1. 3550kg / NB1 - yes by increasing the GVM above 3500kg a vehicle is moved into the NB1 category which for INEOS has several benefits; LCT, safety and emissions relaxation. I forgot to go into this but did earlier in my interview with INEOS boss Justin ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5YPtEk6b3O8.html 2. Grenadier brochure weights - thanks to those who have found some Trialmaster weights in the UK (Belstaff edition) and German information. The figures are pretty closely aligned with my estimates. Here's hoping actual weights will be published for each engine/seat/trim combination...because we need to know BEFORE we buy the car!! 3. Yes I do know how to spell decision - l2sfbc.com/i-was-wrong-and-how-i-fixed-it/
Robert, FYI the Ineos UK brochure contains published weights for the Belstaff Editions, those being the Trialmaster (payloads of 759kg petrol and 684kg diesel) and Fieldmaster (payloads of 822kg petrol and 747kg diesel) with the rest of world GVM at 3500kg, 90% Fuel, all liquids and no driver.
Thanks, missed that when I looked at the UK brochure! INEOS PR did not mention that to me in our chats either...and it appears my calculations were pretty close assuming Trialmaster definitions are consistent throughout the world. Certainly I find tare weights vary across the world due to local regulations which dictate specific equipment, and local preferences. For example cold climates might require pre-heaters, back in the day aircon wasn't standard in Europe and so on.
Whilst i strongly disagree with much of what you say, i respect that you are entitled to your opinion and have taken the time to put together your videos. I also appreciate that you haven't done those pointless comparisons between utes/pickups such as 0 to 100kph or the number of cup holders. Keep it up!
@@L2SFBC Why do I disagree? I've owned loads of LR's, Toyotas and double cabs and have a Grenadier now, so I guess my views are valid. What do I disagree with? Split rear doors Torx bolts bring inconvenient (or was that another vid,) Using any kind of LR as a comparison, they are school run urban cruisers with 4 wheel drive. Unless I missed it, you didn't point out that while many vehicles (specifically double cabs) maybe rated at a tonne, there is no way they can safely carry that payload with factory suspension.
Fair enough we can disagree there. No, I didn't point out the suspension issue, but it's not really a problem as all you do is change the suspension and job done. You can't do that on Grenadier as the payload remains low. If there is a GVM upgrade - see my recent interviews with Justin - that'd solve that problem.
Excellent video. I just checked the German datasheet from Dec'22 and all the detailed empty weights and payload are specified for Trialmaster and Fieldmaster separately. 1) Trialmaster Diesel: empty weight (w/o driver) 2811kg, payload 689kg 2) Fieldmaster Diesel: empty weight (w/o driver) 2744kg, payload 756kg Weights included all standard options for TM/FM. So for me this is done the correct way, nothing to complain at all here!
Great so my calculations for the Australian video weren't too far off, but that assumes Australian Trialmasters are the same as German, which may not be the case.
Another amazing video, as always. I think the Grenadier increased its GVM to get rid of the luxury tax. Apparently that weight puts it in a different class.
Yes, explored that in this interview ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5YPtEk6b3O8.html and that was definitley a factor, but I think also that GVM might have been a consideration. Goes into NB1 which is different safety and emissions, GVM 3500-4500.
@@L2SFBC Thanks for another interesting video. I understand NB1 is greater than GVM 3500, so GVM had to be increased (slightly) from 3500 to get that category. I'll speculate that GVM is increased to obtain that category - particularly with the luxury car tax exemption and the different safety/emission requirements
Excellent detailed honest review, however I would suggest the Grenadier would be a close 2nd place to the Toyota Landcruiser Crab which has just completed the underwater crossing of Darwin Harbour. 😉
Another excellent explanation Robert. It is apparent many 4x4 on the highway are grossly over their GVM. All the accessories, plus fuel, plus occupants, plus camping kit is likely to be very close to, or over, the GVM limit. Hitch a trailer to the back and they are likely to have exceeded their GVM !
Thanks for an informative, balanced and fact based analysis. This is why I'm a Patreon. The trial master should be great for towing where some weight can be in camper. One question re front axle weight. Presumably, towing with a ball weight of say 220kg would reduce the weight on the front axle and alleviate the front axle issue somewhat
Thanks for your Patreon support, appreciated and yes towball mass reduces weight on the front axle. The Grenadier has lots of rear axle load to play with.
