INEOS Grenadier

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Lot's of work here - thanks for posting this! I see one potential problem with your pricing predictions though: they are based on converting the prices in Europe and Australia to the prices in North America, and I'm not sure that is how its going to play out. I have read in a few places that - while European and Australian early "hand raisers" were protected from price increases due to global inflation - North American reservation holders will not be. If that is indeed the case, our prices could be 10-15% higher. Do you have any info on this? It would be nice if Ineos moved up the time frame for announcing pricing...

That's kinda what I was trying to get at with the Defender/Ranger/Jeep comparisons -- they are not priced consistently around the world, as the Ranger data shows, but some cars are proportionally similar (i.e. a Defender and Jeep are both proportionally priced higher/lower by the same percentage in different jurisdictions). If this was more consistent -- as in, every car in the USA was 13% cheaper than every car in Europe, and 9% cheaper than every car in Australia, it would be a more reliable measure. But, while it's really consistent for the Jeep and the Defender, the Ranger is a bit farther out in terms of proportions, which does put some holes in the methodology. It's not intended to be properly predictive; only to facilitate discussion against the idea of these things being $130k+ each before they are for sale in North America. Its feasible for the Gren to be a $70k car; it's competitors are.

Your question about honoring price is a good one. In Europe and Australia, they announced an initial price. Some time later they announced price increases. At the same time, there are three "categories" of Ineos Buyer in the mix. There's "Tire Kicker" -- nothing on the table for this buyer, they are just thinking about it. There are "Reservation Holders" -- those are folks like me that have $500 refundable down on the right to make a purchase. And there are "Contract Holders" -- these are the folks who have put a few thousand dollars down, non-refundable. The price increase that was announced only impacted "Tire Kickers" and "Reservation Holders". Ineos honoured their previously announced pricing for anyone in the "contract holder" stage. However, it's important to note that in North America, we only have Reservation Holders and Tire Kickers -- the price we all pay will be the price they first announce. If some of us sign contracts at that time, and there are additional price increases, those contract holders should be protected.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

@stickshifter that was a great write up of your experience, thank you. Some of your "did not like" elements are new to me and while perhaps not deal breakers they do give me pause for consideration. Great writeup!

 

[stickshifter]

Regarding axles - how did you know they are heavier duty than Jeep and less so than a HD truck?

FF vs SF axles is nothing new, it's a really nice option to have FF axles, but many SF axles on all the 1/2T trucks hold up fine as they do on modern LC's, I don't believe the domestic 100/200/300 series has them and the Tundra's don't either. I know the 80 series did and the 70 series still do. Outside of that you only see them on HD trucks to your point. With that said, the curb weight and GVWR on the IG is more than most 1/2T trucks and more than the 100/200's LC's and MUCH more than a jeep.

Vehicle / Curb / GVWR (approximate rounded):

Wrangler / 4500 / 5800
F150 / 5500 / 7500
LC200 / 5800 / 7300
RAM 2500 / 7000 / 10000

IG / ~5800 /~7800 (based on 2k payload)

The suspension is confusing, since if it rides well unloaded chances are when it's loaded down it's going to be all over the place. I know all the commercial / military SUV's that have a high payload are abysmal unloaded, LC70's, Gwagens (commercial spec) and all the HD trucks....crappy articulation and stiff.

To your question: how did you know they are heavier duty than Jeep and less so than a HD truck?

I say that based on the following:

(1) What Tim (from Ineos) told me at the event. He said exactly that, when I asked him to compare the Carraro axles to Dana axles. His exact words were: "they are almost one-ton axles, or Dana 60s, but not quite"

(2) There is a guy on the Grenadier Forum who has developed a close relationship with Ineos, and is now some sort of "ambassador" or something, and he said the same.

 

[nickw]

To your question: how did you know they are heavier duty than Jeep and less so than a HD truck?

