good theory as to how it missed the mark.

[SkiWill]

I'm still IG curious....cross shopping it with LX600 and GX550, so do get a lot out of some of these discussions (at times). Not trying to be negative but I guess it's just where my mind goes. Over on the IG forum I saw this, very good quote that I think does a good job of summing it up and why the polarization between some people:

"Finally, and importantly, I really like the Grenadier as a new vehicle, but I want to love it like an old one"

Honestly you need to quit worrying about spline counts and whether the frame will snap in half or whether the transmission was used in a commuter car or dump truck.

The axles are excessively built. It doesn't matter whether they are 28 spline or 35 spline. Move on. Carraro forgets more about axle manufacturing on a coffee break than Internet forums know in their collective wisdom. They're one of the biggest and best axle manufacturers on earth. Worrying over spline count is as useful in this situation as fretting over whether Taylor Swift is going to call you up and ask you out on a date.

The transmission is built by one of the biggest and best transmission manufacturers in the world and this is an issue why? Because it was used in a product you find dinky? They know a hell of a lot more about transmissions and what kills them (heat from slipping clutch packs) than any of us do. The higher torque rated 8 speed transmissions also use computer controls to limit engine output in lower gears in diesel trucks so it is really that much heavier duty? Oh, wait, it has to do not only with torque input, but also gear ratio and another myriad of engineering variables that ZF does a whole lot better than forum members do.

They used a transmission that, with suitable cooling, will work just fine for hundreds of thousands of miles. The transmission in my friend's 1964 Land Rover probably had a torque rating of 170 ft/lbs and it drove from Maine to Alaska to Argentina with no issues in the 1990s because it was behind a motor producing well under that. That, is engineering.

The concerns over whether major systems in 2024 built by some of the best manufacturers in the world are going to be up the task is moot. This thing wasn't cobbled together by some hack in a garage with a pencil, paper, and a complete inability to do math. It was built with hundreds of thousands of engineering hours, advanced computational tools, and hundreds of years of manufacturing experience. But, what do I know, I'm just an engineer.

Do you like the Grenadier enough to pay the price and does it fit your needs? Those are the only relevant questions you can answer.

As a heavy industry engineer in 2024, the thought, "Hmmmm. 33 spline shaft? Hmmmm. Should have been 35. Hard pass." will never be uttered by anyone that actually understands engineering, design, and manufacturing in 2024.

 

[nickw]

Honestly you need to quit worrying about spline counts and whether the frame will snap in half or whether the transmission was used in a commuter car or dump truck.

The axles are excessively built. It doesn't matter whether they are 28 spline or 35 spline. Move on. Carraro forgets more about axle manufacturing on a coffee break than Internet forums know in their collective wisdom. They're one of the biggest and best axle manufacturers on earth. Worrying over spline count is as useful in this situation as fretting over whether Taylor Swift is going to call you up and ask you out on a date.

The transmission is built by one of the biggest and best transmission manufacturers in the world and this is an issue why? Because it was used in a product you find dinky? They know a hell of a lot more about transmissions and what kills them (heat from slipping clutch packs) than any of us do. The higher torque rated 8 speed transmissions also use computer controls to limit engine output in lower gears in diesel trucks so it is really that much heavier duty? Oh, wait, it has to do not only with torque input, but also gear ratio and another myriad of engineering variables that ZF does a whole lot better than forum members do.

They used a transmission that, with suitable cooling, will work just fine for hundreds of thousands of miles. The transmission in my friend's 1964 Land Rover probably had a torque rating of 170 ft/lbs and it drove from Maine to Alaska to Argentina with no issues in the 1990s because it was behind a motor producing well under that. That, is engineering.

The concerns over whether major systems in 2024 built by some of the best manufacturers in the world are going to be up the task is moot. This thing wasn't cobbled together by some hack in a garage with a pencil, paper, and a complete inability to do math. It was built with hundreds of thousands of engineering hours, advanced computational tools, and hundreds of years of manufacturing experience. But, what do I know, I'm just an engineer.

Do you like the Grenadier enough to pay the price and does it fit your needs? Those are the only relevant questions you can answer.

As a heavy industry engineer in 2024, the thought, "Hmmmm. 33 spline shaft? Hmmmm. Should have been 35. Hard pass." will never be uttered by anyone that actually understands engineering, design, and manufacturing in 2024.

I'll give you some advice first off - drop the condescending remarks, it's silly and beneath the little I know of what you post here....we've had some debates and difference of opinions but no reason that can't be a good thing.

I disagree - specs matter. Why? It points to design intent. You can use a silly argument like 33 vs 35 to prove your point, that certainly was not my argument, but looking at things like R&P size helps one understand durability and longevity.

