Summary of Reviews

[Rubicon Maybe]

I can tell you right now the Gren is a far build quality than any Jeep I have ever driven or seen. This is just based on what I can see of the current batch of Oz delivered cars vs every other Jeep before it. Three mates of mine have owned Jeeps over the last 5 years and they all had them at the dealers for weeks on end with faults and failings. Engine's, gear boxes, ignition faults, engine stutter on one, air suspension another, extend vibration another with varying wear on drive line etc etc. Worn bearings on the biggest was best... car wanting to veer left in to the guardrails!! That was the Wrangler and its 2nd tow. He sold after warranty repair!

Im sure the Jeeps built for Oz come from another factory or they are all scheduled for the Friday arvo shift...

What does any of this have to do with the fact that some additional skid plate protection over vulnerable areas would be beneficial?

 

[trobex]

What does any of this have to do with the fact that some additional skid plate protection over vulnerable areas would be beneficial?

My comment related to components, the build quality and pedigree of the items used to make the entirety of the GREN - I had no comment in relation to you own post re: skid plates. I do concur; as however, skid plate protection (and a lift!) would be a MUST in the GREN if you want to climb for sport. This, and also adjusting/moving a few low hanging lines, sensor cables, etc etc. A quick look of the underside of a Gren and there are 5 or 6 obvious strike points if you were to run over a larger log/gibber/stump/hidden in the grass object/body of a cow etc etc.

 

[stickshifter]

Just got back from a 90-minute test drive, and the underside of the Trialmaster that they have at Red Noland is a testimony to (1) the nature of the trails in the Rocky Mountains, and (2) the lack of ground clearance this vehicle has. The rear diff has taken a hard hit, and the chipped section is rusting; the gas-tank skid plate has taken a beating and is pretty-well dented; and the rear-most skid also has some dents. Its good to see them getting after it in the Grenadier, but its also pretty clear that - for Colorado trails - the vehicle needs at least a little lift and 33s. I think you could run a 1.5 inch lift and 33s without messing up the geometry of the suspension (i.e. the angle of the control arms) - though I can't say that with any degree of certainty. A 1.5 inch lift and 33s would be enough to open up some access to some great areas and would be enough to keep you off the undercarriage - because grinding over your skids gets pretty tiring and has you worried about damage that might halt your progress. I guess a silver lining is that the low hanging gas tank skid plate will keep your passenger-side rock rail from getting too bashed-up (that's a joke). Here's the thing folks: if you don't drive the Grenadier on the trails here, why do you have it? To drive to and from the ski resort? There are much better vehicles for that. To drive on dirt roads? You don't need a solid front axle (and the on-road penalty that brings) for driving dirt roads. As a daily-driver around town? Of course there are much better vehicles for that. We don't have much in the way of long-distance touring that requires a really sturdy off-road vehicle, but that covers moderate terrain in terms of rocks and ground clearance. Just about all the really remote stuff in Colorado and Utah also require a little better ground clearance than you get with 31.5-inch tires. Just goes to show - geography matters - and off-roading really varies by region.

 

[trobex]

Just got back from a 90-minute test drive, and the underside of the Trialmaster that they have at Red Noland is a testimony to (1) the nature of the trails in the Rocky Mountains, and (2) the lack of ground clearance this vehicle has. The rear diff has taken a hard hit, and the chipped section is rusting; the gas-tank skid plate has taken a beating and is pretty-well dented; and the rear-most skid also has some dents. Its good to see them getting after it in the Grenadier, but its also pretty clear that - for Colorado trails - the vehicle needs at least a little lift and 33s. I think you could run a 1.5 inch lift and 33s without messing up the geometry of the suspension (i.e. the angle of the control arms) - though I can't say that with any degree of certainty. A 1.5 inch lift and 33s would be enough to open up some access to some great areas and would be enough to keep you off the undercarriage - because grinding over your skids gets pretty tiring and has you worried about damage that might halt your progress. I guess a silver lining is that the low hanging gas tank skid plate will keep your passenger-side rock rail from getting too bashed-up (that's a joke). Here's the thing folks: if you don't drive the Grenadier on the trails here, why do you have it? To drive to and from the ski resort? There are much better vehicles for that. To drive on dirt roads? You don't need a solid front axle (and the on-road penalty that brings) for driving dirt roads. As a daily-driver around town? Of course there are much better vehicles for that. We don't have much in the way of long-distance touring that requires a really sturdy off-road vehicle, but that covers moderate terrain in terms of rocks and ground clearance. Just about all the really remote stuff in Colorado and Utah also require a little better ground clearance than you get with 31.5-inch tires. Just goes to show - geography matters - and off-roading really varies by region.

