Tech Specs

[Stu_Barnes]

 

So finally we get some firm info on the tech specs.

Not compared this to the factory figures from Jeep, LR or Toyota yet. If nobody else beats me to it then I'll get on it tonight.

 

[Stu_Barnes]

"There is a wide range of accessories, including winches, towbars, bull bars, light bars, side runners, interior and exterior utility rails, roof storagesystems, heavy duty underride protection, auxiliary batteries and even a power take-off, 2,000W with domestic plug sockets. Specify your Grenadier
to meet your needs."


Ok, so this is slipped in there, not heard anyone mention a power take off before.

 

[Paachi]

Yeah I don’t know if they mean a PTO from the engine bay or the 2000W alluding to an inverter power take off ??

 

[Stu_Barnes]

A true PTO would be great, no messing around with electric winches

but I think @Paachhi your probably right, it's going to be a 2kW inverter.

 

[Paachi]

Yeah. But still a 2KW built in inverter is better than nothing and a damn sight better than the puny 140W AC plug sockets in 4Runners etc.

I know it sounds stupid, but the built in provisioning for the aux battery is what I am most excited about. Throw in a nice DC-DC charger and a good Li-Ion 100AH battery and its well tucked out of the way. Its golden

 

[Coffee]

Thanks for the specs Stu. Has anyone seen payload and fuel capacity?

Also, will North America actually get the diesel? 

 

[Stu_Barnes]

Thanks for the specs Stu. Has anyone seen payload and fuel capacity?

Also, will North America actually get the diesel? 

I've no idea about this, but looking at the picture that they included in the Spec there looks to be a good sized fuel tank and the, Im assuming 2 separate tanks above the exhaust for AdBlu appear to be quite big.


I know its not much to go on but hopefully if they can get more range than a Disco 4/LR4 then I'll be happy.

Also if this is the level of the information they are going to put out there with the online maintenance and parts manuals then we're going to be ok,  fingers crossed on that note.

 

 

[Paachi]

Payload has always been touted as a metric ton (give or take 50-75 kilos depending upon power plant). Ineos has been pretty serious about that given their aspirations for the Gren as a work truck. So I’d be surprised if it’s anything less than 2000 lbs payload in a non worker slightly glammed up 5 passenger variant. 

 

[Red pepper]

Payload of the MB G300 Professional (Wagon) is 1210 kg.,
And payload of the Toyota Landcruiser 76 series (Wagon) is 780 kg.,
I believe for the Grenadier it will be somewhere in between, probably 1000 kg.? 

 

[Tazzieman]

The information you are after may be found here https://youtu.be/Xy1OBULKKwk

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Payload has always been touted as a metric ton (give or take 50-75 kilos depending upon power plant). Ineos has been pretty serious about that given their aspirations for the Gren as a work truck. So I’d be surprised if it’s anything less than 2000 lbs payload in a non worker slightly glammed up 5 passenger variant. 

I think there is a chance that NA Grenadiers might have a lower payload than the RTW Grenadiers. The issue we will likely run into for the North American Grenadiers is the CAFE standards. I'm not an expert but from what I've pieced together, GVM (Or GVWR) is one of the determining factors as to what "class" a vehicle is in, which has direct implications on emissions standards and sales permissions. 

That's why there are a few mid-size trucks here with  very different payload numbers to their Aussie counterparts -- for instance, the Ford Ranger starts at 750 KGs (1500 lbs) and goes up to 1300 kgs (2800 lbs!), where as a substantively similar NA Spec Ranger maxes out at 1800 lbs payload. ( https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/2021-ford-ranger-pricing-and-specs vs https://www.ford.com/trucks/ranger/models/ranger-xlt/)

Now there are differences in design, though I cannot specifically figure out what; the US Ford guys said they started with the RTW Ranger and made adaptations to the American market. But unless they significantly downgraded the brakes, weakened the frame, etc. I'm having a hard time believing that the Aussie Ranger can carry over a thousand pounds more than the American Ranger based on engineering. That difference is more than the total payload of a JK Rubicon, for example - it's a fair bit of weight.

However, the North American market seems to have a magic number of 6,000 lbs GVM for these mid-size trucks, and the only explanation I can find for that is the regulatory framework, not the engineering -- though because nobody is transparent with their vehicle designs, we actually don't know for sure about the engineering, which is why it's a best practice to stick with the weight on the sticker on the door. Maybe they did downgrade the brakes, frame, etc. and loading it up to 2800 lbs will cause all sorts of problems. The issue is we don't know.