You can also ask yourself a simple question - what was design intent of comparable vehicles that use that drivetrain? The same as that used by HD pickups? Same heat cycles? Same durability testing? Does it matter - sure does for an UNPROVEN rig. You speak in terms of knowing design intent (you don't), you don't know what this rig was designed for more than the marketing team wanted you to.

You don't have to agree - doesn't mean your opinion is more right than mine. Toyota specs different running gear on their LC70's than they do on their Prado's, there is a reason for that. There is also a reason Tundra's with the 4.7 are unbelievably reliable, it's based on an architecture from the LC line. Same thing for the Domestic pickups - you can look at architecture to understand design intent in many situations....

I honestly think less of your opinion by throwing out background or education, like it makes your point valid and dissuades further conversation, doesn't mean a thing for me and isn't relevant to the conversation. You know what is, facts and data vs emotions. You think the axles are robust - show me the data. The world I live in is data driven, surprised as an engineer yours isn't.

I think all my observations and critiques are reasonable, show me the data, it's gotta be out there.

 

[nickw]

Honestly you need to quit worrying about spline counts and whether the frame will snap in half or whether the transmission was used in a commuter car or dump truck.

The axles are excessively built. It doesn't matter whether they are 28 spline or 35 spline. Move on. Carraro forgets more about axle manufacturing on a coffee break than Internet forums know in their collective wisdom. They're one of the biggest and best axle manufacturers on earth. Worrying over spline count is as useful in this situation as fretting over whether Taylor Swift is going to call you up and ask you out on a date.

The transmission is built by one of the biggest and best transmission manufacturers in the world and this is an issue why? Because it was used in a product you find dinky? They know a hell of a lot more about transmissions and what kills them (heat from slipping clutch packs) than any of us do. The higher torque rated 8 speed transmissions also use computer controls to limit engine output in lower gears in diesel trucks so it is really that much heavier duty? Oh, wait, it has to do not only with torque input, but also gear ratio and another myriad of engineering variables that ZF does a whole lot better than forum members do.

They used a transmission that, with suitable cooling, will work just fine for hundreds of thousands of miles. The transmission in my friend's 1964 Land Rover probably had a torque rating of 170 ft/lbs and it drove from Maine to Alaska to Argentina with no issues in the 1990s because it was behind a motor producing well under that. That, is engineering.

The concerns over whether major systems in 2024 built by some of the best manufacturers in the world are going to be up the task is moot. This thing wasn't cobbled together by some hack in a garage with a pencil, paper, and a complete inability to do math. It was built with hundreds of thousands of engineering hours, advanced computational tools, and hundreds of years of manufacturing experience. But, what do I know, I'm just an engineer.

Do you like the Grenadier enough to pay the price and does it fit your needs? Those are the only relevant questions you can answer.

As a heavy industry engineer in 2024, the thought, "Hmmmm. 33 spline shaft? Hmmmm. Should have been 35. Hard pass." will never be uttered by anyone that actually understands engineering, design, and manufacturing in 2024.

I'll give you a real world example of axles...how about Jeep? They all use "Dana" axles, but there is a big difference in a D30/35 and a D44 let alone some of the stuff you find in the military Jeeps like the D60's - they design them like that for a reason. Not to mention, Jeep is now going with a hybrid FF axle design more in-line with how HD pickups are built. Using your logic it wouldn't matter, one vs the other, Dana is a Dana...move on. I make the assumptions they used HD axles commensurate with marketing but I don't base decisions based on assumptions and I doubt you do either.

 

[utherjorge]

Honestly you need to quit worrying about spline counts and whether the frame will snap in half or whether the transmission was used in a commuter car or dump truck.

Do you like the Grenadier enough to pay the price and does it fit your needs? Those are the only relevant questions you can answer.

there's a reason I ignore that guy lol

 

[nickw]

there's a reason I ignore that guy lol

There's a button for that if so inclined!

 

[TCM]

It seems the point SkiWill is trying to make is that the Grenadier is built to a high duty standard based on all available data, not just a tough looking box built with the structure of a road biased Crossover . Yes we are currently lacking information for every possible specification of the vehicle but that does not dictate an assumption of form over substance. Reading this thread you get the impression the wheels will fall off, the electronics catch on fire, the transmission melt down and the engine detonate if the vehicle is as advertised.


Based on what we do know it can reasonably be deduced that the Grenadier is design/built to a standard appropriate for the overland market. The ZF transmission is basically the same used in the Jeep Wrangler and gets nearly universal praise in that application, a platform that is often overbuilt and used without mechanical sympathy. No the BMW engine was not designed specifically for off road use but neither was the Pentastar engine in the Wrangler and yet it has worked very well in that application same as the ZF transmission. The Grenadier axle tubes are +3", the frame rails measure ~8", the control arms ~1.5", the lockers are from Eaton, the shocks are Bilstein, springs Eibach, brakes by Brembo, prop shafts from Dana/Spicer. Components with these dimensions & specifications would not be used if all you were trying to accomplish was the fulfillment of an off road marketing message. This is dictated by economics. Use the smallest, lowest cost components to achieve your design brief. In this case the design brief obviously called for something better than the usual crossover/SUV parts bin that dominates the segment. There is a reason the vehicle weighs nearly 6000 lbs. And you don't build something this heavy in today's market unless it absolutely needs to be so. The financial and regulatory requirements aggressively incentivize weight reduction and fuel economy.