I say that based on the following:

(1) What Tim (from Ineos) told me at the event. He said exactly that, when I asked him to compare the Carraro axles to Dana axles. His exact words were: "they are almost one-ton axles, or Dana 60s, but not quite"

(2) There is a guy on the Grenadier Forum who has developed a close relationship with Ineos, and is now some sort of "ambassador" or something, and he said the same.

Great info - thanks

 

[stickshifter]

@stickshifter that was a great write up of your experience, thank you. Some of your "did not like" elements are new to me and while perhaps not deal breakers they do give me pause for consideration. Great writeup!

All the "negatives" - which are just from my perspective - will probably lead me to request a refund on my deposit, but its hard to say for sure. I'm going to wait on final pricing. If they sell 'em for $50-70K I'd buy one despite the things I don't like, but as the price is more likely $70-90K, I probably won't. That's too much money (for me) for a vehicle that has a bunch of other "cons". But who knows what the price will be.

Of all the things I listed, the gear selector is the closest thing to a deal-breaker for me.

Another "con" - I just read a post from a new owner of a Grenadier in the United Kingdom, who reports that the vehicle will not drive unless your seat belt is fastened (in "off-road mode", however, you can drive without your seat belt fastened). On the one hand, the first thing I do when I get in the car is fasten my seat belt, so I sort of don't care. On the other hand, if my wife is getting chased by someone in a parking lot, I want her to be able to get in a car, and drive away - without needing to fasten her seat belt. Sure, that is an unlikely event, but I don't think I want a car that has that level of nanny control. The whole mission of the Grenadier is to be a 4x4 that minimizes such crap.

Here is that post, and you can find it on the Grenadier Forum if you are a member of that. This is a direct copy & paste:

Having had my Grenadier for a couple of days now, a few quirks have stuck their heads above the parapet.

1. In normal drive mode, (not offroad), if you try to drive off without a seatbelt on, the vehicle sulks and does not pull away.
2. The central locking will not lock remotely if the bonnet, (hood), is not properly closed. (Easily corrected by shutting the bonnet correctly. Quirk identified by Chandlers of Belton).

 

[nickw]

All the "negatives" - which are just from my perspective - will probably lead me to request a refund on my deposit, but its hard to say for sure. I'm going to wait on final pricing. If they sell 'em for $50-70K I'd buy one despite the things I don't like, but as the price is more likely $70-90K, I probably won't. That's too much money (for me) for a vehicle that has a bunch of other "cons". But who knows what the price will be.

Of all the things I listed, the gear selector is the closest thing to a deal-breaker for me.

Another "con" - I just read a post from a new owner of a Grenadier in the United Kingdom, who reports that the vehicle will not drive unless your seat belt is fastened (in "off-road mode", however, you can drive without your seat belt fastened). On the one hand, the first thing I do when I get in the car is fasten my seat belt, so I sort of don't care. On the other hand, if my wife is getting chased by someone in a parking lot, I want her to be able to get in a car, and drive away - without needing to fasten her seat belt. Sure, that is an unlikely event, but I don't think I want a car that has that level of nanny control. The whole mission of the Grenadier is to be a 4x4 that minimizes such crap.

Here is that post, and you can find it on the Grenadier Forum if you are a member of that. This is a direct copy & paste:

Having had my Grenadier for a couple of days now, a few quirks have stuck their heads above the parapet.

1. In normal drive mode, (not offroad), if you try to drive off without a seatbelt on, the vehicle sulks and does not pull away.
2. The central locking will not lock remotely if the bonnet, (hood), is not properly closed. (Easily corrected by shutting the bonnet correctly. Quirk identified by Chandlers of Belton).

Those are those stupid little annoyances - what happens if one of the sensors malfunction, stuck? Are there workarounds?

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

All the "negatives" - which are just from my perspective - will probably lead me to request a refund on my deposit, but its hard to say for sure. I'm going to wait on final pricing. If they sell 'em for $50-70K I'd buy one despite the things I don't like, but as the price is more likely $70-90K, I probably won't. That's too much money (for me) for a vehicle that has a bunch of other "cons". But who knows what the price will be.