So long story short -- the Grenadier will be the first vehicle I purchase that I'm not worried about the sticker on the door. I'm not a commercial user, so keeping it under spec is not a concern for me in terms of my insurance (not much of one, anyway). And we know that there's only 1 Grenadier -- 100% for sure, the wagon in the USA will be the same as the wagon everywhere else -- so even if it does get hamstrung into a 6000 lbs weight class by these regulations, in reality we will be able to take Ineos's RTW payload information and use that number to plan our use cases.For commercial users, that's a different problem.

I'll be interested to see how Ineos handles this issue.  

 

[stickshifter]

First - I'm super excited about this vehicle. I've been dreaming about a vehicle like this for at least ten years. Having said that, I am a little disappointed in three things: (1) no manual option - but the 8-speed ZF is the first auto transmission I have ever thought about purchasing; they drive really well in the Jeep (both the 3.6 petrol and the 3.0 diesel), with crisp shifts, and a knack for always being in the right gear.  (2) Given the weight of the vehicle, the petrol engine seems a bit under-powered for a vehicle designed from scratch. (3) It looks like its going to be hard to move up in tire size for two reasons: (a) the wheel wells don't look very large (hard to say), and (b) a bigger spare will block the smaller rear door from opening. I've read their rationale for not offering larger tires (its not a vehicle for off-road enthusiasts, its a utility vehicle for doing hard work), but I think they need to plan for larger tires to be competitive in the North American market. Some models of Jeep Wrangler and Ford Bronco come with 33-inch tires standard, and you can also order both vehicles on 35-inch tires from the factory (with factory-installed gears appropriate for 35-inch tires). Jeep calls this the Recon Package, while Ford calls it the Sasquatch Package. Having a single barn-door in the rear of the Grenadier instead of the split door would have made moving up in tire size much simpler. Making the wheel wells larger gets more complicated...

It would also be nice to get some more specs. I know some things are not finalized, but I'm pretty curious about the following:

1. Axle size, or strength-equivalent (for example, equivalent in strength to a Dana 44 or a Dana 60).
2. Crawl ratio
3. More info on the brakes: Size? Are they fixed or floating calipers? How many pistons?
4. Interior dimensions behind the front seats. I am going to order a 2-seater. The brochure mentions that the interior can hold a Euro Pallet. I assume they mean EUR, or EUR 1, which is 31.50 x 47.24 inches. Still, I'd like to see the actual interior dimensions. I have some long skis that live inside my truck all winter ? I'm spoiled with a 6-foot truck bed, and I'm not a fan of a roof-mounted rocket box.
5. Weight distribution front / rear

Below is a quick comparison between the Grenadier and the 4-Door Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (to the best of my knowledge). While the two vehicles seem quite different in build - the Grenadier seems more of a work/overlanding vehicle, while the Jeep is more of a sport off-roader - but the comparison is relevant because they will be the only two "mid-size" 4x4s with solid (or what Brits call "beam") axles front and rear in the North American market (Oh... I guess we also have the G-Wagon). We also have some full-size pick-up trucks here with solid axles, but those are in another size category entirely.

To see what I meant by "given the weight of the vehicle, the Grenadier seems under-powered" - look at Horsepower per pound of vehicle weight (4.8 in the Grenadier compared to 6.4 in the Jeep). Of course, because its turbo-charged, the Grenadier will make its power and torque at much lower revs than the Jeep, so it will drive much better, but it still strikes me as under-powered for its weight.

 Ineos GrenRubicon 4-doorCurb Weight (pounds)58404449Engine 3.0 petrol3.6 PentastarHorsepower281285HP per pound of vehicle weight (*100)4.8126.406Torque (lb-ft)332260Torque per pound of vehicle weight (*100)5.6855.844Wheelbase (inches)115.0118.4Length (inches)194.0188.4Width (inches)76.073.8Height (inches)80.070.8Ground Clearance (inches)10.110.8Turning Circle (feet)44.341.2Turning Radius (feet) 20.4Front Track (inches) 62.9Rear Track (inches) 62.9Tires (metric)265/70/R17285/70/R17Tires (inches)31.6 x 10.432.7 x 11.2Approach / Departure (degrees)35.5 / 36.144 / 37Breakover Angle (degrees) 27.822.6EPA city/hwy (mpg) 17 / 21Weight Front / Rear (%) 55 / 45Alternator 160 ampPayload (pounds)2000892Towing Capacity (pounds)77163500Approximate Base Price$64,400$44,500Let me know if you see anything in here that needs correcting!

