Grenadier. In effect, running sensors through a CANBUS is actually conceptually simpler than having a unique mechanical system for each gauge/reading -- you have a cheap electronic sensor programmed to pass through a particular voltage in particular context, and then a computer picks up that voltage and knows if things are OK or not OK and can do so in consideration of lots of other contexts from other sensors. And, it's conceptually the same for every sensor on the rig -- contrast that to an older car where your fuel gauge is a float pump, your oil sensor is a pressure sensor using a vaccum, and your speedo is using a steel cable -- that's three uniquely mechanical systems, all with a wide variety of bits and bobs involved, and the more complex bits and bobs you get, the more likely you are to experience a failure.

Where the old-school method wins out though is on the repair side. Even with the added complexity of older systems, you can often fix them with a leatherman multitool, some electrical tape, maybe a bit of chap stick if you wanna be real professional with an analog to dielectric grease, and a trouble light or multimeter. In other words, it was very fixable in the bush with basic tools and cannabalized parts from the local auto shop. The Canbus model of design makes things way simpler in the workshop and in the factory where parts and diagnostic tools are available, but less so trailside -- sure it's often easy enough to swap sensors but if there's a problem with your ECU what are the odds that the local parts shop will have your exact ECU in stock in the middle of nowhere? Pretty low.

That's not to say it's a dealbreaker but it does require a different mindset/approach. For example, there was a fellow who took his Triumph Tiger across the world from Europe to Australia and he had a big off in Mongolia. Bike was totally trashed - a write off by any measure. But, he had the right attitude and was able to patch it back up/fix it in a shipping container. The Tiger is a great example of both of these design philosophies at play actually; that era of Tiger has quite a bit of manual stuff (i.e. clutch and throttle work on old fashioned cables), but also has a CANBUS system for some of the complexities. This guy was able to replace things like the broken headlight by stealing some lamps off a wrecked Lada and wiring them up -- an easy, old school, bush fix that is actually not doable on newer bikes, because even the headlights route through the CANBUS. But he was also forced to order an entirely new center console (or "Clock" as it's called) as there was no repairing the smashed circuit boards that controlled all the canbus-related systems.

Hey COT - yeah, what you write here makes complete sense. But I feel like the conversation has become focused on one example of a larger argument, which has subsequently gotten lost. I was just using the screen as an example of the many ways in which the Grenadier is actually a pretty high-tech vehicle. And I'd stand by that argument regardless of whether or not we decide that a screen is a better option than having distinct dials for things like speed, engine rpm, engine temp, etc.

What sort of bugs me, as I find it a bit hypocritical and largely rooted in marketing, is Ineos declaring that something like a heated steering wheel is "too techy" or "too soft" (or whatever they are saying) when there are a host of far more techy, and far softer things included in the vehicle. As I suggested previously, a heated steering wheel - as an option - is a great feature because (1) you don't have to order it if you don't want it, (2) if it works, great, you have warm hands on a cold drive, and most important, (3) if it fails, it has no impact on the drive ability of the vehicle - you are still going to get where you need to go - just maybe with cold fingers

 

[stickshifter]

Not really. It's still the ecm that communicates conditions to the "gauge". AFAIK there's no direct info coming from a specific engine/drivetrain system itself.



Not available in the U.S. so not a global vehicle. If they were I wouldn't be here.

I think we can get too into the weeds on this topic, and I don't want to be argumentative (its actually a pretty minor issue) but having separate gauges for speed, engine rpm, oil temp, fuel gauge, etc. just strikes me as more robust than having a single screen that displays all that stuff. Sure, back in the day I had a speedo cable get wonky, and the needle on the gauge would oscillate (vibrating over a 5 mph range), but the rest of the gauges were unaffected. Even now that these gauges are controlled by computer chips, this design seems to be more robust than a single screen. Can't find any data, but anecdotal evidence suggests that screens go blank more often than gauges fail. Maybe I'm wrong on that point, I don't know for sure.

