Ineos Grenadier frame compared to the original Defender

[Oshkosh-P]

Hello,

so i recently seen a Ineos Grenadier next to the original LR Defender and from a first look the vehicle does look much more solid in built, not only the quality of the interior, but also the axles and the chassis. But since i do not own one i cannot measure the frame rails myself.

However i did measure the LR Defender i owned for a while (of course) and also the LR Disco 3/4 i owned after, so maybe can hel for comparision:

Defender: 185x70x2mm
Disco 3/4: 165x65x3.5mm

so the Defender used to have quite big frame rails, but also really thin metal.

Some other cars of similiar size&weight class for comparision:

Patrol Y61: 170x70x3.5
G-Wagon 155x75x3-4 depending on place
Land Cruider 80: 150x60x4
Land Cruiser 200: 185x90x3.2 (so this is so far the kind of this group, only HD US trucks have bigger, but are way larger vehicles)


Would be interesting to see where the Grenadier sits compared to the rest of the pack!

Kind regards,

Marcus

 

[Ozarker]

What will the size of the frame rails tell you without knowing the gauge and type of steel it is?

Each vehicle has a plate stating weight specifications, so the size of framing members is insignificant.

 

[Oshkosh-P]

The last measurement is the gauge and as far as i can tell so far there is usually not much difference in steel quality. Most metals used for these frames have a PSI rating of about 50.000, sometimes a bit over and under, like the G-wagon has 70.000 for example. Of course htere is far more then PSI rating and the shape of the rails and amount and quality of cross members also play a role, but still in my opinion it does give you a much more transparent way to guess the strenght of the design then just the GVW or payload, since weight specs always depend heavily on how carefull or loose the manufacturer is, or on how much abuse and offroad usage he is anticipating.

Simple example: The Ford F 350 has a lower GVW (6300) even with the dual rear wheels compared to the Iveco Daily 4x4 in the 7000kg version. In the SRW version it even 1.5 tons less with a GVW of 5500 to 7500. Still the Ford has a boxed frame of 240x90x4.5 or an open C frame in case of the chassis cap of 190x70x7mm, while the Iveco only has a C-profile of 185x70x5mm.

Both vehicles are ment for offroad use, but not to the extreme like an Unimog or military vehicle.

Of course there is always the possibility that Iveco uses magic metal, or just banks on the frame flexing enough, but in my opinion its just more likely that Ford is more cautios, or expecting more abuse/more severe offroad abuse and therefore is using the more robust frame in the end.

 

[Ozarker]

The last measurement is the gauge and as far as i can tell so far there is usually not much difference in steel quality. Most metals used for these frames have a PSI rating of about 50.000, sometimes a bit over and under, like the G-wagon has 70.000 for example. Of course htere is far more then PSI rating and the shape of the rails and amount and quality of cross members also play a role, but still in my opinion it does give you a much more transparent way to guess the strenght of the design then just the GVW or payload, since weight specs always depend heavily on how carefull or loose the manufacturer is, or on how much abuse and offroad usage he is anticipating.

Simple example: The Ford F 350 has a lower GVW (6300) even with the dual rear wheels compared to the Iveco Daily 4x4 in the 7000kg version. In the SRW version it even 1.5 tons less with a GVW of 5500 to 7500. Still the Ford has a boxed frame of 240x90x4.5 or an open C frame in case of the chassis cap of 190x70x7mm, while the Iveco only has a C-profile of 185x70x5mm.

Both vehicles are ment for offroad use, but not to the extreme like an Unimog or military vehicle.

Of course there is always the possibility that Iveco uses magic metal, or just banks on the frame flexing enough, but in my opinion its just more likely that Ford is more cautios, or expecting more abuse/more severe offroad abuse and therefore is using the more robust frame in the end.

The problem I see is you seem to have a heck of a lot of opinion in your assumptions.
You seem to need to "guess the strength of the design" my your assumptions of the size of the frame.
There is much more to engineering than the thickness, shape or size of framing members and it has already been done by manufactures. Your or my opinion is rather irrelevant because when law enforcement pulls you over for being overweight, opinions don't matter, if a frame breaks off road, it breaks, but they rarely do.
But, this is more interesting than reading for sale ads here.....

 

[Oshkosh-P]

Well i guess that is in the end your opinion.

Anybody here who own a Grenadier and might be willing to help out with the measurements?

 

[LRNAD90]

Grenadier states Frame is made from (up to) 4mm thick steel..

"High-tensile steel for torsional strength. Up to 4mm wall thickness. Able to withstand high levels of stress under load."

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I’ll assume a grenadier frame won’t rust to dust at the mere appearance of a rain shower.

 

[Oshkosh-P]

Yeah i read the same about the thickness, which is the same as Mercedes wrote about the old G-Wagon frame. But at least from a look i got once the rails look larger then the G#s