 

[stickshifter]

Thanks for the specs Stu. Has anyone seen payload and fuel capacity?

Also, will North America actually get the diesel? 

Payload is supposed to be around 2,000 pounds, but that is not certain yet. Here is one source on payload that lists 2,200 pounds:
https://tfltruck.com/2019/12/ineos-grenadier-4x4-what-do-classic-land-rover-defender-130-land-cruiser-j45-and-willys-jeep-trucks-have-in-common/

And another source that says payload will be "up to one tonne":
https://www.drive.com.au/reviews/2021-ineos-grenadier-prototype-review/

North America will not be getting the diesel. (1) If you list North America as your location when you build a Grenadier on their website, you only get the petrol option. (2) I've also seen in multiple sources that the diesel is not coming to America - unlike Eddie Murphy ?

 

[PL1]

Really surprising that Nth. America isn't getting the diesel because a BMW X5D is available and that should satisfy the EPA test.  I want a diesel because I want to drive mine to the Arctic ocean and I need the range.
So, a second fuel tank would be a great option, and I'd like to know if a second battery can be fitted. 

 

[PL1]

Has anyone seen the interior dimensions? 
I would love to know the load space dimensions - dimensions, not cubic feet - with the rear seats up, and seats folded flat.

 

[stickshifter]

Hi PL1,
I contacted the Ineos Support Team to inquire about interior dimensions and they said that there are no official figures yet, but once they are available they will be posted on the Grenadier website. As I wrote above, the brochure mentions that the interior can hold a Euro Pallet. I assume they mean EUR, or EUR 1, which is 31.50 x 47.24 inches. That is the best info we have at the moment.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

First - I'm super excited about this vehicle. I've been dreaming about a vehicle like this for at least ten years. Having said that, I am a little disappointed in three things: (1) no manual option - but the 8-speed ZF is the first auto transmission I have ever thought about purchasing; they drive really well in the Jeep (both the 3.6 petrol and the 3.0 diesel), with crisp shifts, and a knack for always being in the right gear.  (2) Given the weight of the vehicle, the petrol engine seems a bit under-powered for a vehicle designed from scratch. (3) It looks like its going to be hard to move up in tire size for two reasons: (a) the wheel wells don't look very large (hard to say), and (b) a bigger spare will block the smaller rear door from opening. I've read their rationale for not offering larger tires (its not a vehicle for off-road enthusiasts, its a utility vehicle for doing hard work), but I think they need to plan for larger tires to be competitive in the North American market. Some models of Jeep Wrangler and Ford Bronco come with 33-inch tires standard, and you can also order both vehicles on 35-inch tires from the factory (with factory-installed gears appropriate for 35-inch tires). Jeep calls this the Recon Package, while Ford calls it the Sasquatch Package. Having a single barn-door in the rear of the Grenadier instead of the split door would have made moving up in tire size much simpler. Making the wheel wells larger gets more complicated...

It would also be nice to get some more specs. I know some things are not finalized, but I'm pretty curious about the following:

1. Axle size, or strength-equivalent (for example, equivalent in strength to a Dana 44 or a Dana 60).
2. Crawl ratio
3. More info on the brakes: Size? Are they fixed or floating calipers? How many pistons?
4. Interior dimensions behind the front seats. I am going to order a 2-seater. The brochure mentions that the interior can hold a Euro Pallet. I assume they mean EUR, or EUR 1, which is 31.50 x 47.24 inches. Still, I'd like to see the actual interior dimensions. I have some long skis that live inside my truck all winter ? I'm spoiled with a 6-foot truck bed, and I'm not a fan of a roof-mounted rocket box.
5. Weight distribution front / rear

Below is a quick comparison between the Grenadier and the 4-Door Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (to the best of my knowledge). While the two vehicles seem quite different in build - the Grenadier seems more of a work/overlanding vehicle, while the Jeep is more of a sport off-roader - but the comparison is relevant because they will be the only two "mid-size" 4x4s with solid (or what Brits call "beam") axles front and rear in the North American market (Oh... I guess we also have the G-Wagon). We also have some full-size pick-up trucks here with solid axles, but those are in another size category entirely.

