Americas The big May 17 Announcement / Pricing / Discussion thread.

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Many years ago when I used to take my MGB into Octagon Motors they had a very large banner hanging in the back that read:
"Honk if you hate Lucas !"

Such disrespect to the undisputed Prince of Darkness, Lucas Electrics!

I know not everyone agrees, but the burble of a small block V-8 is wonderful to the ear.

There’s very few things I believe are objectively, unquestionably, true, but there are those who think a V8 burble sounds good, and those who are wrong.

(Kinda kidding but…anyone with a whiff of petroleum in their nostrils should feel something with that V8 burble!)

If they went with GM engines they could have had a 6 cylinder base gas engine, an optional V8, and the new Diesel I6. The high price wouldn't be so annoying with a V8 in it.

This is an interesting observation as I’ve often felt that a big motor barely stressed is likely more efficient than a little motor working like mad; I know there’s been a move towards smaller engines in general for emissions reasons, but I sometimes struggle with this in my truck. It’s got a naturally aspirated V6, and it’s a GREAT motor - nice snarl out the back, and I jokingly refer to it as my sports truck because it’s so peppy. And when it’s totally unloaded, it easily gets 11-12 litres/100 kms (just shy of 20 US MPGs).

But when it’s heavy or towing — keeping in mind I’m a bit religiously attentive to my payload and am always between 10% under GVM and within 50-100 pounds over it temporarily if I have lots of extra fuel on board, or if I’m towing even modest loads like my 4K lbs trailer even though it’s rated for 7k lbs — it can easily start running in the low to mid 20l per 100 kms (10 MPGs) at a typical highway speed. That’s a huge hit on my travel range when loaded.

The smaller motor has to rev higher when the load is heavy. It seems the smaller motors are great when just driving around, but as soon as you load them up they end up working really hard and burning lots more fuel. I don’t know how much heavier the V8 would be over the V6, but I wonder if it would actually provide better fuel economy in my use case, because it could move the heavy weight without breaking as much of a sweat. But I might be totally wrong about this.

It’ll be interesting to see the real world economy of the Gren when people start filling them with stuff — the turbos might mitigate this concern a bit — but I’m curious. I am however glad they stuck with one gas and one diesel worldwide - it simplifies parts and service.

As to whether fuel economy matters — it depends on mileage. If a person puts 200,000 kms on their Gren in average fashion (20k per year), that’s about $3k in fuel per year for 10 years more on the Gren then a vehicle that gets 20 MPG, based on the most expensive gas in the world which appears to be Hong Kong based on Google at $3 USD per litre. If you are doing that same 200k but in 3 years, that’s more like $10k per year, which might be significant for some. Today, though, fuel prices are thankfully not near Hong Kong in most of the world so it’s less of an issue. 5-10 years from now might be a different story though as more regulations come in to control emissions and ICE use, especially in populated/developed countries.

Also for an arts major I’ve done more math in this thread than I’ve ever done in my life and y’all better check my numbers!! I mean, I’m no dolt - I know 4 plus 4 is 10 - but still.

 

[CryHavoc]

This is an interesting observation as I’ve often felt that a big motor barely stressed is likely more efficient than a little motor working like mad; I know there’s been a move towards smaller engines in general for emissions reasons, but I sometimes struggle with this in my truck. It’s got a naturally aspirated V6, and it’s a GREAT motor - nice snarl out the back, and I jokingly refer to it as my sports truck because it’s so peppy. And when it’s totally unloaded, it easily gets 11-12 litres/100 kms (just shy of 20 US MPGs).

Frankly I was happy to hear it was forced induction as it will, hopefully, perform well at altitude where NA engines start gasping.

 

[STACHES]

Frankly I was happy to hear it was forced induction as it will, hopefully, perform well at altitude where NA engines start gasping.

It all comes down to how the engine is managed, and how big the turbo is. The ECU may have to limit the turbo at altitude to keep things in the safe range. Either way, modern cars all work fine at altitude. I regularly run around at 11,000 feet and higher, and the only issues I have ever really noticed are with carbureted engines.