There are cheaper and better cars suited for bashing over boulders one could argue. To your point, you rarely (if ever) see a Wrangler for example traversing the Aussie desert, our farms, our harsh outback trails or towing a 3T trailer out west for or even within close proximity of the out back for that matter. But the Wrangler is sure fine for the Rockies.

I think buyers in the US will come to realise that spending upwards of $100K for a rock crawler is a 1st world problem and will have no bearing on IAs plans for any future vehicle.

The solid axle in the Gren will outlast the alternatives a hundred times over if your daily drive consists of long stretches of rutted road (as many of us experience).

It feels like the NA market is expecting this vehicle to replace something that it isn't intended to replace. Only my opinion from several threads here.

 

[James]

There were cad drawings kicking around of underbody armor from IA I think so maybe a factory option is in the works.

…and the scale model shows what they were planning to build standard. It changed, and no-one knows if it was ukraine/supply chain or something else. I think that there is talk of the original additional plates being offered at some point. Bit of a mystery.
however, lots of the things yet to be protected are actually pretty high above crossmembers or chassis etc. Not complete solution of course, but it’s less concerning than it sounds when you actually crawl under the car.

 

[James]

Just got back from a 90-minute test drive, and the underside of the Trialmaster that they have at Red Noland is a testimony to (1) the nature of the trails in the Rocky Mountains, and (2) the lack of ground clearance this vehicle has. The rear diff has taken a hard hit, and the chipped section is rusting; the gas-tank skid plate has taken a beating and is pretty-well dented; and the rear-most skid also has some dents. Its good to see them getting after it in the Grenadier, but its also pretty clear that - for Colorado trails - the vehicle needs at least a little lift and 33s. I think you could run a 1.5 inch lift and 33s without messing up the geometry of the suspension (i.e. the angle of the control arms) - though I can't say that with any degree of certainty. A 1.5 inch lift and 33s would be enough to open up some access to some great areas and would be enough to keep you off the undercarriage - because grinding over your skids gets pretty tiring and has you worried about damage that might halt your progress. I guess a silver lining is that the low hanging gas tank skid plate will keep your passenger-side rock rail from getting too bashed-up (that's a joke). Here's the thing folks: if you don't drive the Grenadier on the trails here, why do you have it? To drive to and from the ski resort? There are much better vehicles for that. To drive on dirt roads? You don't need a solid front axle (and the on-road penalty that brings) for driving dirt roads. As a daily-driver around town? Of course there are much better vehicles for that. We don't have much in the way of long-distance touring that requires a really sturdy off-road vehicle, but that covers moderate terrain in terms of rocks and ground clearance. Just about all the really remote stuff in Colorado and Utah also require a little better ground clearance than you get with 31.5-inch tires. Just goes to show - geography matters - and off-roading really varies by region.

i think your observations here are really relevant. The local opportunities to use such a vehicle are absolutely important, I agree.
In an Australian context, one of the things that I hope we dont take from the US market is the trend to lifts and larger tyres, and Im really not commenting here on what you need (your landscape is definitely different to ours).

Over here, with historically everything typically on similar wheels and tyres, tracks get rutted to a certain point, and then become difficult, but cars that could make it would scrape the hump, or get stuck, or make a new route. Now, when we get heavily modified cars using popular tracks, they become unpassable with anything else - it is the modified vehicles that are eroding the tracks. Especially when people like to use power to ’defeat’ a difficult hill, and doing that is the point, rather than to be going somewhere.

If the majority of peple continue to use standard wheels and tyres, which are a great optimum for lots of reasons, then our geography will remain more passable, and exciting to explore in vehicles that are already pretty pricey, and still good for other purposes.

 

[trobex]

i think your observations here are really relevant. The local opportunities to use such a vehicle are absolutely important, I agree.
In an Australian context, one of the things that I hope we dont take from the US market is the trend to lifts and larger tyres, and Im really not commenting here on what you need (your landscape is definitely different to ours).