But I feel like the conversation has become focused on one example of a larger argument, which has subsequently gotten lost. I was just using the screen as an example of the many ways in which the Grenadier is actually a pretty high-tech vehicle. And I'd stand by that argument regardless of whether or not we decide that a screen is a better option than having distinct dials for things like speed, engine rpm, engine temp, fuel level, etc.

If we do not agree on this - that's okay! All the best.

Sorry - I'm going to add an image below - because it is just too timely not to This is a screenshot of posts made yesterday:

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Hey COT - yeah, what you write here makes complete sense. But I feel like the conversation has become focused on one example of a larger argument, which has subsequently gotten lost. I was just using the screen as an example of the many ways in which the Grenadier is actually a pretty high-tech vehicle. And I'd stand by that argument regardless of whether or not we decide that a screen is a better option than having distinct dials for things like speed, engine rpm, engine temp, etc.

What sort of bugs me, as I find it a bit hypocritical and largely rooted in marketing, is Ineos declaring that something like a heated steering wheel is "too techy" or "too soft" (or whatever they are saying) when there are a host of far more techy, and far softer things included in the vehicle. As I suggested previously, a heated steering wheel - as an option - is a great feature because (1) you don't have to order it if you don't want it, (2) if it works, great, you have warm hands on a cold drive, and most important, (3) if it fails, it has no impact on the drive ability of the vehicle - you are still going to get where you need to go - just maybe with cold fingers

Totally hear you Stickshifter and I completely agree with you - saying no to some basic options like heated wheel as "techy" does fall a bit flat in the context of a vehicle that shuts off when you shift into drive with the door open! (Still not clear to me how that works and what the weakpoints are/how it'll break!).

And, related to my last post, the more these techy features are routed through the CANBUS - like the aforementioned won't-drive-with-the-door-open -- the more likely those subsystems are to trigger a system-wide failure in the event of an upset. It goes back to the Socio-Technical Theory of Disasters, best illustrated by TWA Flight 800, but the short version is "the more complex and interconnected a system, the more unpredictable the impacts of discrete failures".

For example: TWA 800 was a Boeing 747 that crashed off the coast of the USA in the 1990s. There was a lot of hullabaloo about it being shot down by a missile back in the day - that is in large part because the airframe, the 747, had been flying for a really long time and was regarded as a very reliable aircraft. No way they would just blow up; we would have seen that happen by the 1990s if that was a risk, right?

Well what actually happened: There was a spark in the fuel tank caused by a faulty fuel pump. This fuel pump was installed in every single 747 ever made, and each one of them had an equal chance of sparking. But none of the other 747s blew up. Why? Because of two more factors; First, TWA800's fuel tanks were only partially that day for some reason, which allowed the fuel/air mixture in the tank to be perfectly combustible, AND, crucially, the ambient temperature on the ground pre-takeoff was such that the fuel in the tanks had vaporized enough in the heat to create that perfect fuel air mixture. Every 747 had that fuel pump. Every 747 had flown with partially empty tanks. But not every 747 with that fuel pump flew with partially empty tanks on a day with that specific temperature, and it was the combination of all three of those things that resulted in the explosion; as you can imagine as a designer, that kind of disaster would be really, really hard to predict.

I'm not saying the Grenadier will explode because of a spark in the fuel tank What I am saying is that interconnected complex systems, by virtue of their design, greatly increase the risk of unpredictable malfunctions. From that perspective, the less that can go through a CANBUS, and the more that can be on it's own independent system that I can troubleshoot in isolation, the better bush-fixability we're likely to see.

The Yota's new Land Cruiser 250 (See how I'm linking that back?) has me worried in this way - it appears to be more bare bones than the previous generations of Land Cruiser and eschewed the luxury bloat of the 200 and 300 series, but so far that impression is based on price and photos - if the entire Hybrid powertrain runs through a CANBUS along with a door sensor and a backup camera and a gnat's wing arcing a pin in the camera connector can trigger a limp home mode (or whatever - as in, if the design philosophy embraces simplicity only in aesthetics, and not in actual function) it may not be the Land Cruiser many are hoping for when used for real remote travel.