To see what I meant by "given the weight of the vehicle, the Grenadier seems under-powered" - look at Horsepower per pound of vehicle weight (4.8 in the Grenadier compared to 6.4 in the Jeep). Of course, because its turbo-charged, the Grenadier will make its power and torque at much lower revs than the Jeep, so it will drive much better, but it still strikes me as under-powered for its weight.

 Ineos GrenRubicon 4-doorCurb Weight (pounds)58404449Engine 3.0 petrol3.6 PentastarHorsepower281285HP per pound of vehicle weight (*100)4.8126.406Torque (lb-ft)332260Torque per pound of vehicle weight (*100)5.6855.844Wheelbase (inches)115.0118.4Length (inches)194.0188.4Width (inches)76.073.8Height (inches)80.070.8Ground Clearance (inches)10.110.8Turning Circle (feet)44.341.2Turning Radius (feet) 20.4Front Track (inches) 62.9Rear Track (inches) 62.9Tires (metric)265/70/R17285/70/R17Tires (inches)31.6 x 10.432.7 x 11.2Approach / Departure (degrees)35.5 / 36.144 / 37Breakover Angle (degrees) 27.822.6EPA city/hwy (mpg) 17 / 21Weight Front / Rear (%) 55 / 45Alternator 160 ampPayload (pounds)2000892Towing Capacity (pounds)77163500Approximate Base Price$64,400$44,500Let me know if you see anything in here that needs correcting!

Thank you for putting together these stats -- it's super interesting and handy to see them side by side!

I think for drivability, the most important number in the torque figures (that will impact how much it feels like it's going to "get up and go") and on that score, I think it's probably about tied with the Jeep based on your numbers. The jeep isn't exactly a race car, but it's fine enough as a daily driver. 

I hear you on the tire size thing, and the wheel wells might be a deal breaker for going too much better -- I seem to remember reading they can fit a 35" but I can't find a source so that may not be accurate. And I think the vast majority of people buying Grens will not be putting on larger tires. 33" is about as big as you want to go for Overland travel. Bigger than that is sometimes nice to have off-road, but the majority of the world maxes out at 33" in their off-roaders too, so it's not like 33" will be inadequate, and the typical Overland traveller will accept the compromise; larger tires are much more rolling resistance and unsprung weight, and that doesn't bode well for longevity or comfort.  The vehicle is of course a compromise, like everything else - which is why I actually don't mind the split barn door versus the bigger tire argument. You are 100% right that this configuration limits your tire size on the stock carrier (A rear bumper with a swing out is always an option), but I think the number of grenadier buyers who will appreciate the smaller door -- which is essential for rear access in tight spots where there's no room to swing out the big door -- versus those who need bigger than 33" tires will be small. And based on what I'm seeing, most of the folks buying the Sasquatch packages and the Jeep package fall into two categories -- a very small number actually use the car for off-roading, and a very large number simply buy them for looks. I'd prefer the compromise of function over form, personally, and from what I can see the 35" tires are, for most people, a "form" thing.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Really surprising that Nth. America isn't getting the diesel because a BMW X5D is available and that should satisfy the EPA test.  I want a diesel because I want to drive mine to the Arctic ocean and I need the range.
So, a second fuel tank would be a great option, and I'd like to know if a second battery can be fitted. 

I agree that a second tank and a second battery would be a neat option, but you 100% will not need the extra range of a diesel to go to the Arctic Ocean. 

Been there, done that, on a 270-km range petrol-powered motorcycle; the other vehicle in our party was an overloaded Jeep JK with sub 500-km range. Both rigs were fine; we had a 5-gallon Jerry can but I never needed to use it (I did on two occasions -- one was to give a local group some fuel near Fairbanks, the other was a "Might as well top up the bike while we were stopped" but in reality we were only a few kilometres from Yukon River crossing which has fuel (on the Dalton route). There's also fuel available at Coldfoot Camp and one other place. On the Dempster (Canadian route), the longest stretch of no fuel is under 250 miles. So, you won't need it, but if you really want to do a ton of off-road exploration (and there's not a lot of trails to do that on), you still can - with the payload of the gasoline Grenadier, you could easily bring an entire tank worth of fuel in cans and still have plenty of payload room to spare for people, gear, etc.