Over here, with historically everything typically on similar wheels and tyres, tracks get rutted to a certain point, and then become difficult, but cars that could make it would scrape the hump, or get stuck, or make a new route. Now, when we get heavily modified cars using popular tracks, they become unpassable with anything else - it is the modified vehicles that are eroding the tracks. Especially when people like to use power to ’defeat’ a difficult hill, and doing that is the point, rather than to be going somewhere.

If the majority of peple continue to use standard wheels and tyres, which are a great optimum for lots of reasons, then our geography will remain more passable, and exciting to explore in vehicles that are already pretty pricey, and still good for other purposes.

I agree with this. There are many 'lifted' vehicles here in OZ and none with a spec of dust on them... it's just a thing. I did see an 90s model Patrol the other day which looked like it had taken to a cliff several times and 1M miles on the clock - it was effectively an original spec. I had a moment of respect for the old fella driving it.

 

[stickshifter]

i think your observations here are really relevant. The local opportunities to use such a vehicle are absolutely important, I agree.
In an Australian context, one of the things that I hope we dont take from the US market is the trend to lifts and larger tyres, and Im really not commenting here on what you need (your landscape is definitely different to ours).

Over here, with historically everything typically on similar wheels and tyres, tracks get rutted to a certain point, and then become difficult, but cars that could make it would scrape the hump, or get stuck, or make a new route. Now, when we get heavily modified cars using popular tracks, they become unpassable with anything else - it is the modified vehicles that are eroding the tracks. Especially when people like to use power to ’defeat’ a difficult hill, and doing that is the point, rather than to be going somewhere.

If the majority of peple continue to use standard wheels and tyres, which are a great optimum for lots of reasons, then our geography will remain more passable, and exciting to explore in vehicles that are already pretty pricey, and still good for other purposes.

I agree. There are a couple of trails I used to drive in 1990 on a stock 1985 Toyota pickup (30-inch tires). Now you need 33s and a small lift, and you will still make some contact with your skids. The same thing is happening to popular hiking trails. The erosion of soil has left them super-rocky and you have to pay close attention to every foot placement or you'll turn an ankle. The population in Colorado in 1990 was 3.3 million; today it is 5.8 million. Cities are buying up farm and ranch land for the water rights to provide for expanding populations, and the land is left barren, or it is built on. None of it feels sustainable.

 

[MileHigh]

Ineos sure seems to like to show the IG on rocky trails….

It isn’t that we are going to do crazy rock trails that the highly modified Jeeps can do, but rock is what we got. We also have slick as snot clay dirt- but I think asking these to handle rocky trails isn’t a crazy idea.

So, why can’t we have a competent vehicle that can handle rocky terrain??? Trail integrity in Australia?

You don’t even need a tape measure to look at the IG and realize that something isn’t ‘right’ with the proportions. I still say that the early models, or at least pictures of them, had the IG with a taller stance than it displays now- and that is before it gets loaded. The tires on there are far from monster truck- they are the same as the Mall Crawler Jeep Sahara. Not looking for a Unimog here, but this is supposed to be ‘the’ serious off-roader. Maybe every model coming off doesn’t need 285s, but the lack of that option is odd. Hopefully the US aftermarket will start to step up- the EU has some options.

 

[bigleonski]

Ineos sure seems to like to show the IG on rocky trails….

It isn’t that we are going to do crazy rock trails that the highly modified Jeeps can do, but rock is what we got. We also have slick as snot clay dirt- but I think asking these to handle rocky trails isn’t a crazy idea.

So, why can’t we have a competent vehicle that can handle rocky terrain??? Trail integrity in Australia?

You don’t even need a tape measure to look at the IG and realize that something isn’t ‘right’ with the proportions. I still say that the early models, or at least pictures of them, had the IG with a taller stance than it displays now- and that is before it gets loaded. The tires on there are far from monster truck- they are the same as the Mall Crawler Jeep Sahara. Not looking for a Unimog here, but this is supposed to be ‘the’ serious off-roader. Maybe every model coming off doesn’t need 285s, but the lack of that option is odd. Hopefully the US aftermarket will start to step up- the EU has some options.

Unfortunately tyre size and suspension lift alters fuel economy for the worse. There are enough people whining (even on here) that the fuel economy is poor (it’s a 2.8 tonne beast after all) without making it worse.

It’s in Ineos’ interest to provide something that is fit for purpose for “most” applications, and also has the capability and capacity for people who want to modify it to be able to without much effort. And I reckon they’ve nailed that with an offroad focus better than most. Hell they’ve added most options from factory, surely people who want bigger tyres and suspension can sort that themselves?