 

[255/85]

Regarding robustness: I totally agree! I truly wish the Grenadier was a simpler vehicle.

I think Ineos was faced with one very specific concern that seemed to override many - and that was weight. Not wanting to lighten the frame, axles, etc they started cutting weight elsewhere. For example, one of those weight savings measures was power windows which I abhor. I was told that Ineos used them because the power actuated versions weigh substantially less than manual regulators. I have no idea if this is true or not. I do know one thing though: if you lose battery power, power windows can become a real problem in extreme environments. If you can't get them down in hot climates or up in cold you could be very uncomfortable or worse.

Is the above an example of the compromises that have been made or perhaps just an excuse to be more competitive to something like the new Land Cruiser here in the States? Who really knows. I never previously considered the two vehicles comparable at all, though some obviously do. To avoid going down another rabbit hole can I temporarily restate the original thread topic...

Is the Grenadier the closest we'll ever get to a 70 series here in the States or is it really just another sheep in wolf's clothing?

If the former then the compromises have to be weighed. If the latter then the Grenadier should indeed be compared to the new 2024 Land Cruiser.

 

[Tom109]

I think we can get too into the weeds on this topic…

I think this sums it up. We all realize we are buying a new vehicle. That in itself comes with mandatory requirements to reach a given market. This is not to say no-Techy-this, or yes-Techy-that, the vehicle itself will rely on Tech. The real question is are you comfortable with the level of Tech in your vehicle of choice?

I need a new 4wd. I am not going to spend $100k+ to rebuild a 1990’s Defender, when I can buy a Gren. Plus I’ve got a Series 2a in the garage for the Zombie days…

 

[stickshifter]

Totally hear you Stickshifter and I completely agree with you - saying no to some basic options like heated wheel as "techy" does fall a bit flat in the context of a vehicle that shuts off when you shift into drive with the door open! (Still not clear to me how that works and what the weakpoints are/how it'll break!).

And, related to my last post, the more these techy features are routed through the CANBUS - like the aforementioned won't-drive-with-the-door-open -- the more likely those subsystems are to trigger a system-wide failure in the event of an upset. It goes back to the Socio-Technical Theory of Disasters, best illustrated by TWA Flight 800, but the short version is "the more complex and interconnected a system, the more unpredictable the impacts of discrete failures".

For example: TWA 800 was a Boeing 747 that crashed off the coast of the USA in the 1990s. There was a lot of hullabaloo about it being shot down by a missile back in the day - that is in large part because the airframe, the 747, had been flying for a really long time and was regarded as a very reliable aircraft. No way they would just blow up; we would have seen that happen by the 1990s if that was a risk, right?

Well what actually happened: There was a spark in the fuel tank caused by a faulty fuel pump. This fuel pump was installed in every single 747 ever made, and each one of them had an equal chance of sparking. But none of the other 747s blew up. Why? Because of two more factors; First, TWA800's fuel tanks were only partially that day for some reason, which allowed the fuel/air mixture in the tank to be perfectly combustible, AND, crucially, the ambient temperature on the ground pre-takeoff was such that the fuel in the tanks had vaporized enough in the heat to create that perfect fuel air mixture. Every 747 had that fuel pump. Every 747 had flown with partially empty tanks. But not every 747 with that fuel pump flew with partially empty tanks on a day with that specific temperature, and it was the combination of all three of those things that resulted in the explosion; as you can imagine as a designer, that kind of disaster would be really, really hard to predict.

I'm not saying the Grenadier will explode because of a spark in the fuel tank What I am saying is that interconnected complex systems, by virtue of their design, greatly increase the risk of unpredictable malfunctions. From that perspective, the less that can go through a CANBUS, and the more that can be on it's own independent system that I can troubleshoot in isolation, the better bush-fixability we're likely to see.

