Turning Radius

[James]

Sure, most of us can adjust or not really care, but a smaller turning radius is very important when you are off-roading trails with hairpin turns or switchbacks, or needing to turn around in tight areas. Quite often I need to turn around on two track trails because they are not going anywhere for me. (or I made a wrong turn!). That's where a 90 inch wheelbase comes in handy.

Its very noticeable in australia that pretty much all of our tracks have been made by (and for) land rovers, ie real series ones, and toyotas. So the tight corners exactly require full lock. If you try to drive them in later defender 130s, with 2 meters more turning circle, then you are doing backing and filling often.
the grenadier will be fine. Its no carpark queen, but plenty agile enough for our tracks.

 

[Jeffrey]

@Jeffrey : You raise an interesting, and to my mind, very important issue and that is the emerging stark distinction between what the US market might expect from the Grenadier and what the IG design philosophy intended.
Inevitably there will be comparisons with the Jeep Wrangler models which have evolved to tackle largely "technical" terrain.
The Grenadier was designed as a working vehicle" farming, forestry, towing machinery...
It will lend itself to overlanding and touring in terrain normally classed as "inhospitable" to 2wd and "softroaders".

I fear that there will be a lot of US buyers with "buyer's remorse" unless they purchase the Grenadier for the uses for which it was intended, not necessarily for what it "might" achieve with considerable modification.

I see your point. To be clear, I was not referring to any situation that would even come close to 'rock crawling'. I like to explore dirt roads and some rough areas, but not the monster tire challenges that get all the attention and seen on magazine covers. (though not from me). Even just driving desert or mountain two-tracks requires the occasional turn-around and tight switchback. Nothing terribly technical. Safe and sane. I'm not that young anymore!

 

[Roving.Grenadier]

I was able to test the mechanical limits of the IG steering a week ago, and it doesn't compare to my L319's (those are hard to beat as is), but it's not horrible like my '07 V70R I used to have haha.

 

[lightning]

ls there any scope for adjustment of the steering lock stops, like on the old Defender?
If using standard wheels you could adjust the old Defender steering to take over a metre off a 180 degree turn.

 

[Clark Kent]

That question has been asked and discussed several times in this thread and elsewhere. There is provision via adjustable stops but the consensus seems to be to leave them alone. That's my opinion also. Land Rovers have cv joints. The Grenadier has double cardin joints. Different setup with different angle limits. My view is that if Ineos could have reduced the turning radius by fitting shorter stops they would have done it during design. Best left alone.

 

[stickshifter]

@Jeffrey : You raise an interesting, and to my mind, very important issue and that is the emerging stark distinction between what the US market might expect from the Grenadier and what the IG design philosophy intended.
Inevitably there will be comparisons with the Jeep Wrangler models which have evolved to tackle largely "technical" terrain.
The Grenadier was designed as a working vehicle" farming, forestry, towing machinery...
It will lend itself to overlanding and touring in terrain normally classed as "inhospitable" to 2wd and "softroaders".

I fear that there will be a lot of US buyers with "buyer's remorse" unless they purchase the Grenadier for the uses for which it was intended, not necessarily for what it "might" achieve with considerable modification.

I think you are right. I think some of us - myself included - heard about the Grenadier, and started imagining it as a modern version of an 80-series Landcruiser (or something like that): super-reliable, a strong frame and beefy running gear, solid axles, coil springs - the whole thing built like a tank. We also heard that the Grenadier would have full-time 4x4 with three locking differentials, and a manual transfer case. Just read the YouTube comments for Grenadier videos, and you will quickly see that a lot of Americans imagined that it was going to be as capable on technical terrain as a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon - but without all the negative attributes of a Jeep.

For me, the main shortcomings of the Wrangler are:
(1) The removable roof. I used to love the removable roof - but that was before I learned that I've had way too much high-elevation sun exposure. Now, the top is just noisy and tiresome on long drives.
(2) The internal roll bars (necessary because of the removable roof), which eat up interior space. I'd buy a Gladiator over a Wrangler.
(3) The standard engine is okay at sea level - but under powered at high elevation (I live at 8,500 ft, and regularly drive much higher).
(4) The payload and towing numbers are pretty weak.

The build quality in the JL Wrangler seems okay to me. Occasionally I wish that Wranglers/Gladiators were full-time 4x4 with a locking center diff, but this isn't something that would keep me from buying another one.

I think folks just looked at the basic specs of the Grenadier (solid axles, coil springs, locking diffs, manual transfer case) and immediately thought Wrangler Rubicon, because the Rubicon and the Power Wagon are the only vehicles for sale in America with similar basic specs. Both the Rubicon and the PW are amazing off-road, and excel on rocky terrain (I'm going to ignore pre-2019 G-Wagens, which also had solid axles and three locking diffs).