Of all the things I listed, the gear selector is the closest thing to a deal-breaker for me.

Another "con" - I just read a post from a new owner of a Grenadier in the United Kingdom, who reports that the vehicle will not drive unless your seat belt is fastened (in "off-road mode", however, you can drive without your seat belt fastened). On the one hand, the first thing I do when I get in the car is fasten my seat belt, so I sort of don't care. On the other hand, if my wife is getting chased by someone in a parking lot, I want her to be able to get in a car, and drive away - without needing to fasten her seat belt. Sure, that is an unlikely event, but I don't think I want a car that has that level of nanny control. The whole mission of the Grenadier is to be a 4x4 that minimizes such crap.

Here is that post, and you can find it on the Grenadier Forum if you are a member of that. This is a direct copy & paste:

Having had my Grenadier for a couple of days now, a few quirks have stuck their heads above the parapet.

1. In normal drive mode, (not offroad), if you try to drive off without a seatbelt on, the vehicle sulks and does not pull away.
2. The central locking will not lock remotely if the bonnet, (hood), is not properly closed. (Easily corrected by shutting the bonnet correctly. Quirk identified by Chandlers of Belton).

My "angry" reaction is to that seatbelt Nanny-ism. That's just another thing to go wrong and, like @nickw said, I'm wondering what the work-around is. I know there are "intelligent" folks who will use belt extenders designed for pregnant ladies to "trick" their car into their belt being fastened, but I don't like that either. I almost always wear my belt, but there are plenty of times where I'm moving a car just a short distance and I would find this seatbelt thing to be mighty annoying.

Also I completely agree with you on the "annoyances" vs "value" discussion. I put up with a lot more compromises when something is cheaper than I do when it costs a fair sum.

Hopefully when that sum is announced for Ineos it hits the value-for-annoyance prospect correctly for all of us.

 

[SkiWill]

Those are those stupid little annoyances - what happens if one of the sensors malfunction, stuck? Are there workarounds?

They did say it was the spiritual successor to the Land Rover Defender after all. It's good to see that they're keeping true to their initial intent.

In all seriousness, the BMW shifter was selected because of convenience and ease of using the BMW drivetrain. They looked at making their own shifter, but it was too much work and added expense.

Also, I've been thinking about the transmission discussion a bit more as well. They used the BMW engines because gas and diesel have the same block so packaging across petrol and diesel would be easier. So if the heavier duty ZF8 fits behind the diesel, it should fit behind the petrol/gas as well and would not likely be a packaging limitation. It's clear by @stickshifter's review that the floor board on a petrol model is the same as diesel to accommodate the dpf.

My "angry" reaction is to that seatbelt Nanny-ism. That's just another thing to go wrong and, like @nickw said, I'm wondering what the work-around is. I know there are "intelligent" folks who will use belt extenders designed for pregnant ladies to "trick" their car into their belt being fastened, but I don't like that either. I almost always wear my belt, but there are plenty of times where I'm moving a car just a short distance and I would find this seatbelt thing to be mighty annoying.

Also I completely agree with you on the "annoyances" vs "value" discussion. I put up with a lot more compromises when something is cheaper than I do when it costs a fair sum.

Hopefully when that sum is announced for Ineos it hits the value-for-annoyance prospect correctly for all of us.

That's exactly where I'm at as well. Let's see how the annoyance vs. value lands for this tire kicker.

 

[Paddler Ed]

The balancing act for the safety nanny is reaching the required safety requirements for a vehicle to be used in a fleet where the requirements are 5* ANCAP (Australia) or EuroNCAP (Europe). To achieve these standards there are things like occupied seat alerts (visual and audio when seatbelt not fastened), but if an organisation requires that safety standard then there is no way around it if you want that market.

