INEOS Grenadier

[SkiWill]

Using the drain plug for oil changes on these; https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1250420

Sucking the oil out is a possibility on some modern Euro vehicles, but drain plug is preferred if accessible.

That post was from 2016 which is several years before Ineos even began testing the B58 so there may have been changes or what I've read in the automotive press may be wrong. I do not have a 2022 B58 motor in either a BMW or Grenadier to independently verify. Perhaps there was some repackaging of an oil pan to facilitate drain plug access with the front axle being a far different situation than typical BMW products and that's what the journalists meant. Hard to say for sure without two sitting in front of me.

 

[Highlander]

Good videos.
I think the main complaint is that it's too complex. While I am sure this is true, the thing is many German engineering product is complex but reliable as well. It's basically a catachrestic of many German products (Including their hunting dogs which I am very familiar with ).

Looks like the transfer case is the big deal in this equation, not the engine or the transmission.

is it just me or it seems like IG has a similar T-case as the pre 2015 LR Defender where you could put the low gear on without having the central diff locked?

This was a typical LR T case modes until 2015.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Good videos.
I think the main complaint is that it's too complex. While I am sure this is true, the thing is many German engineering product is complex but reliable as well. It's basically a catachrestic of many German products (Including their hunting dogs which I am very familiar with ).


is it just me or it seems like IG has a similar T-case as the pre 2015 LR Defender where you could put the low gear on without having the central diff locked?

This was a typical LR T case modes until 2015.

View attachment 760102

I can't answer your transfer case question but:

There's a fine line between complexity and reliability. I see far fewer cars broken down on the side of the road now as compared to when I was a kid, and in general things have gotten much, much more reliable when it comes to powertrains in general, save for a few stinkers that stand out.

On the other hand, reparability is typically inversely proportional to complexity. The more complex something gets the harder it is to fix. But the other element of 'how hard is this to fix' is context. So with the Grenadiers engine, the "too complex" allegation really depends on what bits they are talking about. Is the engine 'too complex' because it has the timing chain at the back of the motor where it'll be hard to get at to service it? Not really no -- if a timing chain goes wrong on a trip, the engine blows up. That's not a bush repair in almost any circumstance. So, the lack of access to the timing chain is more of an issue of how hard it is to do this in a workshop, not trailside, and in the workshop, the complexity argument carries far less weight presuming the rest of the system is generally reliable.

Put another way, is there anything about the B57/58 that makes it too complex to fix in the bush? And is this different on the B57/58than it is on any other motor? I keep thinking about "typical" bush fixes -- how hard is it to pop out the radiator to fix a stick hole? How easy is it to pull the plugs and drain the oil if I've got water in the motor? How easy is it to access and swap the alternator if I take it one mud pit too far and it fails on me? Those are the kinds of complexities I'm curious about. But, whether it takes 20 steps or 200 steps to put in a new piston, I'm not that concerned, because I'm typically not swapping pistons at the side of the trail. For any maintenance/regular interval/rebuild-level of work, I intend to do that in the workshop and so complexity is less critical for those kinds of systems.

 

[SkiWill]

I can't answer your transfer case question but:

There's a fine line between complexity and reliability. I see far fewer cars broken down on the side of the road now as compared to when I was a kid, and in general things have gotten much, much more reliable when it comes to powertrains in general, save for a few stinkers that stand out.

On the other hand, reparability is typically inversely proportional to complexity. The more complex something gets the harder it is to fix. But the other element of 'how hard is this to fix' is context. So with the Grenadiers engine, the "too complex" allegation really depends on what bits they are talking about. Is the engine 'too complex' because it has the timing chain at the back of the motor where it'll be hard to get at to service it? Not really no -- if a timing chain goes wrong on a trip, the engine blows up. That's not a bush repair in almost any circumstance.....For any maintenance/regular interval/rebuild-level of work, I intend to do that in the workshop and so complexity is less critical for those kinds of systems.