I’d also argue that right out of the box, again with the exception of the jeep wrangler, it can handle rocky terrain better than pretty much anything else in the market. So it’s met that brief. No they haven’t built a rock hopper but then again they never set out to.

 

[James]

Ineos sure seems to like to show the IG on rocky trails….

It isn’t that we are going to do crazy rock trails that the highly modified Jeeps can do, but rock is what we got. We also have slick as snot clay dirt- but I think asking these to handle rocky trails isn’t a crazy idea.

So, why can’t we have a competent vehicle that can handle rocky terrain??? Trail integrity in Australia?

You don’t even need a tape measure to look at the IG and realize that something isn’t ‘right’ with the proportions. I still say that the early models, or at least pictures of them, had the IG with a taller stance than it displays now- and that is before it gets loaded. The tires on there are far from monster truck- they are the same as the Mall Crawler Jeep Sahara. Not looking for a Unimog here, but this is supposed to be ‘the’ serious off-roader. Maybe every model coming off doesn’t need 285s, but the lack of that option is odd. Hopefully the US aftermarket will start to step up- the EU has some options.

Yep, we have plenty rocks here. Its the rockiest continent i’d bet- old and clapped out terrain, and certainly the oldest rocks in the world. The car is fine, brilliant, on rocky trails.

 

[FlyingTexan]

Yep, we have plenty rocks here. Its the rockiest continent i’d bet- old and clapped out terrain, and certainly the oldest rocks in the world. The car is fine, brilliant, on rocky trails.

That may be but the lack of skid plates is an issue.

 

[Jiman01]

Just got back from a 90-minute test drive, and the underside of the Trialmaster that they have at Red Noland is a testimony to (1) the nature of the trails in the Rocky Mountains, and (2) the lack of ground clearance this vehicle has. The rear diff has taken a hard hit, and the chipped section is rusting; the gas-tank skid plate has taken a beating and is pretty-well dented; and the rear-most skid also has some dents. Its good to see them getting after it in the Grenadier, but its also pretty clear that - for Colorado trails - the vehicle needs at least a little lift and 33s. I think you could run a 1.5 inch lift and 33s without messing up the geometry of the suspension (i.e. the angle of the control arms) - though I can't say that with any degree of certainty. A 1.5 inch lift and 33s would be enough to open up some access to some great areas and would be enough to keep you off the undercarriage - because grinding over your skids gets pretty tiring and has you worried about damage that might halt your progress. I guess a silver lining is that the low hanging gas tank skid plate will keep your passenger-side rock rail from getting too bashed-up (that's a joke). Here's the thing folks: if you don't drive the Grenadier on the trails here, why do you have it? To drive to and from the ski resort? There are much better vehicles for that. To drive on dirt roads? You don't need a solid front axle (and the on-road penalty that brings) for driving dirt roads. As a daily-driver around town? Of course there are much better vehicles for that. We don't have much in the way of long-distance touring that requires a really sturdy off-road vehicle, but that covers moderate terrain in terms of rocks and ground clearance. Just about all the really remote stuff in Colorado and Utah also require a little better ground clearance than you get with 31.5-inch tires. Just goes to show - geography matters - and off-roading really varies by region.

Not sure if this is the one you were in but it looks like the vehicle tested was one of the first Red Noland got in and TFL immediately got their hands on one to take to the trail.

Maybe you’ve seen the video already:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yufjJ0_RgE0

 

[Gxgn]

This is one of the better reviews I found so far and it shows some rock crawling capabilities although they did scratch the tank skid plate.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnmht4Ma_Oc

 

[zvakanaka]

I get what you are saying. As an owner of multiple Jeeps (CJ and Wrangler) I have no illusions about their capabilities or their limitations. But I do admire how they design the vehicle in such a way that one can buy a stripped down Wrangler on 31-inch tires for $35,000, but it is engineered so that modifying it in any way is easy (lift, tires, suspension, etc.). You can modify it easily to suit your needs and/or budget. You can also buy a Wrangler with a 392 (470 horsepower and 470 lb/ft of torque), a 2-inch lift, on 35-inch tires, for $82,000 (which is about the same price as a Trialmaster with a winch).