A classic example of gaming the system is the 2023 MY Land Cruiser 70 series here in Australia. It's just had a GVM increase at the factory... Great for overlanders and tourers... It now puts it over 3500,kg so into a different vehicle class and now no longer needs to worry about the side impact protection that it would have needed at under 3500kg. I think it also puts it outside the scope of ANCAP testing, so removes the 5* issue for the mine companies.

 

[nickw]

They did say it was the spiritual successor to the Land Rover Defender after all. It's good to see that they're keeping true to their initial intent.

In all seriousness, the BMW shifter was selected because of convenience and ease of using the BMW drivetrain. They looked at making their own shifter, but it was too much work and added expense.

Also, I've been thinking about the transmission discussion a bit more as well. They used the BMW engines because gas and diesel have the same block so packaging across petrol and diesel would be easier. So if the heavier duty ZF8 fits behind the diesel, it should fit behind the petrol/gas as well and would not likely be a packaging limitation. It's clear by @stickshifter's review that the floor board on a petrol model is the same as diesel to accommodate the dpf.



That's exactly where I'm at as well. Let's see how the annoyance vs. value lands for this tire kicker.

Re; trans, I think it's complicated, I'm sure they procure the engine / trans as an assembly. I'd also guess the ratios in the diesel are different than the gasser but who knows. My hunch is the series of trans 51, 76, etc. relates to not only torque input but I'd *think* some relationship to GVWR, with modifications to gear ratios depending on application. It's not like the old days where you could upgrade you 1/2T truck and swap out the TH350 and drop in a TH400, mating surfaces, ratios, control modules (engine and trans), ancillary brackets, etc. are likely all integrated together on modern rigs making it hard to mix and match.

I do know that on some transmissions they have upgraded internals depending on application, increased spline counts, upgraded parts, heavier duty components that are not visible but are included for certain applications....I'd guess that what you'd find on the HPXX transmission and may be the case for the HP51.

 

[stickshifter]

Those are those stupid little annoyances - what happens if one of the sensors malfunction, stuck? Are there workarounds?

I don't know if there is a work-around, and if there is not right now, maybe there will be a year from now after people have some time to crack the programming. I really don't know how easy it is to hack automobile software, and change something like this. A relevant comparison might be something like the Tazer for Jeep Wranglers; among other things, it allows you to permanently shut-off the auto-start-stop feature. But I'm out of my depth on this topic. Here is a link to Tazer:

Z AUTOMOTIVE TAZER JL MINI USER MANUAL Pdf Download

View and Download Z Automotive Tazer JL Mini user manual online. for Jeep Wrangler JL; Jeep Gladiator JT. Tazer JL Mini automobile accessories pdf manual download.

www.manualslib.com

 

[stickshifter]

They did say it was the spiritual successor to the Land Rover Defender after all. It's good to see that they're keeping true to their initial intent.

In all seriousness, the BMW shifter was selected because of convenience and ease of using the BMW drivetrain. They looked at making their own shifter, but it was too much work and added expense.

Also, I've been thinking about the transmission discussion a bit more as well. They used the BMW engines because gas and diesel have the same block so packaging across petrol and diesel would be easier. So if the heavier duty ZF8 fits behind the diesel, it should fit behind the petrol/gas as well and would not likely be a packaging limitation. It's clear by @stickshifter's review that the floor board on a petrol model is the same as diesel to accommodate the dpf.



That's exactly where I'm at as well. Let's see how the annoyance vs. value lands for this tire kicker.

The footwell intrusion on the right side is not to accommodate the DPF tank in the diesel, it is there to accommodate part of the engine exhaust system.

I don't think there is any debate as to why Ineos chose the BMW shifter - it was the easiest and probably cheapest thing to do. Who knows - maybe there was also pressure from BMW to keep their shifter.

I'm not convinced, however, that the only other option was to develop a shifter in-house (which would have added cost to the vehicle's development, and hence, to the final price tag). Why not use the Jeep shifter that is currently paired with similar versions of the ZF transmission in the JL Wrangler and the JT Gladiator? Of course - I have no idea what those negotiations would have looked like, nor do I know anything about how shifters pair with engines. Is the shifter just transmission-specific, or is it also engine-specific?