Yes, modern vehicles are much more reliable. That's clearly proven by the data, but dismissing things like inaccessible timing chains for major services overlooks another reality: ownership cost. There's a cost to these decisions, so I still care about that type of complexity. The BMW V8 in the L322 Range Rover was one of, if not the worst engine Land Rover has ever used, and that's really saying something as a Land Rover owner. Sure the BMW V8 was great power, but that motor was so expensive to fix that many Range Rovers ended up mechanically totaled at just over 100k miles. I don't want to spend $3,000 replacing all the plastic cooling system bits and another $2,000 on a VANOS repair and another $1,500 on a water pump, $1,500 to replace a $5 gasket because BMW routed an oil line through the alternator bracket (not sure on the B58, but they used to do this on previous motors), and $7,000 on a head job, etc. at 100k miles. If you have a vehicles that requires $15k in repairs (BMW V8 valve guides is a really common one) and your vehicle is worth $10,000, it's totaled. Why would you ever spend $15,000 to repair a $10,000 vehicle? This is why many L322s with the BMW engine are no longer on the road while LR3s of the same era with the Jag V8 are still in service past 200k miles despite the BMW engine making more power, better mileage, and being nicer to drive for the first 68,000 miles.

True cost to own is an important metric for any vehicle, especially one that ostensibly is supposed to be able to rack up A LOT of mileage. I am hoping as much as anyone that the B58 is the pinnacle of reliability AND affordable serviceability, but that hasn't exactly been BMW's MO lately, hence my concern. I don't think 68,000 miles is proof of longevity. I think about a world overland vehicle as being affordable to workshop service beyond 100k miles. That is one thing that Toyota indisputably does well and contributes to their reputation for longevity and reliability. Toyotas break, in my experience, about as much as anything else, but they're a heck of a lot less to repair even in a workshop because they design serviceability into the vehicle. That's not BMW's priority. Performance is their priority and they're one of the best in the world at it.

However, $2,000 repair bill on a depreciated $15,000 value Toyota, people do it and it keeps rolling and saves the owner money to keep having adventures. It's also why the Toyota retains resale value and BMWs depreciate like a rock.

$15,000 repair bill on a $10,000 Range Rover, and it's off to the junkyard. That's my concern for the Grenadier as well. It has to be affordable to service, and 200 steps in a workshop instead of 20 steps at $150 an hour for someone that will work on a German engine adds up really quick and takes a big bite out of trip budgets.

I still want a Grenadier, and still may buy one depending on how final pricing comes in because it's the closest I'll get to my dream of a W461 in the USA. But I'm not going to be confident that I'm not shelling out the BMW tax as the mileage grows. It may prove to be worth it for me and some others, but it certainly won't be for everyone and I certainly would understand.

 

[Highlander]

Very good points have been made. I have to agree.
All these makes sense.
As a huge LR fun I must say that even though the RR Classic, Disco 1 and Defenders had relatively simple design it was also badly built.
On the other hand my cousin had a 90s G Wagon, 4 Door and 3.0 diesel. It was a basic model. He bought it with a 120K mile on it and he had until he reached 300k. Some say even the basic models were a bit more complex than a Defender.
He traveled extensively in eastern EU, places such as Carpathia, Tatars, and even in Ural mountains. Actual dirt roads and remote areas.
The vehicle never actually broke down. It kept going. He just did a normal check-ups, which wasn't cheap.

Who know maybe IG will be that type of a vehicle.

 

[nickw]

Yes, modern vehicles are much more reliable. That's clearly proven by the data, but dismissing things like inaccessible timing chains for major services overlooks another reality: ownership cost. There's a cost to these decisions, so I still care about that type of complexity. The BMW V8 in the L322 Range Rover was one of, if not the worst engine Land Rover has ever used, and that's really saying something as a Land Rover owner. Sure the BMW V8 was great power, but that motor was so expensive to fix that many Range Rovers ended up mechanically totaled at just over 100k miles. I don't want to spend $3,000 replacing all the plastic cooling system bits and another $2,000 on a VANOS repair and another $1,500 on a water pump, $1,500 to replace a $5 gasket because BMW routed an oil line through the alternator bracket (not sure on the B58, but they used to do this on previous motors), and $7,000 on a head job, etc. at 100k miles. If you have a vehicles that requires $15k in repairs (BMW V8 valve guides is a really common one) and your vehicle is worth $10,000, it's totaled. Why would you ever spend $15,000 to repair a $10,000 vehicle? This is why many L322s with the BMW engine are no longer on the road while LR3s of the same era with the Jag V8 are still in service past 200k miles despite the BMW engine making more power, better mileage, and being nicer to drive for the first 68,000 miles.