I don't expect Ineos to offer the Grenadier in multiple configurations like Jeep does with the Wrangler - I understand that Ineos is a new car company, and is producing a small-batch vehicle. But to me, it is overpriced by about $10,000. Should the Grenadier - without lockers - be more expensive than a base Wrangler Sport? Both come with 31.6-inch tires, and traditional 4-wheel drive. Yes, of course the Grenadier should be more expensive. It has full-time 4-wheel drive with the capability of shifting into true 4-wheel drive, a more robust frame, suspension, and body, and a more powerful engine with much better low-end torque, the seats are better, and so are the headlights. What is all that worth? I'd definitely pay an extra $25,000 for those attributes - but then we're at $60,000 for a base Grenadier - not $70,000.

I'd be happy with the Grenadier equipped as-is at a lower price point, leaving the owner with the responsibility to modify it if he/she chooses.

I'd also be happy with it sold at the current price point but a bit more suited to all types of off-roading, not just touring. I'm not saying it should come from the factory as a built rock-crawler, but the one I've ordered is over $80,000 and it seems over-priced for a touring vehicle that needs a bunch of modifications to be reliable for regular use on the trails I drive.

I drove it off-road back in August, but I've got my first real test drive in a couple of days. Looking forward to driving it on-road, and off-road again.

Looks like you need to opt for a custom made off-roader/rock climber instead.

 

[Lord Ripon USA]

Comparing a $35,000 vehicle that you need to remake into what you want, with a $100,000 vehicle that won’t do what you want easily, is probably not a good comparison.

At $100,000, I want all the comforts and all the tech. It’s not a tractor at that price point.

I would dare say the “conversion ratio” is probably quite low for wrangler rock crawler’s that have specced out Grenadier’s.
Two different markets.

 

[Krabby]

This is one of the better reviews I found so far and it shows some rock crawling capabilities although they did scratch the tank skid plate.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnmht4Ma_Oc

Really good video to check out. Honest and fair.

 

[stickshifter]

Two reviews from outside the U.S. in which the tire size and suspension height are both viewed as shortcomings. Maybe these comments will be viewed differently since they don't come from an American

From the South Africans: they recommend a suspension lift, and describe the damage to the skid plates under the gas tank. Anyone heading to Red Noland in Colorado Springs can take a peak under their Trialmaster, and see for yourself what "mid-grade" rocky trails will do to a vehicle on 31-inch tires with a low-hanging gas tank (damage was done on trails graded 5 and 6 on a scale from 1-10 here in the Rocky Mountains).

From the Aussies: "hasn't got a great deal of clearance" and "Its on 31-inch tires. With all due respect to the car, on 31-inch tires, beer o'clock hill is a big ask" and "the tires are just so small".

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnmht4Ma_Oc&t=2s

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9csdrGp4j8

 

[Tazzieman]

As with all 4x4s , if your wallet is fat just do the mods to suit your purpose.
Just don't add too much more weight!

 

[bigleonski]

Two reviews from outside the U.S. in which the tire size and suspension height are both viewed as shortcomings. Maybe these comments will be viewed differently since they don't come from an American

From the South Africans: they recommend a suspension lift, and describe the damage to the skid plates under the gas tank. Anyone heading to Red Noland in Colorado Springs can take a peak under their Trialmaster, and see for yourself what "mid-grade" rocky trails will do to a vehicle on 31-inch tires with a low-hanging gas tank (damage was done on trails graded 5 and 6 on a scale from 1-10 here in the Rocky Mountains).

From the Aussies: "hasn't got a great deal of clearance" and "Its on 31-inch tires. With all due respect to the car, on 31-inch tires, beer o'clock hill is a big ask" and "the tires are just so small".

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnmht4Ma_Oc&t=2s

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9csdrGp4j8

I still don’t get your point in terms of OEM fitted equipment? Maybe Jeep or Ford give you different tyre size choices in the states, but in every instance of a new 4wd purchase I have had to make the conscious decision to upgrade the agressiveness and size of tyres to suit MY needs, which may be different to the next guy.
The Grenny comes with 31/32” tyres, but in most markets so dors everything else. We just fir 33” - 35” etc and RT or MT if it suits us.


In terms of Beer O’clock hill they guy was saying that 31”s are a downside to getting up that sort of hill. And he’s right. Nearly everything else that has had a crack is on lifted vehicles with larger tyres - post facotry fitment.
The fact that the IG gets up there despite not being lifted with standard tyres speaks volumes.