The level of criticism expressed in this thread speaks more to brand loyalty and preference than a true assessment of the Grenadier's qualities. There is much we don't know and until we do there is nothing to be gained from assuming the worst about its suitability for the overland market. Over time more details will become known and owners will accumulate miles on the vehicles. Ineos will also sort out the startup flaws that have been covered ad naseum. This will eventually provide the data required to rationally critic the Grenadier in relation to the alternatives. If the durability and reliability are proven to fall short as the vehicles are used, e.g. the new Defender, then the leveling of harsh criticism will be entirely warranted. Until then Ineos should be afforded a period of supportive optimism, and we should be appreciative of the fact that a brand new body on frame SUV with solid axles and lockers has been brought to a market that nearly abandoned this style of vehicle. A vehicle that by most indications is designed for true off road use while providing competent highway manners and modern amenities, not yet another road car that happens to have some off road functionality.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Nothing to be gained by assuming the best either…

 

[TCM]

So let’s just pick it apart for sport. That’s what forums like this are for apparently.

 

[utherjorge]

So let’s just pick it apart for sport. That’s what forums like this are for apparently.

Speaking for myself only, as someone who was very interested in this platform when first announced, there is obviously a lot to like.

The simple fact of the matter for me, and I've obviously been vocal about it, is that the lack of any sort of service anywhere near most people has always been an issue. I'm excited about the design as a whole. But so was Dodge back in the day when they did a clean-sheet design and came up with the Neon, a great car that ultimately failed due to a pennies-worth head gasket design. One simple decision made ended up destroying the "good name" of an otherwise solid entry-level car.

Is there a design flaw? I don't know. I won't drive one (I'm completely not against it!) because there is no place anywhere near me to sell or service it. Who knows when I'll even see one. But I wouldn't have minded being the one guy with one around here if the other problems hadn't happen.

I think, really, your post feels a bit like "you totally don't understand, plebes"...but you did correctly identify that the Pentastar was a solid choice for the Jeep, and is still...even though Jeepers still have fits about the minivan engine in their Jeep. Of course, if the Pentastar had a problem, I can drive five minutes to the local Jeep dealer to get that resolved. The Pentastar is usually not a problem on a Jeep. Will the B58 be just as trustworthy in an off-road vehicle for which it was not originally designed? We don't know, as you said.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

So let’s just pick it apart for sport. That’s what forums like this are for apparently.

I don’t think we hurt its feelings.🤷‍♂️ Ots perfectly acceptable to be critical of a new untested design. I know you say it’s been tested and we should just trust them…

 

[nickw]

It seems the point SkiWill is trying to make is that the Grenadier is built to a high duty standard based on all available data, not just a tough looking box built with the structure of a road biased Crossover . Yes we are currently lacking information for every possible specification of the vehicle but that does not dictate an assumption of form over substance. Reading this thread you get the impression the wheels will fall off, the electronics catch on fire, the transmission melt down and the engine detonate if the vehicle is as advertised.


Based on what we do know it can reasonably be deduced that the Grenadier is design/built to a standard appropriate for the overland market. The ZF transmission is basically the same used in the Jeep Wrangler and gets nearly universal praise in that application, a platform that is often overbuilt and used without mechanical sympathy. No the BMW engine was not designed specifically for off road use but neither was the Pentastar engine in the Wrangler and yet it has worked very well in that application same as the ZF transmission. The Grenadier axle tubes are +3", the frame rails measure ~8", the control arms ~1.5", the lockers are from Eaton, the shocks are Bilstein, springs Eibach, brakes by Brembo, prop shafts from Dana/Spicer. Components with these dimensions & specifications would not be used if all you were trying to accomplish was the fulfillment of an off road marketing message. This is dictated by economics. Use the smallest, lowest cost components to achieve your design brief. In this case the design brief obviously called for something better than the usual crossover/SUV parts bin that dominates the segment. There is a reason the vehicle weighs nearly 6000 lbs. And you don't build something this heavy in today's market unless it absolutely needs to be so. The financial and regulatory requirements aggressively incentivize weight reduction and fuel economy.


