INEOS Grenadier

[XJLI]

All high GVM solid front axle trucks don't flex well. In the USA we're used to super flexy Jeeps so we associated SFA=articulation, but everywhere G wagons and LC70s do not have a lot of flex.

 

[Martinjmpr]

JLR has filed a motion to dismiss the Ineos suit on the 15th of this month... The US District Court judge has to make a decision by Dec 20.

I've attached the juiciest part of their brief. I am not a lawyer, but my reading of it tells me that Ineos should have done a better job researching their position.

JLR's arguments seem pretty well founded and supported. I expect this case to be dismissed.

So if you read through that brief you can see that nowhere does the defendant address any of the substantive claims made by Ineos.

In fact, it looks to me like a white flag waved by JLR. The response specifically states that they have not challenged Ineos in any way and therefore that there is no 'case or controversy' for the court to decide.

If that's the case, it looks like a green light for Ineos to sell the Grenadier in the US at least.

For those interested in the legal geekery, look at the bottom of page 34 and the top of page 35:

But INEOS Auto has not alleged any action by JLR Limited—or by JLR NA on JLR Limited’s behalf—to enforce its Defender trade dress in New Jersey or against a New Jersey resident. “JLR Limited has made no representation, threat, or suggestion to INEOS Auto that it will be imminently enforcing its trade dress rights in the Defender, including under U.S. Registration Nos. 5456370 and 5803089, in New Jersey, or any other U.S. state, through litigation or by any other means.” Beaton Cert. ¶ 38. And JLR NA has not purposefully directed any specific enforcement activity related to the Defender trade dress at New Jersey residents, or at INEOS Auto. Mitrione Cert. ¶ 18. INEOS Auto has not even alleged any such activities by JLR NA. Indeed, “JLR NA cannot bring any U.S. litigation to enforce the Defender trade dress rights held by JLR Limited without the latter’s explicit authorisation to do so,” and “JLR Limited has not authorized JLR NA to make any litigation enforcement threat toward INEOS Auto on behalf of JLR Limited related to JLR Limited’s trade dress rights in the Defender.” Beaton Cert. ¶¶ 39-40. Thus, INEOS Auto’s alter ego specific jurisdiction theory also flunks the second prong of the specific jurisdiction inquiry.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Interesting....JLR sent Ineos a letter prior to it even being designed saying they have trademark and copyright protection on the Defender design and would defend it.

Well, Harley Davidson tried to trademark the sound of their V-twin engine, too, but they ultimately had to withdraw their petition when it was clear that they would lose.

It may be that JLR is realizing the same thing.

 

[stickshifter]

All high GVM solid front axle trucks don't flex well. In the USA we're used to super flexy Jeeps so we associated SFA=articulation, but everywhere G wagons and LC70s do not have a lot of flex.

That makes sense. Thanks! I should have thought that through a little more. The difference in flex between the Grenadier (~ 2,000 pound payload) and a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (~ 850 pound payload) is like the difference in flex between a Ford F250 (~ 3,500 pound payload) and a Ram Power Wagon (~ 1,600 pound payload).

 

[paachi]

I hadn't noticed until just now that the Grenadier's differentials / drive shafts are not in the center of the vehicle (they are off-set, like in the old Defender). Here is a screenshot from a promotional video (link to the video is below the photo):


View attachment 695902

Kinda makes sense because Magna Steyr designed it. The G Wagon also has similarly offset pumpkins on the passenger side.

Similarly, to reference your other post, the G Wagon doesn’t have as much articulation like a Jeep even though it’s a solid axle F&R. I think it’s more a function of other suspension componentry and design.

Maybe I am making a rose tinted view leap/ assumption..but the Gren feels like the new G Professional Magna wanted to build instead of the current version

 

[stickshifter]

Kinda makes sense because Magna Steyr designed it. The G Wagon also has similarly offset pumpkins on the passenger side.

Similarly, to reference your other post, the G Wagon doesn’t have as much articulation like a Jeep even though it’s a solid axle F&R. I think it’s more a function of other suspension componentry and design.

Maybe I am making a rose tinted view leap/ assumption..but the Gren feels like the new G Professional Magna wanted to build instead of the current version

Ahh - didn't know that about the G-Wagon (I'm not interested in the G, so I've never bothered to check it out). To my eye, the off-center differential has always looked odd, but I'm guessing it has a purpose - like maybe a larger fuel tank? Do you know why Magna Steyr designs them this way?

