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.

 

[MattG]

I’m a late-comer to the party having only just seen the YouTube video on the topic. However, as I have to park my vehicle in some fairly small carparks for work, I decided to adjust the steering bump stops on my vehicle to see if it might tighten up the turning circle.
I have the non-adjustable Fox Steering Stabiliser fitted to my RHD Australian-spec Grenadier.
The first thing I would say is that even before I performed the mod, the bump-stops on my vehicle were absolutely pristine, with no evidence of contact with the corresponding flat area/stop on the axle casting. So despite performing many full-lock turns in both directions over the last 18 months, I had obviously never actually engaged the bump-stops. I suspected that there would be no appreciable improvement to the turning circle by burying the bump-stops even deeper into the front knuckle.
I didn’t go down the 2-washer path and decided just to screw the nut down tight on the bolt and tighten the bolt again.
After driving the car for a day or so, there really hasn’t been any significant change to the turning circle on my vehicle, despite performing several deliberately tight turns in both directions and the bump-stops still look pristine.
I think there are other aspects of the steering geometry that govern the turning circle on our beloved Grenadiers that are not able to be overcome by this simple mod.

 

[Clark Kent]

I’m a late-comer to the party having only just seen the YouTube video on the topic. However, as I have to park my vehicle in some fairly small carparks for work, I decided to adjust the steering bump stops on my vehicle to see if it might tighten up the turning circle.
I have the non-adjustable Fox Steering Stabiliser fitted to my RHD Australian-spec Grenadier.
The first thing I would say is that even before I performed the mod, the bump-stops on my vehicle were absolutely pristine, with no evidence of contact with the corresponding flat area/stop on the axle casting. So despite performing many full-lock turns in both directions over the last 18 months, I had obviously never actually engaged the bump-stops. I suspected that there would be no appreciable improvement to the turning circle by burying the bump-stops even deeper into the front knuckle.
I didn’t go down the 2-washer path and decided just to screw the nut down tight on the bolt and tighten the bolt again.
After driving the car for a day or so, there really hasn’t been any significant change to the turning circle on my vehicle, despite performing several deliberately tight turns in both directions and the bump-stops still look pristine.
I think there are other aspects of the steering geometry that govern the turning circle on our beloved Grenadiers that are not able to be overcome by this simple mod.

Agreed @MattG. I've reported the same previously. It's a simple test to crank the steering wheel from lock to lock and observe the stops on the knuckles. There is a decent air gap. I'm not sure how those who claim they have achieved a reduced turning radius have managed to do it just through the stop bolts.
We don't know what the limit is for the double cardan joints in the stub axles so this doesn't seem like an area to mess about with.
The steering box has an internal travel limit that will come into play.

Edit: typos.

 

[bigleonski]

I watched the latest TrailRecon YT video where he heads to have some offroad fun. He has a modded 250 LC and he’s joined by old mate from Agile Offroad in his modded IG. They bounce around the place comparing both vehicles- a good bit of fun.

What floored me was thst they did a turning radius test and the 250 was wider than the grenadier. Apparently the grenny has some radius modifications but I never would have guessed that result. My 200 was well within both by a fair margin.

 

[Tazzieman]

I'm not sure how those who claim they have achieved a reduced turning radius have managed to do it just through the stop bolts.

If you believe in magic, it works.
Why bring science into the equation?

 

[DoubleDoom]

I wonder if the gap to the stop bolts is that little bit extra you get after you hit full lock. ie. when you turn the wheel to full lock, it stops turning, but then you get a little bit more, but with some resistance.

 

[MattG]

I wonder if the gap to the stop bolts is that little bit extra you get after you hit full lock. ie. when you turn the wheel to full lock, it stops turning, but then you get a little bit more, but with some resistance.

As my bump-stop bolts showed no evidence of ever coming into contact with the axle casting, (after many full-lock plus a bit extra turns!) I’m not sure if that is the case.

 

[MattG]

Agreed @MattG. I've reported the same previously. It's a simple test to crank the steering wheel from lock to lock and observe the stops on the knuckles. There is a decent air gap. I'm not sure how those who claim they have achieved a reduced turning radius have managed to do it just through the stop bolts.
We don't know what the limit is for the double cardan joints in the stub axles so this doesn't seem like an area to mess about with.
The steering box has an internal travel limit that will come into play.

Edit: typos.

I’m just going to return mine to factory spec and accept the lousy turning circle. I’m very used to three, four, or more point turns!

 

[Clark Kent]

I’m just going to return mine to factory spec and accept the lousy turning circle. I’m very used to three, four, or more point turns!

I find myself doing a lot more reverse-in parking with this vehicle versus previous.

 

[HereinDaRockies]

On the old Defender you could adjust the steering lock stops.

They were adjusted so the wheels didn't touch anything on full lock, but if you only had the standard wheels it was possible to take around 1 metre off the turning circle.

That’s dumb. Why would the factory preemptively set the steering stops at a location to anticipate aftermarket wheels, at the cost of letter turning radius.

I think these are simply urban myths passed around

 

[ADVAW8S]

I watched the latest TrailRecon YT video where he heads to have some offroad fun. He has a modded 250 LC and he’s joined by old mate from Agile Offroad in his modded IG. They bounce around the place comparing both vehicles- a good bit of fun.

What floored me was thst they did a turning radius test and the 250 was wider than the grenadier. Apparently the grenny has some radius modifications but I never would have guessed that result. My 200 was well within both by a fair margin.

John from Agile, also has an adjustable fox steering stabilizer. He has comment on another YouTube that you need the adjustable stabilizer. The extra adjustment also for a longer rod which then gives you a tighter turning circle.

 

[Dokatd]

I will say this, the factory stabilizer is rather short on throw as compared to most any other vehicle in its class. It's a bit goofy and if you max out the stabilizer you will most certainly feel it. As well, I am curious about the steering pump. I'm questioning if there are programmed in steering stops where the pump stops just before the steering stops. It would do this by measuring the position of the steering wheel. This would explain the extra steering you gain by cranking the wheel hard after it stops. Basically the steering goes into manual mode. I would also suggest this is something that can be calibrated by the dealership. This is the only reason I see to have your steering wheel centered and calibrated.

If you lift up the front end you should be able to get the steering to max out the stops. You should also be able to do it fairly easily by backing up and forcing the wheel a bit. I put yellow gear marking compound on mine to verify contact. It took a bit but it did make contact. That is with an aftermarket stabilizer though. It's conceivable that the factory stabilizer may reach its limit before the knuckles do. But I cannot confirm that.

 

[Lars]

My steering never touches the stops, with or without the stock steering stabilizer attached. There's always a gap of about 5 mm.
I agree there must be something else controlling the steering angle other than the stop. I know others claim an improvement in turning radius by changing the length of the stop, but not on my truck.