Hi Robert. Lot's of discussions on the Grenadier Forum about this video. As usual a fantastic analysis and your video's are becoming very well received and respected as a reference on vehicles and 4WDs in particular. As for payload on the different versions it becomes difficult as there are so many options and configurations, particularly on the MY23 versions. These are just some of my main options Fieldmaster, Diesel, Donny Gray, Gray & Black leather, Rough pack, heat reflective glass, interior utility belt, exterior utility belt, roo bar, side bar, chequerplate, raised air intake, side runners, front tow mounting plate, auxiliary battery, hi load electrical switch panel. If the Ineos configurator tried to work out the remaining payload smoke would start to come out. The other thing with payloads is that Ineos include 90% fuel, all fluids (including adblue), they used to include the driver but have now dropped that.
Thanks - yes, it can get too complex, but at the moment the information is too simplistic. Think of it this way - they manage to vary the price for each of those options, so why not the weight? The logic is the same, add onto a base, in the database the option details already exist, simply record the weight for each...which they know, as it's in the catalogue. There may be some small variations, but simply say "approximate" and that's a lot better than nothing. Whether the driver is included or not is up to INEOS; as long as they are clear what 'tare' means for them, then that's fine.
Also, there will be another video on Touring - I was going to cover weights in the Touring video but it became its own topic, as happens sometime. After that, I'm lining up Grenadier vs LC300 vs Y62 vs L663.
The other issue with a solid axle is the turning circle. The Quartermaster pick-up has a wheelbase of 3227 mm and a turning circle of 13.5 m kerb to kerb whereas (by way of example) the Ford Ranger has a wheelbase of 3270 mm (43 mm longer) and a turning circle of 12.9 m (600 mm shorter)
The takeout from this is that when you buy any vehicle that will be loaded up to the max with stuff, you must factor in weighbridge sessions to keep yourself legal. Most new vehicles and many used vehicles can have a GVM upgrade done which is no different for the Grenadier. Modern cars are definitely much heavier than those we had in the 60s and 70s - if I recall correctly a Kingswood was just on 1000kg, compared to my 15yo GTI at ~1340kg.
Excellent video. Don't forget the IG comes standard with steel bumpers and recovery points front and rear and two bash plates. All the cars in your comparison this still has to be deducted (except a 70 Series LC). Also consider the weight of AT Tyres can be 6 to 10kg per Tyre heavier than standard road Tyres I found, which probably explains the 30kg you were missing from the base in your calculations.
Yes, you're right - I did allude to this in the video. The 76 also has an RAI as does Trialmaster, etc etc. All comes down to knowing what you're comparing - even the definiton of 'tare' changes, let alone the 4x4 add-ons!
Great video. It's frustrating that all the risk sits with the buyer - they are the ones who get fined for being over weight and have all the headaches trying to be legal. It's just as bad with caravan tares and ATMs. You have to buy one, then you know what they weigh. One thing I was impressed with for the Grenadier is that the accessories brochure does list the weight of each item, so you can get some idea of what weight you're adding when speccing out your vehicle.
Yes, listing the weights was a great idea. Makes it odd they are reticent to provide weights for Trialmaster and Fieldmaster, and country-specific tares.
I put the Jimny on a weigh bridge today. Total weight with a full tank of fuel, me and all the gear for a day off road, 1410kg, so within GVM, but the axle split was interesting. 720kg on the front and 690kg on the rear. I don't have a bull bar. I do have a concealed winch that weighs 36kg with the mount (24.5+11.5) and a set of recovery points (8kg). This 44kg actually adds 52.8kg to the front axle weight as it is forward of the axle (+20% for the 3dr Jimnys dimensions, a 5dr will be less with the longer wheel base). I'm guessing every Jimny with a bullbar is over spec' on the front axle.
The Black sheep innovation roof rack utilises the roof grab mounting points resulting in a dynamic load of 250kg. I believe Ineos Australia said in a recent interview that they are pushing for a even more basic version of the quarter master with 1000kg payload.
I didn't see that interview. I think the only way the Quatermaster will get to 1000kg payload is if it's a single cab with no tub. Which wouldn't then be a true 1000kg payload.
@@mikefoster7085 mike they don't use the aluminium tubes as mounts, they use the mounting points as l said and piggy back a bracket off the bolt point. They say this mount can support even greater load but they give a conservative rating of 250kg
@watda011 BS use the roof as the main load point, the platform sits on the roof rails . My concern is that the rail mounts aren't rated by AI so this is a potential warranty issue. I personally think these aren't suitable for Australian conditions.
Like you say, most of the load sits on the standard roof rubber rails which support 70% of the load and the remaining 30% is anchored to the handle via 24 X M6 just to keep in place. In any case at $8030 just for the roof rack (2 platforms + extension) delivered to Australia l doubt many in Australia will be purchasing it. I certainly won't
In Australia I was told the weight of 3550kg by the INEOS delaer had to do with an ADR or tax classification (cannot remember which now). It might have been to avoid luxury car tax.