 

[CryHavoc]

It all comes down to how the engine is managed, and how big the turbo is. The ECU may have to limit the turbo at altitude to keep things in the safe range. Either way, modern cars all work fine at altitude. I regularly run around at 11,000 feet and higher, and the only issues I have ever really noticed are with carbureted engines.

Eh...I've noticed massive differences in performance in more than one EFI engine. Though coming from sea level, it's a far more dramatic difference. There's a reason why turbo Foresters were evvvvvvvvvverywhere in Colorado showrooms when we bought ours in 2018 with very, very, few NA ones available. Contrasted with dealerships MAYBE having a single XT on their lots out here compared to the army of NA hamster-powered ones. Only reason we bought ours was an impending move to Colorado Springs...that then got canked by my wife's job

 

[STACHES]

I live at 2500, so its a pretty big elevation swing for me. When I lived in CO it was less because you start so high up. Hell, even my mom's gutless 2014 Crosstrek does fine above 10k

My 74 Fiat had a hard time keeping 35mph going through the Eisenhower tunnels lol

 

[CryHavoc]

I live at 2500, so its a pretty big elevation swing for me. When I lived in CO it was less because you start so high up. Hell, even my mom's gutless 2014 Crosstrek does fine above 10k

My 74 Fiat had a hard time keeping 35mph going through the Eisenhower tunnels lol

I was UNpleasantly surprised how poorly our, admittedly already underpowered, '05 Sequoia (4.7L V8) did last summer out there. +2'd it to 33s with the factory 4.10s and never even considered a regear running around all over the East Coast. Steep trails, up Mt. Washington, towing...it did fine. But there were a couple times out west I thought we'd have to cut a hole in the floor and start Flintstoning it even with the transfer case in Low. Sounded like an asthmatic begging for their inhaler Fortunately I'm not expecting similar issues this summer when we come back out to explore in the Power Wagon.

 

[globalgregors]

It all comes down to how the engine is managed, and how big the turbo is. The ECU may have to limit the turbo at altitude to keep things in the safe range. Either way, modern cars all work fine at altitude. I regularly run around at 11,000 feet and higher, and the only issues I have ever really noticed are with carbureted engines.

Not sure this includes vehicles fitted with Euro 4/5 type high-pressure exhaust gas recirculation, which has the effect of amplifying the deoxygenating effect of altitude. This problem increases with RPM, and can thereby lead to high engine and transfer case temperatures.

This can be mitigated with a remap but the standard lean fueling is problematic.

Persistent use at altitude can also delay DPF regeneration, although the causal sequence for this is unclear to me (issues with ambient or operating temperature?).

There is no substitute for cubic inches though, so perhaps what you find holds true at capacities greater than our 2.4L SD4…

…or perhaps you’re primarily referring to petrol engines, of which I have no experience at altitude.

 

[STACHES]

…or perhaps you’re primarily referring to petrol engines, of which I have no experience at altitude.

I'm just talking about petrol engines. We don't get the diesel stuff over here. Especially after VW screwed it all up.

 

[globalgregors]

I'm just talking about petrol engines. We don't get the diesel stuff over here. Especially after VW screwed it all up.

Understood. The problem with diesels is only down to emissions regs, ho hum. Would be good if these were programmed to switch off at altitude but I guess there’s insufficient in the EU jurisdiction to justify the complexity/expense.

 

[Sphinx]

I've hemmed and hawed enough. I'm out too. Refund requested and gave a pretty lengthy explanation if they bother to read it.

View attachment 7813020

 

[ADVAW8S]

I've hemmed and hawed enough. I'm out too. Refund requested and gave a pretty lengthy explanation if they bother to read it.

