The Grenadier Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to contribute to the community by adding your own topics, posts, and connect with other members through your own private inbox! INEOS Agents, Dealers or Commercial vendors please contact admin@theineosforum.com for a commercial account.

Grenadier Weight

Hi and welcome to the forum!

Everything with vehicles is a trade-off. The engineers at Ineos could have designed the Grenadier for a higher payload, but probably at the cost of wheel articulation (i.e. off-road performance). Take the Jeep Wrangler as an alternate example: excellent wheel articulation and a soft suspension that is absolutely amazing in the rocks - but at the cost of payload (most 4-door Wranglers have a payload of around 875 pounds). So, I think its safe to assume that the Ineos engineers wanted a 4-door wagon with really good payload for its class (its much better than the competition in North America), but they also wanted a vehicle that could handle moderately technical terrain - so this is the compromise they engineered. Any increase in one variable (payload vs suspension travel) results in a decrease in the other.

Another example of a trade off is vehicle weight vs off-road performance and fuel economy: as weight goes up, you get greater strength, durability, and capacity to carry payload, but fuel economy goes down, as does performance on technical rock climbs, driving in soft sand, etc.

Tires are another great example of engineering compromises: every change you make to tread design or rubber compound increases performance in one area at the cost of performance in another area.

Basically, every vehicle is engineered with intentional compromises to meet the intended end-use of that vehicle.
Couldn't agree more.
 
Has someone come across some weight details?
With all components being final, one should be able to calculate exact weight for every config, no?
 
Last edited:
Me again.
Has someone drove the Gren onto scales to confirm final weight?
MyCOC says 3064kg for my Trialmaster Diesel with sidesteps and safari windows.
If that will be confirmed, it is quite a shocker as being left with 436kg for the camper build, the luggage and us is mission impossible.
Will visit scales asap.
Thanks.
 
Which CoC weight are you using?
Mine are:
IMG_20230610_093228.jpg

But I assume the shipping label was an actual weighbridge figure:
IMG_20230428_212430.jpg

Which if I add rock sliders, and a cargo barrier, makes a probable 2,879kg.

Is there a definition somewhere of what the various CoC weights include?
 
I assumed it is 47.1.1., no?

IMG_7884.jpeg

But very happy to be wrong.

Been chasing weight of addons with no success for a year as I was always afraid going to heavy.
 
I assumed it is 47.1.1., no?

View attachment 7815789

But very happy to be wrong.

Been chasing weight of addons with no success for a year as I was always afraid going to heavy.
What are your weights for section 13. to 16.?

I have a 47.1.1 Test mass weight of 2,998kg; so I'm assuming this weight is with some loading, say 2x75kg passengers us 24kg of fuel, or something similar.
 
Absolutely agree. 15-18l/100km is however a lot, but three tons take their toll.

It is in general the braking which costs the fuel. If you accelerate, you do of course need fuel, but you get something back: velocity. So you exchange fuel for kinetic energy. However, if you brake, you simply destroy the energy, it's gone forever. And the more mass you have accelerated the more energy will be converted to heat. And that's of course a function of mass.

That's why I always try to avoid braking as much as possible, i.e.: I try to adopt my velocity to what's ahead. A sharp curve - let it roll in time. Same goes for red lights, street crossings and all the traffic around you. Within a city this is often impossible, and thus the frequent braking wastes everything you have invested before.
That's why I am a fan in general of hybrid: regenerative braking to recover the energy, and a small battery, The Ford Maverick hybrid owners are reporting 40+ mpg (American) around town. Yes it is a much smaller vehicle, but that is a lot higher MPG than similar- sized vehicles that are not hybrid.
 
You know they put the man on the moon using the metric system?
They used metric for some stuff, mostly computer programing, but by and large everything was US customary units. You can hear it on the moon landing videos. 40 feet, 30 feet. Plus all the contractors (mostly WWII military suppliers) that built Apollo were accustomed to using US units.
 
Hi, I am new to this forum and am wondering if anyone knows why the Grenadier ( a relatively no frills car) weighs so much? The 5 seater/diesel (my choice) weights 2700+ kg , almost as much as the Patrol Y62 which is a (much) bigger luxurious vehicle with a V8. The Petrol version is 80 kg lighter, but that is still a hefty weight. I could not find any discussion on this, but if there is my apologies.
With winch extra battery all kitted 2985 drives like the weight is no issue why would hou worry about the weight ?
 
They used metric for some stuff, mostly computer programing, but by and large everything was US customary units. You can hear it on the moon landing videos. 40 feet, 30 feet. Plus all the contractors (mostly WWII military suppliers) that built Apollo were accustomed to using US units.
But some brains behind the rocket science were accustomed to use the metric system 😉
 
Me again.
Has someone drove the Gren onto scales to confirm final weight?
MyCOC says 3064kg for my Trialmaster Diesel with sidesteps and safari windows.
If that will be confirmed, it is quite a shocker as being left with 436kg for the camper build, the luggage and us is mission impossible.
Will visit scales asap.
Thanks.
Yes, I`ve done.
Mass of the vehicle determined on scales (Trialmaster, only basic equipment with partition grid and floor mats) without persons -> 2840 kg, leaving only 660 kg payload.
 
Those brains also were accustomed to other ideologies as well. But we shan't talk about those.
True without a question! But the measurement systems are not that ideological based. It’s more a question of accuracy and easy calculability.
Look at the problems with mpg when half of the members here (including me) didn’t know that there is a UK and a US gallons.
 
That's also correct, but the statement that NASA used the metric system to go to the moon is false. It was US customary units (standard) all the way.
 
I didn’t want to question this at all.
Another thing.
Everyone who is interested in the history of space travel or in special the Apollo missions, should consider to listen to this podcast.
Link for Apple users:
Spotify:
 
Yes, I live in Houston, where astronauts train. You can bump into them in the Clear Lake area.
 
Back
Top Bottom