True cost to own is an important metric for any vehicle, especially one that ostensibly is supposed to be able to rack up A LOT of mileage. I am hoping as much as anyone that the B58 is the pinnacle of reliability AND affordable serviceability, but that hasn't exactly been BMW's MO lately, hence my concern. I don't think 68,000 miles is proof of longevity. I think about a world overland vehicle as being affordable to workshop service beyond 100k miles. That is one thing that Toyota indisputably does well and contributes to their reputation for longevity and reliability. Toyotas break, in my experience, about as much as anything else, but they're a heck of a lot less to repair even in a workshop because they design serviceability into the vehicle. That's not BMW's priority. Performance is their priority and they're one of the best in the world at it.

However, $2,000 repair bill on a depreciated $15,000 value Toyota, people do it and it keeps rolling and saves the owner money to keep having adventures. It's also why the Toyota retains resale value and BMWs depreciate like a rock.

$15,000 repair bill on a $10,000 Range Rover, and it's off to the junkyard. That's my concern for the Grenadier as well. It has to be affordable to service, and 200 steps in a workshop instead of 20 steps at $150 an hour for someone that will work on a German engine adds up really quick and takes a big bite out of trip budgets.

I still want a Grenadier, and still may buy one depending on how final pricing comes in because it's the closest I'll get to my dream of a W461 in the USA. But I'm not going to be confident that I'm not shelling out the BMW tax as the mileage grows. It may prove to be worth it for me and some others, but it certainly won't be for everyone and I certainly would understand.

Came here to say exactly the same thing. There is a guy that I follow on YouTube that tears down engines and watching him deal with reparability / constructability issues boggles my mind (mostly on the Euro rigs), how on earth anybody thought some of that was a good idea is beyond me. You bring up LR V8, he just did one here (watch at 13:30):



Just to remove the valve cover it looks like you need to remove the HP fuel line, HP fuel line can't be removed easily since it's a 1 piece design and partially routed through engine mount...how you'd deal with that in a rig without pulling motor or doing extensive disassembly is beyond me.

We've owned BMW's, several, and they were always a PITA....this isn't a 2F in a FJ40....or even a modern Vortec. Our 2009 X5, after impaling a stick in the front bumper required $5k worth of repairs, front bumper AND both fenders were all one piece, all needing paint....ridiculous. Sub-optimized designs (using access ports, styling compromises) and cost limitations are needed if focusing on reparability, something many manuf. won't and to be fair CANT focus on.

 

[SkiWill]

Very good points have been made. I have to agree.
All these makes sense.
As a huge LR fun I must say that even though the RR Classic, Disco 1 and Defenders had relatively simple design it was also badly built.
On the other hand my cousin had a 90s G Wagon, 4 Door and 3.0 diesel. It was a basic model. He bought it with a 120K mile on it and he had until he reached 300k. Some say even the basic models were a bit more complex than a Defender.
He traveled extensively in eastern EU, places such as Carpathia, Tatars, and even in Ural mountains. Actual dirt roads and remote areas.
The vehicle never actually broke down. It kept going. He just did a normal check-ups, which wasn't cheap.

Who know maybe IG will be that type of a vehicle.

I completely agree. That's why the W461 is my dream machine, but living in the US it will either be illegal or cost prohibitive to make a gray market one legal. I'm really hoping that the Grenadier is the W461 at a reasonable price available in the US, but we will see.

 

[SkiWill]

Came here to say exactly the same thing. There is a guy that I follow on YouTube that tears down engines and watching him deal with reparability / constructability issues boggles my mind (mostly on the Euro rigs), how on earth anybody thought some of that was a good idea is beyond me. You bring up LR V8, he just did one here (watch at 13:30):



Just to remove the valve cover it looks like you need to remove the HP fuel line, HP fuel line can't be removed easily since it's a 1 piece design and partially routed through engine mount...how you'd deal with that in a rig without pulling motor or doing extensive disassembly is beyond me.

We've owned BMW's, several, and they were always a PITA....this isn't a 2F in a FJ40....or even a modern Vortec. Our 2009 X5, after impaling a stick in the front bumper required $5k worth of repairs, front bumper AND both fenders were all one piece, all needing paint....ridiculous. Sub-optimized designs (using access ports, styling compromises) and cost limitations are needed if focusing on reparability, something many manuf. won't and to be fair CANT focus on.