The Yota's new Land Cruiser 250 (See how I'm linking that back?) has me worried in this way - it appears to be more bare bones than the previous generations of Land Cruiser and eschewed the luxury bloat of the 200 and 300 series, but so far that impression is based on price and photos - if the entire Hybrid powertrain runs through a CANBUS along with a door sensor and a backup camera and a gnat's wing arcing a pin in the camera connector can trigger a limp home mode (or whatever - as in, if the design philosophy embraces simplicity only in aesthetics, and not in actual function) it may not be the Land Cruiser many are hoping for when used for real remote travel.

Yes, your first sentence summarizes nicely what I was trying to say

Your points about complex interconnected systems that run through a CANBUS are exactly what I was hoping the Grenadier might avoid. I understand that a car made today has to have computer-controlled ignition systems, and fuel management systems, and ECUs controlling airbags, and on and on. Legislation in the U.S. has only added to mandatory safety equipment that is adding cost and complexity.

Also agree that its hard to know what the new North American Landcruiser (Prado) will be like. It is coming with the full Toyota safety suite, so there will likely be some gremlins. I read in an article somewhere that problems with active safety features are the leading cause of owner complaints and trips to the dealer for new car owners. This new LC isn't quite what I was hoping for, but its pretty good. Be great to see Toyota follow Jeep's lead with regard to forethought for the aftermarket. Jeep designs the Wrangler to run fine stock, but it is also designed so that modifications are super-easy. I think a lot of folk who want to buy the LC will not be happy with 8.7 inches of ground clearance, and will want to put on a small lift and some larger tires. Toyota rarely makes that easy.

 

[255/85]

I need a new 4wd. I am not going to spend $100k+ to rebuild a 1990’s Defender, when I can buy a Gren. Plus I’ve got a Series 2a in the garage for the Zombie days…

And I an old FJ40.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Is the Grenadier the closest we'll ever get to a 70 series here in the States or is it really just another sheep in wolf's clothing?

Interesting comment about the weights - that does make logical sense so perhaps that did drive some of the decisions.

With regards to your final question - I think the Grenadier is most certainly the former: The closest we'll ever get to a new 70-series in North America, and actually superior in many ways than a 70. But like the 70, which needs a track correction to be properly useful as I understand it, the Gren will have it's own version of a "pitfall" and I think a lot of these discussions centre around figuring out what that pitfall will be. That protrusion on the floor near the driver's foot? The complex BMW Motor? The complexities we are discussing? Any of these could become the "thing" that people point to when discussing the downsides of the Grenadier.

And, like the 70 series, I expect that whatever minor downsides consistently come out of the woodwork will be handily addressed by resources like this forum, just like everyone and their uncle knows how relatively easy it is to fix the 70 series track width (even if they don't own one and CAN'T own one where they live, like me!) OR they'll just drive the damn thing and not even notice it being a problem (as many 70-series owners do).

 

[grenadierguy]

I think this sums it up. We all realize we are buying a new vehicle. That in itself comes with mandatory requirements to reach a given market. This is not to say no-Techy-this, or yes-Techy-that, the vehicle itself will rely on Tech. The real question is are you comfortable with the level of Tech in your vehicle of choice?

I need a new 4wd. I am not going to spend $100k+ to rebuild a 1990’s Defender, when I can buy a Gren. Plus I’ve got a Series 2a in the garage for the Zombie days…

Hence the predicament. If I buy a Grenadier, I can't afford a 2a. If I buy a Land Cruiser I can still afford a 2a.

 

[Tom109]

Hence the predicament. If I buy a Grenadier, I can't afford a 2a. If I buy a Land Cruiser I can still afford a 2a.

If you buy the LC you’ll need the 2a. If you buy the Grenadier..?