It was a ridiculous comparison, the F250 Super Duty has a towing capacity of over 9 tonnes in diesel form. Not even close to the same playing field.
Good grief, maybe you should read the post before sounding so sure of yourself: it was not the Ford diesel being referenced, and I clearly state that the vehicles are of a completely different class. Your comment comes across as under-informed, and a little rude. Lastly, I didn't ask for this topic to be revived, but I'm annoyed enough by your post to engage (though its probably not worthwhile).
Here is the post that you commented on - it is Post #15 in the thread
Interesting Marketing Approach. I've changed the font color of the section you commented on, and put it in bold, to help you locate the relevant information:
START OF POST ---------------------------------------------
Yes, of course you are correct: no one is forced to purchase a Grenadier, and Ineos must operate as a for-profit business. But read the comments in response to Grenadier videos on YouTube, and most Americans are expressing similar concerns to those I have expressed here.
I think most Americans who have followed the development of the Grenadier have a lot of respect for what Sir Jim is attempting, and we are excited that a vehicle we have long-wanted is finally coming to our shores. American 4x4 enthusiasts have long-bemoaned the departure of the old Defender in 1997, and the 70-series Landcruiser in 1987. Those who have followed the Grenadier closely, also understand that it was Sir Jim's goal to build a vehicle for
global overland travel, where the key requirements are
durability,
payload, and
traction on rough roads and/or moderate tracks. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these goals, and - in fact - this is what the majority of overlanders want (whether they are European, Australian, or American). However, there is some divergence in use-requirements between the “global market” (Europe and Australia), and the American market. These are my observations:
Most people in Europe and Australia who are shopping for a rugged 4x4 vehicle, are interested in overlanding - which I will define as adventure travel by vehicle, in which durability, payload, and traction are the key criteria.
A lot of people in America who are shopping for a rugged 4x4 vehicle, want the same thing that Europeans & Australians want (a durable vehicle, with good payload, and good traction).
(1) Here is where I see the first diversion between the global market and the American market: Americans seem to have different ideas about what level of power is appropriate for an overland vehicle. I think this is particularly true in the Mountain West, where our highways run over high passes, speed limits range from 65 to 85 mph, there are a lot of freight trucks on the road, and an under-powered vehicle feels unsafe (or just tedious).
(2) A second diversion between the global market and American market is that many Americans go "sport off-roading" (for want of a better term). By this I mean driving really hard trails just to see if they can. They build up their off-road rigs with 35, 37, or 40-inch tires, and test their vehicles and driving skill on very technical terrain. I think a lot of "overlanders" look down on "off-roading" because it involves using a vehicle for sport, and this is seen as a waste of natural resources, and as a source of unnecessary air, noise, or water pollution. In contrast, "overlanders" use a vehicle to travel to somewhere beautiful, or remote, or to access the back-country for recreation (climbing, hiking, camping, skiing, hunting, fishing, etc.). Overlanders often regard their use as more ethical than off-roading. Under careful scrutiny, I'm not sure if the distinction holds up, but I understand the argument.
(3) There is also cross-over between the overland and off-road community in America. This is especially true where trails to access recreation are technical. As the Mountain West has gotten more crowded, more and more people are using vehicles to travel hard technical trails in the hope of finding some solitude. This may be related to another difference in culture: I think that many Europeans are used to their mountains being crowded, while Americans are not. I have climbed extensively in the French, Swiss, and Julian Alps, and the climbing routes are packed; wild camping is often forbidden, and the mountain huts are booked solid. Many Americans in the Mountain West have an expectation of solitude when they head out into the mountains, but this has been changing quickly. Many of us are trying to cope by driving deeper into the back-country before starting our recreation. For example, I never go “off-roading”, but I have run 35-inch tires on multiple vehicles in order to access remote trails for climbing, camping, hunting, etc.
Summary: Americans who have followed the development of the Grenadier understand that the vehicle is intended for overlanding. We don’t think that there is anything wrong with that, but we are really trying to figure out if it will also be suitable for some of the things we may value that the global overland community does not, such as those I mentioned above: adequate power for highway driving at elevation, and adaptability to technical terrain. With respect to these two criteria, these are the concerns that I and many other Americans have expressed:
(1) The Grenadier does not have a great power-to-weight ratio; the gas-powered Grenadier is almost as heavy as the gas-powered (7.3 liter, single rear wheel, 4x4, regular cab) Ford F250 SuperDuty – which is a gigantic truck – but the Grenadier makes just 65% of the HP, and 69% of the torque that the big Ford makes. And while the vehicles are close in weight, the 7.3 Ford has a payload of 3,500 pounds (nearly double that of the Grenadier) and can tow 28,000 pounds (almost 4 times that of the Grenadier). On the surface, there seems to be no reason to ever compare the two vehicles, until you look at the fact that they are nearly the same weight. Lastly, there isn’t much room for tuning the B58, since the ZF transmission paired with the gas engine is the 8HP51, which has a max torque capacity of 369 lb. ft.
(2) There isn’t an “off-road” package from the manufacturer (larger tires & re-geared axles) and we don’t know yet how easy it will be to modify the Grenadier on our own (lots of technical discussions of this elsewhere).
If the gas engine came with the 8HP76 (as does the diesel), and if there were an “off-road” package from Ineos, I think many Americans would feel like the American market was important to Ineos. I’ve become frustrated at waiting to see if the Grenadier can be what I want it to be, and I recognize that this is my problem, not anyone else’s. At this point, I just want to know if
I am best served taking my business elsewhere, or if I should continue to wait.
This is the last time I’ll post on these topics, as I am sure it is tedious for members of the forum. My apologies for beating a dead horse. Time to move along.
END OF POST -------------------------------------------------
As to the topic at hand - "Is the Grenadier under powered?" - we are all free to hold whatever opinion we choose, but the conversation is not so absurd that it should be ridiculed. For example, about six months ago I posted the chart below - which was data I happened to have in an Excel spreadsheet; it was my own personal research on a handful of vehicles that I have either owned, or that I considered buying.
This was never meant to be a comprehensive list of vehicles, but you will notice some that are more relevant as a comparison than the Ford SuperDuty, a comparison which has clearly got you bothered. The Grenadier came last in both these tables (power-to-weight ratio, and torque-to-weight ratio). So I thought it a topic worth discussing.
Yes, these are
max power and
max torque figures, and do not capture information provided by a dyno test, which would show at what RPM the power and torque are made. Its not my full time job to research that info - I was providing the info that I had. That's what people tend to do on a forum.
I noted this when I posted it, and said quite clearly that the Grenadier - because it has a forced induction engine - will make much better power at low RPMs than the naturally aspirated V6 engines in this list - and as a consequence, it will drive much better than an engine that needs to be revved high to make power.
Frankly, I'm a bit baffled by unwillingness to consider other perspectives. Cordial disagreement is part of participating in a forum.
Folks can do with information what they want, but I'm not interested in talking about it anymore. As I said at the end of the post that has since been revived:
Time to move along. 