What did you say

 

[STACHES]

What did you say

Hopefully they just copy/pasted this whole thread

 

[Sphinx]

What did you say

I should've kept a copy. Basically explained that it missed the mark as the supposedly back-to-basics vehicle with a premium vehicle price. As someone buying for the utility (people hauling and towing, not so much off roading; though I'd use it to go through some smooth trails where I deer hunt), it is a compromised vehicle in terms of price, fuel economy and towing capacity. And since it is so expensive, I have no choice but to cross shop the F350 that I previously mentioned. I mentioned that I don't understand how it costs 10GBPs less a defender in the UK but costs $10K more in the US. There's no shipping charge or exchange rate that accounts for that swing.

My heart says yes, my brain says hell-no. And since it is my brain that does math and balances my checkbook, brain wins today. I can justify $200K for a GT3 (if I could actually get an allocation at MSRP) easier than I can $90K for the IG.

 

[stickshifter]

I don’t know when you jumped in and how much you were following. But it wasn’t imaginary. Ineos in their early days leading up to the reservations. Ball parked a number. They said 60k and described all that we knew that would be included. Which made alot of us eager and jump for a reservation. Now years later of waiting it comes in 15k more just starting not even the trailmaster. Understandably things change. Either they unintentionally mislead a lot of people. Or intentionally did it to drive up more attention. We’ll never know but rightfully people are pissed. Also the price of the grenadier in the usa is more expensive than it is in Europe. Other European cars seem to have a more consistent forumula of cost there minus vat and conversion of currency. But the price in the USA is clearly raised after it had came out in the Uk which again felt like another slap. I held out waiting for a long time for a new vehicle cause I based it on information that they said. If I knew it was gonna be over that price I would have just looked else where from the start. So yea it sucks, it’s annoying and frustrating. So understandable that some of their supporters are pissed. One other thing if inflation was a factor or supply costs is a factor and the price went up marginally like the majority of other manufactures that’s one thing and understandable. But the raise in their estimated cost is over 30% that’s just nuts. Jeep, Land Rover, and others have maintained a competitive price increase over the pandemic years. Even when supplies were low.

Absolutely correct: the early estimates were widely published, and were roughly $50-65K. Of course, these were pre-inflation estimates.

On another topic, does it seem strange to anyone else that the gas and diesel versions of the Grenadier are the same price? In America, the diesel option in mid-size or full-size trucks is typically ~$5,000 more than the gas, and in heavy duty trucks, it is $10,000 more. Modern diesel engines have complicated and expensive emission systems that contribute to these higher prices. Ineos is selling the gas and diesel vehicles for the same price. It seems then, that the buyers of the gas Grenadier are subsidizing the buyers of the diesel Grenadier. Since the diesel is not available in the U.S. - it seems that American customers are left to carry a larger share of the cost of production of the Grenadier.

 

[stickshifter]

I was UNpleasantly surprised how poorly our, admittedly already underpowered, '05 Sequoia (4.7L V8) did last summer out there. +2'd it to 33s with the factory 4.10s and never even considered a regear running around all over the East Coast. Steep trails, up Mt. Washington, towing...it did fine. But there were a couple times out west I thought we'd have to cut a hole in the floor and start Flintstoning it even with the transfer case in Low. Sounded like an asthmatic begging for their inhaler Fortunately I'm not expecting similar issues this summer when we come back out to explore in the Power Wagon.

Absolutely right. People who do not live at elevation (or who have never visited up high) have no idea how significant the loss of power is for a naturally aspirated engine. Its even worse in a V6. Put a moderate load in any of the mid-size trucks that - until recently - were mostly running naturally aspirated V6 engines - and you really struggle in the mountains. In addition, you get terrible fuel economy, because you have to constantly rev the engine to its max.

 

[Loc Nar]

On the increased cost for the US vs. UK model, I am somewhat rationalizing that internally based upon the fact the US is getting the 2024 model with advanced safety features, which Ineos recently confirmed as intelligent speed assistance, lane departure warning, automatic emergency braking, and driver drowsiness detection. Not sure how much those advanced safety features cost, but I expect they aren't cheap. I'm sure shipping costs are higher also.