But my opinion on this is pretty strong: I don't think the BMW shifter is a good match for an off-road 4x4, nor do I think it matches the ethos of the Grenadier. If you haven't driven a Grenadier, and you are seriously interested in buying one, I'd suggest you test drive a BMW X5 to make sure you'd be okay with the shifter. You might love it, you might hate it - we're all different!

Note: the Jeep JL and JT have two ZF transmissions. The 3.6 Pentastar (gas) gets the 8HP50 while the 3.0 Ecodiesel get the 8HP75. So these transmissions are not identical to those found in the Grenadier (8HP51 and 8HP76). See Grenadier specs below:

 

[SkiWill]

The footwell intrusion on the right side is not to accommodate the DPF tank in the diesel, it is there to accommodate part of the engine exhaust system.

I don't think there is any debate as to why Ineos chose the BMW shifter - it was the easiest and probably cheapest thing to do. Who knows - maybe there was also pressure from BMW to keep their shifter.

I'm not convinced, however, that the only other option was to develop a shifter in-house (which would have added cost to the vehicle's development, and hence, to the final price tag). Why not use the Jeep shifter that is currently paired with similar versions of the ZF transmission in the JL Wrangler and the JT Gladiator? Of course - I have no idea what those negotiations would have looked like, nor do I know anything about how shifters pair with engines. Is the shifter just transmission-specific, or is it also engine-specific?

But my opinion on this is pretty strong: I don't think the BMW shifter is a good match for an off-road 4x4, nor do I think it matches the ethos of the Grenadier. If you haven't driven a Grenadier, and you are seriously interested in buying one, I'd suggest you test drive a BMW X5 to make sure you'd be okay with the shifter. You might love it, you might hate it - we're all different!

Note: the Jeep JL and JT have two ZF transmissions. The 3.6 Pentastar (gas) gets the 8HP50 while the 3.0 Ecodiesel get the 8HP75. So these transmissions are not identical to those found in the Grenadier (8HP51 and 8HP76). See Grenadier specs below:

DPF is the diesel particulate filter and part of the exhaust system. It is not the "AdBlue" tank for urea to inject for SCR (selective catalytic reduction for NOx). On the BMW diesel it is tucked up as close to the exhaust manifold and turbos as possible to get as much passive heat in the DPF to help with passive regeneration of the particulate filter as well as keep the smoking hot (1600 F/870 C) DPF from setting off grass fires everywhere you go where there's a bit of grass growing up in the middle of the track/trail and the particulate filter needs to regenerate. MT's editors complained about how hot it got in the cabin on a RHD diesel version sitting a few inches with some insulation away from a 1600 F hunk of steel. It would appear that LHD petrol/gas models will get the foot well intrusion but not the personal leg heater.

Not all ZF transmissions are manufactured by ZF themselves and there are a myriad of variations depending on the end use customer. Plenty are under license to be manufactured by automotive manufacturers including Stellantis for Jeep. So ZF designed the transmission and licensed it to Jeep. Jeep manufacturers the transmission and shifter at their Kokomo plant to interface with their transmission control module and engine control modules. I would be willing to bet that BMW does the same thing or has a tight contract with ZF and Ineos has stated that they are buying complete drivetrains from BMW so the engine and transmission come as a unit from BMW. Ineos would then have to design and program their own shifter to interface with BMW's controls which BMW uses across essentially all of their vehicles. While it could be done, the engineering effort would be non-trivial, and it would be expensive for a 30,000 per year production volume. That doesn't make it a good decision necessarily, that's just the reality of small volume automakers. That's why Tesla used Mercedes switchgear for the transmission shifters as well. Your point about test driving a BMW is an excellent one. I think the shifter is a really key part of the driver interface and if one would find it annoying or ill suited, that should be a good metric of whether to buy or pass.

