The 100% stronger is what I'd argue with - we know other vehicles of sim size that are both reliable and durable. Jeep for instance used D60 axles (at least on the back) on it's military spec Jeep and have gone to a "Full Float" hybrid design on new Jeeps. The ROW LC 60/70s and domestic 80's all had Full Float rear axles along with the Patrols. It's not universal but axles are a great indicator of intended use because R&P and Axle diameters generally have torque ratings.
Maybe not drastically different but the "LS" engines used in cars are generally a bit different than the "LS" engines used in trucks. Same can be said for the 2.3L EB used in the Ranger vs car, it got additional forged parts and upgrades to handle added stress. I'm not a SBC expert but I know the industrial SBCs are built different to the automotive ones. Merc is an interesting one because they used the same engine in the cars vs the G's but it was an "industrial" type engine....which is why the damn cars were so reliable and durable.
Those two vehicles have never been thought of as dependable so it’s a pretty low bar.
It was theoretical statement intended to demonstrate the difference between reliability and durability, which is often confused. Merely using stouter parts intended to be durable in a heavier truck, does not result in increased reliability if used in a lighter truck.
I've brought that up too, trust me, I get it. Same can be said on the opposite end, light duty parts on a HD rig, regardless of how 'reliable' they are, will lack durability. But - it's hard to test reliability, especially on a new rig, but we do have some good metrics to test durability based on mechanical specs.
This is an important point. The Grenadier enthusiasts - and I think of myself as an enthusiast - tend to look at the durable parts (robust frame, relatively robust axles, relatively robust front end components, etc.) and assume that this will result in a reliable vehicle. While the Grenadier may have fewer ECUs than a similarly priced Land Rover or BMW, it is still a pretty "high tech" machine. The super-stout frame isn't going to be much consolation if the vehicle's electronics (broadly speaking) leave you stranded.
Just stick with the frame and leave the tech out of it. does the heavier frame make it more reliable in and of itself?
That gets into design / engineering limits to a certain extent. There is a reason rigs like FJ40's and Merc 240D's from the 80s are still used in 3rd world conditions, they were not only engineered and built well but their components were built to a standard that far exceeded need, factor of safety if you will. Blind "overbuilding" is a fools errand akin to slapping 1T axles on a 1/2T rig, it doesn't work due to upstream constraints, but using your example I'd bet a 10k shackle will last longer given the context of potential overloading, working outside intended design limits, environmental factors like corrosion and general wear and tear.....all things you see on overland / work rigs.