Yes, the European model of serviceability is definitely different than the Japanese and American view point when it comes to design. I just had my intake removed to replace plastic cooling system parts on my Land Rover LR4 AJ V8. Fun times...not really. It's expensive, but I was willing to do it because my LR4 cost me $40,000 less than a comparable 200 series Land Cruiser which gave me a large maintenance budget and I am not in a life phase where I can drive a 50,000 mile Alaska to Argentina trip, so the trade off was worth it at this point in time. In the future, it may not be.

 

[mk216v]

Many good points brought up here. I too have dreamt about a W461 G-Wagen for a long time, but it's just not going to happen. And I don't think the IG will be anything close to it, although it looked like a possibility at the beginning of their design.


Also, a love note;

To any European manufacturers listening, especially BMW, Mercedes, even Audi; please stop with the childish games of ridiculous overcomplications. It's not impressive, and it makes your ******** stank.
XOXO,
Your fans who want to remain fans

 

[NVLOC]

In reference to the B57/58 and other comments on the complexity of some european motors (and likely the direction engine development is going in general:

it is a common pattern in automotive development - an engineering department (often primarily young and dynamic, and lacking decades of experience) that does closed cell development work with a great emphasis on referencing of competitor technologies as target goals with insufficient field testing and insufficient ongoing internal test referencing along the way. A need to bring forth newer, better product at a faster rate to maintain constant consumer pull on the market. The concepts work in CAD, manufacturing tolerances can technically be met, the numbers position you as intended, the development timelines are short. User serviceability and long-term durability are secondary requirements as development timelines are too tight to go through long-term testing pre-production (and general consumer interest in keeping vehicles long term is dropping). Usually development has started on the next project / resources and staffing re-allocated, long before the last 20% of the execution is completed on the current (this last 20% which we know takes 80% of the work). This last 20% is where most of the field /hands on work happens and ends up being where a certain amount of the usability issues and sometimes durability issues transpire. When the development work stops there, dealing with these issues is left to post purchase work either for the brand to deal with in the form of service bulletins or recalls, the aftermarket to deal with (sometimes in a lower quality than OE overall development environment), and leaves service centers and consumers struggling to maintain functionality and reliability as the systems age (could be a few months or a few years, depending on the product, seldom decades in our current market).

A majority consumer base that focuses on design and features, less on mechanical aptitude of the product (and even less on mechanical aptitude in the long term) with a greater interest in what's coming next than keeping and maintaining product long term.

It seems as if Ineos has been doing homework on this project. Yet this feeling we have is only based on what they show and how they are presenting their own work and product. The overall intent is commendable, the features are there, but the data on what has been done to ensure this engine and systems around it are easily serviceable (which plays a strong role in reliability) in the medium to long term has not been seen.
Obviously, only a more discerning user-base will take interest here, yet for Ineos to address this core audience seems well fitting.

 

[nickw]

It is a common pattern in automotive development: an engineering department (often primarily young and dynamic, and lacking decades of experience) that does closed cell development work with a great emphasis on referencing of competitor technologies as target goals with insufficient field testing and insufficient ongoing internal test referencing along the way. A need to bring forth newer, better product at a faster rate to maintain constant consumer pull on the market. The concepts work in CAD, manufacturing tolerances can technically be met, the numbers position you as intended, the development timelines are short. User serviceability and long-term durability are secondary requirements as development timelines are too tight to go through long-term testing pre-production (and general consumer interest in keeping vehicles long term is dropping). Usually development has started on the next project / resources and staffing re-allocated, long before the last 20% of the execution is completed on the current (this last 20% which we know takes 80% of the work). This last 20% is where most of the field /hands on work happens and ends up being where a certain amount of the usability issues and sometimes durability issues transpire. When the development work stops there, dealing with these issues is left to post purchase work either for the brand to deal with in the form of service bulletins or recalls, the aftermarket to deal with (sometimes in a lower quality than OE overall development environment), and leaves service centers and consumers struggling to maintain functionality and reliability as the systems age (could be a few months or a few years, depending on the product, seldom decades in our current market).

A majority consumer base that focuses on design and features, less on mechanical aptitude of the product (and even less on mechanical aptitude in the long term) with a greater interest in what's coming next than keeping and maintaining product long term.

It seems as if Ineos has been doing homework on this project. Yet this feeling we have is only based on what they show and how they are presenting their own work and product. The overall intent is commendable, the features are there, but the data on what has been done to ensure this engine and systems around it are easily serviceable (which plays a strong role in reliability) in the medium to long term has not been seen.
Obviously, only a more discerning user-base will take interest here, yet for Ineos to address this core audience seems well fitting.