Regarding articulation: I think its largely to do with GVW (as someone above pointed out). The Grenadier has a high payload (around 2,000 pounds), and a suspension that can carry that kind of weight cannot also flex like a gymnast. In contrast, the soft springs of the Wrangler and Power Wagon flex like crazy, but to get that flex those vehicles sacrifice payload. The Grenadier is clearly designed as an overlander, not a rock-crawler. I think I was surprised by the photos, and was thinking that the solid axles should flex more, but I was forgetting that suspension - like everything - is a give and take scenario: you can't flex and carry heavy payload; gotta choose which to prioritize. Its good to see the Grenadier taking up what is now sort of an empty niche in the American market: a true mid-size overlander.

 

[nickw]

Ahh - didn't know that about the G-Wagon (I'm not interested in the G, so I've never bothered to check it out). To my eye, the off-center differential has always looked odd, but I'm guessing it has a purpose - like maybe a larger fuel tank? Do you know why Magna Steyr designs them this way?

Regarding articulation: I think its largely to do with GVW (as someone above pointed out). The Grenadier has a high payload (around 2,000 pounds), and a suspension that can carry that kind of weight cannot also flex like a gymnast. In contrast, the soft springs of the Wrangler and Power Wagon flex like crazy, but to get that flex those vehicles sacrifice payload. The Grenadier is clearly designed as an overlander, not a rock-crawler. I think I was surprised by the photos, and was thinking that the solid axles should flex more, but I was forgetting that suspension - like everything - is a give and take scenario: you can't flex and carry heavy payload; gotta choose which to prioritize. Its good to see the Grenadier taking up what is now sort of an empty niche in the American market: a true mid-size overlander.

Regarding the differential - I think partially due to packaging (as you point out) probably partially due to Tcase / Trans tech but I also always thought it was an advantage when it comes to clearance?

 

[nickw]

So if you read through that brief you can see that nowhere does the defendant address any of the substantive claims made by Ineos.

In fact, it looks to me like a white flag waved by JLR. The response specifically states that they have not challenged Ineos in any way and therefore that there is no 'case or controversy' for the court to decide.

If that's the case, it looks like a green light for Ineos to sell the Grenadier in the US at least.

For those interested in the legal geekery, look at the bottom of page 34 and the top of page 35:

What does that last sentence mean then:

" Thus, INEOS Auto’s alter ego specific jurisdiction theory also flunks the second prong of the specific jurisdiction inquiry. "

 

[paachi]

Regarding the differential - I think partially due to packaging (as you point out) probably partially due to Tcase / Trans tech but I also always thought it was an advantage when it comes to clearance?

I don’t know the technicality of it but both the pumpkins being on one side does help immensely with clearance over some boulders if you pick your line carefully. Infact I am noodling an idea to fit an underbody camera so that I can weave my G over some rougher obstacles by passing them on the non pumpkin side.

 

[Martinjmpr]

What does that last sentence mean then:

" Thus, INEOS Auto’s alter ego specific jurisdiction theory also flunks the second prong of the specific jurisdiction inquiry. "

They are stating that Ineos' claim that JLR North America is an 'alter ego' of JLR Limited in England and therefore that the actions of JLR Limited can be imputed to JLR NA is incorrect. It's important to note that what they are stating is an opinion, not a fact. It will ultimately be up to the Court to decide whether Ineos' statement is legally correct.

Also, for those of you not in the legal world, it is very common in these types of litigation actions for each party to use a "spaghetti plate" approach: That's where you throw everything at the wall in the hope that SOMETHING sticks.

The reason for that is that in most instances, once a case is dismissed or decided against a party, that party cannot appeal the case on the grounds of some legal theory that wasn't advanced in the original filing.

So Ineos needs to state every POSSIBLE grounds for their claim, even if the ground is somewhat outlandish, because if they don't make a specific argument in the initial filing, they can't make that argument later on appeal.

Regarding the issue of jursidiction: Jurisdiction is a "gate keeper" argument. Courts almost always look at jurisdiction before they look at anything else (i.e. the merits of the claim.) If a defendant like JLR NA can get the case kicked out on Jurisdiction, then the court will not address any of the other arguments.

 

[stickshifter]

Kinda makes sense because Magna Steyr designed it. The G Wagon also has similarly offset pumpkins on the passenger side.

Similarly, to reference your other post, the G Wagon doesn’t have as much articulation like a Jeep even though it’s a solid axle F&R. I think it’s more a function of other suspension componentry and design.

Maybe I am making a rose tinted view leap/ assumption..but the Gren feels like the new G Professional Magna wanted to build instead of the current version

I had an opportunity to check out a G-Wagon last week. A lot of people think of the Grenadier as the "new" or "true" Defender, but damn - the Grenadier is much more like a G-Wagon.