 

[Bruce]

Any word on blind spot detection on the 2024s? That's more useful to me than the other safety stuff.

 

[stickshifter]

Such disrespect to the undisputed Prince of Darkness, Lucas Electrics!



There’s very few things I believe are objectively, unquestionably, true, but there are those who think a V8 burble sounds good, and those who are wrong.

(Kinda kidding but…anyone with a whiff of petroleum in their nostrils should feel something with that V8 burble!)



This is an interesting observation as I’ve often felt that a big motor barely stressed is likely more efficient than a little motor working like mad; I know there’s been a move towards smaller engines in general for emissions reasons, but I sometimes struggle with this in my truck. It’s got a naturally aspirated V6, and it’s a GREAT motor - nice snarl out the back, and I jokingly refer to it as my sports truck because it’s so peppy. And when it’s totally unloaded, it easily gets 11-12 litres/100 kms (just shy of 20 US MPGs).

But when it’s heavy or towing — keeping in mind I’m a bit religiously attentive to my payload and am always between 10% under GVM and within 50-100 pounds over it temporarily if I have lots of extra fuel on board, or if I’m towing even modest loads like my 4K lbs trailer even though it’s rated for 7k lbs — it can easily start running in the low to mid 20l per 100 kms (10 MPGs) at a typical highway speed. That’s a huge hit on my travel range when loaded.

The smaller motor has to rev higher when the load is heavy. It seems the smaller motors are great when just driving around, but as soon as you load them up they end up working really hard and burning lots more fuel. I don’t know how much heavier the V8 would be over the V6, but I wonder if it would actually provide better fuel economy in my use case, because it could move the heavy weight without breaking as much of a sweat. But I might be totally wrong about this.

It’ll be interesting to see the real world economy of the Gren when people start filling them with stuff — the turbos might mitigate this concern a bit — but I’m curious. I am however glad they stuck with one gas and one diesel worldwide - it simplifies parts and service.

As to whether fuel economy matters — it depends on mileage. If a person puts 200,000 kms on their Gren in average fashion (20k per year), that’s about $3k in fuel per year for 10 years more on the Gren then a vehicle that gets 20 MPG, based on the most expensive gas in the world which appears to be Hong Kong based on Google at $3 USD per litre. If you are doing that same 200k but in 3 years, that’s more like $10k per year, which might be significant for some. Today, though, fuel prices are thankfully not near Hong Kong in most of the world so it’s less of an issue. 5-10 years from now might be a different story though as more regulations come in to control emissions and ICE use, especially in populated/developed countries.

Also for an arts major I’ve done more math in this thread than I’ve ever done in my life and y’all better check my numbers!! I mean, I’m no dolt - I know 4 plus 4 is 10 - but still.

The trend to smaller forced induction (FI) engines for the sake of fuel economy, doens't always pan-out in real-world driving. For example, in full-size pickups, the FI 6-cylinder engines will get better fuel economy when driven lightly, but under heavy load they can get worse fuel economy than the same truck with a naturally aspirated V8 (TFL and others have demonstrated this towing in the mountains). At nearly 6,000 pounds, and with solid axles and a heavy-duty drive train, the Grenadier's I6 gas engine seems like it must be working hard all the time to return government estimated fuel economy of 14 mpg. The 7,000 pound Power Wagon, with solid axles and a naturally aspirated 6.4 liter V8 is rated at 15 mpg.

 

[CryHavoc]

The 7,000 pound Power Wagon, with solid axles and a naturally aspirated 6.4 liter V8 is rated at 15 mpg.

...and takes regular, not high-octane, gas to boot <insert Tim Allen grunting>. Though I don't see 15 mpg unless it's falling off a cliff.

 

[Loc Nar]

Any word on blind spot detection on the 2024s? That's more useful to me than the other safety stuff.

Not listed in the latest brochure version.