The level of criticism expressed in this thread speaks more to brand loyalty and preference than a true assessment of the Grenadier's qualities. There is much we don't know and until we do there is nothing to be gained from assuming the worst about its suitability for the overland market. Over time more details will become known and owners will accumulate miles on the vehicles. Ineos will also sort out the startup flaws that have been covered ad naseum. This will eventually provide the data required to rationally critic the Grenadier in relation to the alternatives. If the durability and reliability are proven to fall short as the vehicles are used, e.g. the new Defender, then the leveling of harsh criticism will be entirely warranted. Until then Ineos should be afforded a period of supportive optimism, and we should be appreciative of the fact that a brand new body on frame SUV with solid axles and lockers has been brought to a market that nearly abandoned this style of vehicle. A vehicle that by most indications is designed for true off road use while providing competent highway manners and modern amenities, not yet another road car that happens to have some off road functionality.

We must have very different interpretation of data - if you have some outside of engine and trans 'model' number, I am all ears. I asked in Scott's other thread "ask us anything" but got no response.

It's untested and all you, I or anybody else knows is what we are told by IG. This is not an ego thing (as some seem to be making it), but simply trying to understand specifications....there is no right or wrong and it's certainly not wrong to ask the question, respectfully, which I've done. Heck - the same questions are being asked, and unanswered, on the IG forum.

I think the Jeep is a very poor example and helps drive my point, a rig that costs a fraction of the price and weighs much less:
IG: GVWR = 7800
Jeep: GVWR = 6400

Comparison:
GX460: 6600
F150: 7400
LC70: 7700
3/4 T truck: 10000

Lots to garnered from this data and by looking at drivetrain specs which we have for all the rigs except the IG. The IG is clearly in the weight capacities of the 1/2 Ton rigs, I'd hope it has the drivetrain commensurate with that but it gives me and many other reasonable pause when the engine and trans come out of a light duty cross over SUV.

"Supportive Optimism" - with a for profit and unproven company, not in any world I live in....

 

[nickw]

Speaking for myself only, as someone who was very interested in this platform when first announced, there is obviously a lot to like.

The simple fact of the matter for me, and I've obviously been vocal about it, is that the lack of any sort of service anywhere near most people has always been an issue. I'm excited about the design as a whole. But so was Dodge back in the day when they did a clean-sheet design and came up with the Neon, a great car that ultimately failed due to a pennies-worth head gasket design. One simple decision made ended up destroying the "good name" of an otherwise solid entry-level car.

Is there a design flaw? I don't know. I won't drive one (I'm completely not against it!) because there is no place anywhere near me to sell or service it. Who knows when I'll even see one. But I wouldn't have minded being the one guy with one around here if the other problems hadn't happen.

I think, really, your post feels a bit like "you totally don't understand, plebes"...but you did correctly identify that the Pentastar was a solid choice for the Jeep, and is still...even though Jeepers still have fits about the minivan engine in their Jeep. Of course, if the Pentastar had a problem, I can drive five minutes to the local Jeep dealer to get that resolved. The Pentastar is usually not a problem on a Jeep. Will the B58 be just as trustworthy in an off-road vehicle for which it was not originally designed? We don't know, as you said.

Turn the clock back when Jeep transitioned to the Pentastar, fit's of rage by the 'locals'. It's proven itself, over time by a company that has a proven track record, but it's also different in the fact that the engine was designed in house by Jeep with their own design requirements.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Turn the clock back when Jeep transitioned to the Pentastar, fit's of rage by the 'locals'. It's proven itself, over time by a company that has a proven track record, but it's also different in the fact that the engine was designed in house by Jeep with their own design requirements.

Which included truck use pretty much from the start, they were in cargo vans before the Wrangler and they same year they went into the Wrangler (year two of production) they also went into the Ram 1500.

"fits of rage" was probably because of the previous change to the 3.8 which was a pretty good engine but they were a car engine and acted like it, the powerband was not well suited for a Wrangler. They were not a good follow up act for the old 4.0.

Neons sold like crazy, 11 years isn't a bad run with minimal updates. The PT Cruiser was basically a Neon with a different body.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

So let’s just pick it apart for sport. That’s what forums like this are for apparently.

They did the same thing when the Bronco came out. People didn't have anything to do but split hairs and complain.

I still rarely visit bronco forums after all the toxic negatively over the unknown.

 

[nickw]

They did the same thing when the Bronco came out. People didn't have anything to do but split hairs and complain.

I still rarely visit bronco forums after all the toxic negatively over the unknown.

I'd still put the Bronco in a VERY different category than IG.....front diff, rear axle, tcase, engine, trans were all known and heavily used if not designed in house by Ford and used in rigs up to and including the F150. I would have had and still have, zero hesitation about a Bronco, it's build is commensurate with it's GVWR if not exceeding it in a number of cases - Ford knocked it out of the park IMO and we had a high degree of confidence, based on specs, it was going to work well....