 

[stickshifter]

Thank you for putting together these stats -- it's super interesting and handy to see them side by side!

I think for drivability, the most important number in the torque figures (that will impact how much it feels like it's going to "get up and go") and on that score, I think it's probably about tied with the Jeep based on your numbers. The jeep isn't exactly a race car, but it's fine enough as a daily driver. 

I hear you on the tire size thing, and the wheel wells might be a deal breaker for going too much better -- I seem to remember reading they can fit a 35" but I can't find a source so that may not be accurate. And I think the vast majority of people buying Grens will not be putting on larger tires. 33" is about as big as you want to go for Overland travel. Bigger than that is sometimes nice to have off-road, but the majority of the world maxes out at 33" in their off-roaders too, so it's not like 33" will be inadequate, and the typical Overland traveller will accept the compromise; larger tires are much more rolling resistance and unsprung weight, and that doesn't bode well for longevity or comfort.  The vehicle is of course a compromise, like everything else - which is why I actually don't mind the split barn door versus the bigger tire argument. You are 100% right that this configuration limits your tire size on the stock carrier (A rear bumper with a swing out is always an option), but I think the number of grenadier buyers who will appreciate the smaller door -- which is essential for rear access in tight spots where there's no room to swing out the big door -- versus those who need bigger than 33" tires will be small. And based on what I'm seeing, most of the folks buying the Sasquatch packages and the Jeep package fall into two categories -- a very small number actually use the car for off-roading, and a very large number simply buy them for looks. I'd prefer the compromise of function over form, personally, and from what I can see the 35" tires are, for most people, a "form" thing. 

Its true - a lot of people go to larger tires for looks alone. I ran 35s on my JKU, and it made all the rocky trails I wanted to drive a stress-free experience. The bigger tires also made it much easier to get in/out of our cabin in the winter; the road doesn't get plowed every day, and it dumps. Without the Jeep, we have had to be more strategic with our planning! I loved the added ground clearance, and I'm not all that excited about being on a 31-32 inch tire. I run 32s on my Tacoma, and between the added length of the vehicle (compared to my old JKU), and the smaller tire size, we've had to drop some of our old points of access to the back-country. But there are certainly problems associated with moving up to a 35: gearing, braking, added un-sprung weight, added wear & tear on drive train and suspension, etc. I don't wheel my vehicles nearly as hard as a bunch of guys I know here in Colorado, but I do miss having a Jeep on 35s. But for international travel, and for general reliability, I agree: 33-inches is the max tire-size.

Someone posted these photos elsewhere on this forum, but I'll re-post them here. This is a Grenadier on - what might be 35s - in Iceland:

 

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Its true - a lot of people go to larger tires for looks alone. I ran 35s on my JKU, and it made all the rocky trails I wanted to drive a stress-free experience, and it makes getting in and out of our cabin much easier in the winter (the road doesn't get plowed every day, and it dumps; but with 35s we always made it in / out). I loved the added ground clearance, and I'm not all that excited about being on a 31-32 inch tire. I run 32s on my Tacoma, and between the added length of the vehicle (compared to my old JKU), and the smaller tire size, we've had to drop some of our old points of access to the back-country. But there are certainly problems associated with moving up to a 35: gearing, braking, added un-sprung weight, added wear & tear on drive train and suspension, etc. I don't wheel my vehicles nearly as hard as a bunch of guys I know here in Colorado, but I do miss having a Jeep on 35s. But for international travel, and for general reliability, I agree: 33-inches is the max tire-size.

Someone posted these photos elsewhere on this forum, but I'll re-post them here. This is a Grenadier on - what might be 35s - in Iceland:

 

 

It totally sounds like you have a great use case for 35s - in deep snow on unplowed they can be a godsend for sure! That extra couple of inches is the difference between building a trail of Max Trax over hours or just chilling in the heated seats ?And no judgement on the aesthetics side either -- that Gren looks GREAT on 35s! And if folks go for that because that's what they like, I say more power to them. Upon re-reading my older post it came across a bit judgmentally and that's not my way so I apologize if thats how I came across!