Well said - I think we can all get behind the concept, modern engines are well made and reliable but the best vehicles out there for overlanding over the years had 50+ years of development and refinement and were intentionally more simple than other competing vehicles using decades old tech; old Landcruisers, Defenders, Gwagens. Even the 'modern' iterations of those were built using that 50+ years of learning, they know where the can push the envelope and still have a reasonably serviceable and reliable vehicle.

I'm still struggling to understand how Ineos is going to deal with this. Durability testing is one thing, longevity testing takes years, decades even. I think a manuf. can "intentionally" design in reparability and longevity, I do believe it's doable, but how they plan on doing that with off the shelf components which were never intended for it, like using a passenger car engine, is beyond me....I wish Ineos would be forthcoming with that info, they have obviously thought through it.

 

[nickw]

I know they'd likely not be able to hit emissions and fuel mileage, etc, but something like the GM "connect and cruise" concept would have been cool, I wish there was somebody using these in an Ineos style mass produced rig here domestically....and no, the $250k Landcruisers do not count

Here is an engine/trans package, engineered as a system for HD pickups that a person can buy and drop in, LT8, 400 hp / 460 tq

I bet it gets very sim mileage, maybe 2-3 mpg less than the B58 in the Ineos. I know my full size Ram 2500 with 6.4 gas engine (comparable to engine below) gets 15-17 mpg, I'm guessing the Ineos is high teens best case scenario.

 

[Paddler Ed]

The RAM2500 in Europe is a truck... a legitimate truck that at 10,000lbs (4535kg) needs a C1 (small truck) Licence to drive (additional driving test, theory, medical) in Europe and the UK, and is downplated to 4495kg in Australia to avoid the same.

But the engine is also of a size that is normally associated with a performance or a luxury car (the Bentley/RR 6.75 springs to mind) for Joe Public - but is a normal size for a truck in the <7500kg bracket. Even Australia, that size has gone the way of the dodo, with only the Chrysler 300C and possibly some Mercedes having that sort of size (outside of the Ford/RAM/GM American imports).

Outside of the US, there are very places now where displacement is the king in terms of engine design, and in fact Ineos have possibly taken too long to get to market and have missed the opportunity for an ICE only product range. It'll be interesting to see how they go in the UK and Europe as they have no way of offsetting their emissions unless they sell the Grenadier as a commercial vehicle (see Suzuki with the Jimny, withdrawn from sale as a 4 seater and returned as a 2 seater commercial.... because that's outside of the fleet emissions total)

 

[nickw]

The RAM2500 in Europe is a truck... a legitimate truck that at 10,000lbs (4535kg) needs a C1 (small truck) Licence to drive (additional driving test, theory, medical) in Europe and the UK, and is downplated to 4495kg in Australia to avoid the same.

But the engine is also of a size that is normally associated with a performance or a luxury car (the Bentley/RR 6.75 springs to mind) for Joe Public - but is a normal size for a truck in the <7500kg bracket. Even Australia, that size has gone the way of the dodo, with only the Chrysler 300C and possibly some Mercedes having that sort of size (outside of the Ford/RAM/GM American imports).

Outside of the US, there are very places now where displacement is the king in terms of engine design, and in fact Ineos have possibly taken too long to get to market and have missed the opportunity for an ICE only product range. It'll be interesting to see how they go in the UK and Europe as they have no way of offsetting their emissions unless they sell the Grenadier as a commercial vehicle (see Suzuki with the Jimny, withdrawn from sale as a 4 seater and returned as a 2 seater commercial.... because that's outside of the fleet emissions total)

For sure, you are trading complexity (turbos) for displacement, it's something Toyota did/has done forever, well up until this past year with their twin turbo in the Tundar/LC. The old cruisers and frankly even the 4runners/Tacomas, for their size, were relatively high displacement, average power engines....4.0L, 4.5L, 4.7L and 5.7L. The 5.7L @ 380hp / 400 ftlbs which they just got rid of is not far off the 6.6L above....in a moderately sized SUV. Unlike the B58, the 6.6L is designed for heavy use, long term durability and relative ease of maintenance.

 

[greg.potter]

So far I have like what I have seen. I had a chance to crawl around under a prototype in Calgary last summer (?). In general I liked what I saw. I also think the midship electronics is a great idea - keeps them away from the heat of the engine bay and any water that finds its way into the engine bay.