 

[SkiWill]

The balancing act for the safety nanny is reaching the required safety requirements for a vehicle to be used in a fleet where the requirements are 5* ANCAP (Australia) or EuroNCAP (Europe). To achieve these standards there are things like occupied seat alerts (visual and audio when seatbelt not fastened), but if an organisation requires that safety standard then there is no way around it if you want that market.

A classic example of gaming the system is the 2023 MY Land Cruiser 70 series here in Australia. It's just had a GVM increase at the factory... Great for overlanders and tourers... It now puts it over 3500,kg so into a different vehicle class and now no longer needs to worry about the side impact protection that it would have needed at under 3500kg. I think it also puts it outside the scope of ANCAP testing, so removes the 5* issue for the mine companies.

This is the reality of selling a vehicle in today's market. People want the Grenadier to be a 300 TDI Land Rover Defender 110 or a Land Cruiser 70 series or whatever vehicle that is not legal to sell in any of the world's largest auto markets: China, EU, US, Japan, etc. That's just not going to happen due to the legal requirements of selling vehicles in these jurisdictions.

I don't know if there is a work-around, and if there is not right now, maybe there will be a year from now after people have some time to crack the programming. I really don't know how easy it is to hack automobile software, and change something like this. A relevant comparison might be something like the Tazer for Jeep Wranglers; among other things, it allows you to permanently shut-off the auto-start-stop feature. But I'm out of my depth on this topic. Here is a link to Tazer:

Z AUTOMOTIVE TAZER JL MINI USER MANUAL Pdf Download

View and Download Z Automotive Tazer JL Mini user manual online. for Jeep Wrangler JL; Jeep Gladiator JT. Tazer JL Mini automobile accessories pdf manual download.

www.manualslib.com

There's the GAP tool for Land Rovers as well. There will have to be something similar for the Grenadier moving forward. All vehicles now, Grenadier included, are computer controlled and will require some sort of user interface such as a Taser, GAP, etc. to adequately service, troubleshoot and repair vehicles. Those that long for the days of baling wire and duct tape can buy an FJ40 or series Land Rover. It's a reality of the modern tool kit and it's why I keep a minimum of an OBDII reader in my wife's car and a GAP tool in my Land Rover.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

I don't mind the existence of some of this stuff - like Paddler Ed said, it's been required to have some sort of automated alerts for seatbelts for a dog's age now. But, the manner in which these systems accomplish their goal matters a great deal to me.

If the vehicle is immobilized when the driver isn't buckled in, then my questions immediately go to that immobilizer - how does it work and how does it break? I'll give an example from a Jeep situation:

I've said this before but my old JK used to eat oil sensors. These sensors read how much oil pressure there was, and it was connected to a system that either went 'low pressure' or 'high pressure' depending on what the sensor said. If your engine required "high pressure", but the sensor was telling the system "low pressure" that would, I understand, be a huge problem due to oil starvation. Only it isn't a huge problem, because when the sensor breaks or that system malfunctions, the system is designed to default to "high pressure", meaning "We'd rather be in a position of burning a bit of oil when a sensor fails as opposed to having an oil starvation risk, triggering an RPM/temp limit/limp home mode". To me, that's "good design" - it takes into account the impact on the real world user when things break.

So when the grenadier's seatbelt-linked immobilization system breaks...what is that like? Is it a case of pulling a fuse or twisting together a couple of wires and we're on our way? Is it a case of "disconnect the battery and wait a few minutes for things to clear out, then reconnect and reboot"? Or is it a case of "Bring it to be inspected so a technician with BMW-proprietary software can diagnose and effect repair via flashing the ECU with an updated software suite, and in the meantime you can use a rental"?

Strikes me that most modern cars fit firmly in that third category. The Grenadier is supposed to be firmly in the first two, with even the second being a bit of a pursed-lip compromise for a lot of folks. I eagerly await more info on this and systems like it.