Exterior: the exterior proportions of the two are really similar. Both are tall and boxy, with slightly smaller tires and less ground clearance than one might expect - given the market niche (rugged off-roader / 4x4 utility vehicle). To my eye, the Grenadier prototypes have less ground clearance than the mock-up images that were first released (but maybe it is the rock sliders on a lot of the prototypes that make it look lower to the ground). I know that both vehicles are manufactured by Magna Steyr, but still - I was surprised to see such a striking similarity in terms of the exterior and the basic dimensions. I know one could also describe the Wrangler and Defender as tall and boxy, but the Grenadier and G-Wagon look very similar.

Engine: The W464 model of the G-Wagon, new for 2022, is being produced for the military and other government agencies. This model has abandoned the V8 option, and has adopted a - wait for it - 3.0 liter turbo-powered Straight Six (I6) diesel engine. I am guessing that the twin-turbo V8 gas engine is still available for civilian purchase, since that is what contributes to the G-Wagon pricing and exclusivity.

 

[paachi]

I had an opportunity to check out a G-Wagon last week. A lot of people think of the Grenadier as the "new" or "true" Defender, but damn - the Grenadier is much more like a G-Wagon.

Exterior: the exterior proportions of the two are really similar. Both are tall and boxy, with slightly smaller tires and less ground clearance than one might expect - given the market niche (rugged off-roader / 4x4 utility vehicle). To my eye, the Grenadier prototypes have less ground clearance than the mock-up images that were first released (but maybe it is the rock sliders on a lot of the prototypes that make it look lower to the ground). I know that both vehicles are manufactured by Magna Steyr, but still - I was surprised to see such a striking similarity in terms of the exterior and the basic dimensions. I know one could also describe the Wrangler and Defender as tall and boxy, but the Grenadier and G-Wagon look very similar.

Engine: The W464 model of the G-Wagon, new for 2022, is being produced for the military and other government agencies. This model has abandoned the V8 option, and has adopted a - wait for it - 3.0 liter turbo-powered Straight Six (I6) diesel engine. I am guessing that the twin-turbo V8 gas engine is still available for civilian purchase, since that is what contributes to the G-Wagon pricing and exclusivity.

View attachment 696952

View attachment 696951

Exactly. The Gren, to me, almost harkens back to the pre-MBUSA G Wagen 463 which had minimal to no electronics (and modular electronics which my favorite feature), almost 2000lbs payload and was basically a 461 with luxury trimmings. It’s designed as a traveling/ touring vehicle not a rock crawler.

Post 2001 the G Wagens in the USA got a lot more blinged up but the NA V8 power train till 2009/10 was almost bullet proof.

The aftermarket for G Wagen is limited but you really don’t need to do much to make it a capable travel vehicle. Ground clearance is ok not terrible but nothing like a Bronco or Jeep with almost 11” clearance.

If the Gren is similar to a G then based on my experience lifting it 2” almost is easy..add 33” KO2s and you have a tank at your disposal. However going more than 2” leads to all kinds of suspension headaches. I know people who have done it though and added 35” tires. Wheels very well.

 

[stickshifter]

Exactly. The Gren, to me, almost harkens back to the pre-MBUSA G Wagen 463 which had minimal to no electronics (and modular electronics which my favorite feature), almost 2000lbs payload and was basically a 461 with luxury trimmings. It’s designed as a traveling/ touring vehicle not a rock crawler.

Post 2001 the G Wagens in the USA got a lot more blinged up but the NA V8 power train till 2009/10 was almost bullet proof.

The aftermarket for G Wagen is limited but you really don’t need to do much to make it a capable travel vehicle. Ground clearance is ok not terrible but nothing like a Bronco or Jeep with almost 11” clearance.

If the Gren is similar to a G then based on my experience lifting it 2” almost is easy..add 33” KO2s and you have a tank at your disposal. However going more than 2” leads to all kinds of suspension headaches. I know people who have done it though and added 35” tires. Wheels very well.

Good info on the G-Wagon! I know next to nothing about that platform. Agreed on lift height: 1.5 - 2 inches is the sweet spot. You go higher (with most vehicles) and you get the domino effect with mods. I ran my Wrangler with 35s, and got great use from that tire size, but I’ll settle for 33s on the Grenadier. I bought that JKU for about a third the price of the Grenadier; not looking to bugger things up on a 70k vehicle. Okay, I bought that JKU a long time ago, and inflation… so it was more like half the price.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Good bunch of photos on Expo's front page of the Grenadier being tested in Morocco:

The First Ineos Grenadier Overland Test in Morocco - Expedition Portal

First Ineos Grenadier Overland Test images from the Sahara Desert of Morocco, overlanding in sand dunes and rocks

expeditionportal.com

 

[Highlander]

12:21 lol