So... I don't think we were bat-shit crazy for generating those expectations. But this was never the vision at Ineos, and - between the BMW powerplant, various regulations, and recent U.S. legislation - the Grenadier isn't as "simple" as I think many of us had hoped for. The tricky part in accepting reduced expectations, is that the disappointments came in drips, not all at once. Its like the frog that doesn't notice the heat getting turned up gradually in the pot, and they boil to death. Soon, though, it will be time to put the money down or walk away.

 

[Clark Kent]

I think you are right. I think some of us - myself included - heard about the Grenadier, and started imagining it as a modern version of an 80-series Landcruiser (or something like that): super-reliable, a strong frame and beefy running gear, solid axles, coil springs - the whole thing built like a tank. We also heard that the Grenadier would have full-time 4x4 with three locking differentials, and a manual transfer case. Just read the YouTube comments for Grenadier videos, and you will quickly see that a lot of Americans imagined that it was going to be as capable on technical terrain as a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon - but without all the negative attributes of a Jeep.

For me, the main shortcomings of the Wrangler are:
(1) The removable roof. I used to love the removable roof - but that was before I learned that I've had way too much high-elevation sun exposure. Now, the top is just noisy and tiresome on long drives.
(2) The internal roll bars (necessary because of the removable roof), which eat up interior space. I'd buy a Gladiator over a Wrangler.
(3) The standard engine is okay at sea level - but under powered at high elevation (I live at 8,500 ft, and regularly drive much higher).
(4) The payload and towing numbers are pretty weak.

The build quality in the JL Wrangler seems okay to me. Occasionally I wish that Wranglers/Gladiators were full-time 4x4 with a locking center diff, but this isn't something that would keep me from buying another one.

I think folks just looked at the basic specs of the Grenadier (solid axles, coil springs, locking diffs, manual transfer case) and immediately thought Wrangler Rubicon, because the Rubicon and the Power Wagon are the only vehicles for sale in America with similar basic specs. Both the Rubicon and the PW are amazing off-road, and excel on rocky terrain (I'm going to ignore pre-2019 G-Wagens, which also had solid axles and three locking diffs).

So... I don't think we were bat-shit crazy for generating those expectations. But this was never the vision at Ineos, and - between the BMW powerplant, various regulations, and recent U.S. legislation - the Grenadier isn't as "simple" as I think many of us had hoped for. The tricky part in accepting reduced expectations, is that the disappointments came in drips, not all at once. Its like the frog that doesn't notice the heat getting turned up gradually in the pot, and they boil to death. Soon, though, it will be time to put the money down or walk away.

I appreciate you sharing those thoughts.
Ineos have flogged the 'Built on Purpose' message but I don't think they have ever really defined what that purpose is. 'Built on Compromise' would be just as relevant. I don't mean that in a sub-standard way, but in trying to develop a vehicle for a variety of applications there is inevitable compromise. The result is a vehicle that will be good at most things but not fantastic in any one thing. For my money it's good enough in the things I wanted it to do and am very happy with my purchase. A real pros v cons exercise. Pros won.
I previously spent a few years in the F35 Lightning II (JSF) program on the training courseware side. Every day was a discussion about 'the purple training solution': Not marines training, not air-force training, not navy training, not foreign customer training. A 'one size (across 3 aircraft variants) fits all' middle ground solution in non-binary purple. The Grenadier to me is like that. It's the purple 4x4. Most of the good bits of everything but not without faults.

 

[Krabby]

I appreciate you sharing those thoughts.
Ineos have flogged the 'Built on Purpose' message but I don't think they have ever really defined what that purpose is. 'Built on Compromise' would be just as relevant. I don't mean that in a sub-standard way, but in trying to develop a vehicle for a variety of applications there is inevitable compromise. The result is a vehicle that will be good at most things but not fantastic in any one thing. For my money it's good enough in the things I wanted it to do and am very happy with my purchase. A real pros v cons exercise. Pros won.
I previously spent a few years in the F35 Lightning II (JSF) program on the training courseware side. Every day was a discussion about 'the purple training solution': Not marines training, not air-force training, not navy training, not foreign customer training. A 'one size (across 3 aircraft variants) fits all' middle ground solution in non-binary purple. The Grenadier to me is like that. It's the purple 4x4. Most of the good bits of everything but not without faults.

Very well said and sentiments I agree with. I think the Grenadier is analogous to the Swiss Army Knife. Are there better blades in the world? Certainly. But will the SAK cut - most definitely. Are there better scissors in the world? Certainly. But will the SAK cut ... you get the idea.

It has morphed into an insult of sorts, but I have never been offended by the "jack of all trades master of none" moniquer and I think that can be applied to both the Grenadier and Swiss Army Knives. If one knows the full/extended version of that phrase, which adds "but oftentimes better than master of one," it's much more complimentary.