Yes, I'm also now wondering if payload was a factor. I explore the NB1 classification in this video interview with the boss ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5YPtEk6b3O8.html
Thanks for another great video Robert. You mention you could uprate the front suspension with heavier duty springs. INEOS have said, but not officially, that they have a range of different springs that they fit depending on the accessories ordered and indeed owners have confirmed there are different spring model numbers in different vehicles. Although INEOS doesn’t provide any details on this do you think it’s possible that the front axle load limits (technical, probably not type approved for legal purposes) are already better than we think due to this? Although why INEOS wouldn’t state that if that is the case, is a mystery.
The front axle limit is 1667kg and there would be a margin in that. Same way as the GVM snuck up to 3550kg. Given that many Australian cars are running around with re-rated front axles, and these axles are not snapping, I would suggest there is margin for upping the rating to at least 1750, which gives some valuable space for owners.
Hi Robert, Trialmaster diesel has 689kg payload as published in UK brochure. I had a deposit on Trialmaster and got a refund due to insufficient payload for my needs. I live in Aus and as you point out frustrating that Ineos don’t give payload specs in AU brochure for variants however If you look online at the UK brochure it does. The Trialmaster has published figures of 689kg payload. I understand you did best you could with estimating 80kg more weight in Trialmaster but it’s more like 143kg extra weight, hence I cancelled order. Thank you for you clip, excellent as always.
Thanks - vehicles specs are typically country specific so a Trialmaster in the UK may not be the same as one elsewhere. But a useful reference. My 80kg was on top of the base weight which I think is at least 30 over the published 2718.
Great break down. Many consumers here in the States never think of payloads or tow capacity. Thanks for raising awareness about payloads. What could someone who wanted to increase payload capacity, modify or change out? Ie install: beefier leaf springs, stronger shocks, wheels and tires...?
Legally, all those mods would make no difference. You'd need to a) get the GVM increased or b) reduce vehicle weight. The latter could be done by removing seats, changing batteries to lithium along with chargers, alloy wheels, pulling out some trim and soundproofing, things like that.
@L2SFBC curious to know what's involved in an uprated GVM for the Grenadier front axle? Obviously an engineer, but what components would be needed to make this so?
I had a similar issue around buying a motorhome (RV). In fact, I met a guy who had bought a brand new 4 birth Motorhome not long after only to discover his payload was 345kg. Ridiculous. In the UK they do this because there are various complexities if the MAM goes over 3500kg.
Very important video. Thank you for going the extra mile. A payload of just over 700 kg for the Grenadier is just not enough for what the car was designed to be. I really want to get away from buying another pre-2009 Defender 110, but the payload numbers of modern offroad vehicles are just 300-400 kg too low - and that's a lot of difference that is hard to bridge. Plus the Grenadier will need much more fuel than any old 4 cylinder Defender. Even fully loaded, the Puma only took 10-11 l per 100 km, while the Grenadier will actually need more payload than the old Defender, since it will need more fuel for the same distance.
Will you survive or walk away safely if the old defender had an accident? I am sure payload can be upgraded in the aftermarket like other manufacturers do. But the safety of life will surely be compromised in a old vehicle without the safety tech.
As ever, a comprehensive look at the sometimes baffling world of weight. Speed limits also come into the fore as here in the UK the Utility versions fall under different speed limits compared to the Trialmaster & Filedmaster. 50mph for single carriageway, 60mph for dual carriageway, but 70mph for motorway (as with cars). The Trial & Field masters are “cars” so can go 10mph faster on single and dual carriageways.
Maybe the maximum weight of the car, so also the payload, is not limited by technical reasons but by the legal restriction of drivers licences? I do not know about regulation in other countries but in europe/germany this is an important reason.
Interesting subject. Payload does seem to be more of an Issue in Australia for obvious reasons but anything around 700kg is quite a lot of weight....thats between 8 and 9 well built dudes! Would you really drive offroad woth 10 people in your vehicle and expect it to perform? Probably not. I do think people should focus more on being sensible on what they take on trips. I see folks taking all manner of luxury items/gadgets and gear. How much of that is really necessary? As you mentioned, more weight equals more fuel . The Grenadier is certainly more robust that most other broadly comparble vehicles so i think the ultimate load bearing capability will be quite high.
700kg doesn't go far. Consider a desert crossing of 4 days for two people. 4L water per person per day, 16kg x 2 = 32, plus emergency say 45kg. Then food. Personal bags. The two people may be 190kg. 700kg disappears very quickly, then you consider the weight of a winch, recovery gear, tools etc. If you have 3 or 4 people those numbers add up even quicker.
Hi John, thank you for this. RE axle loads, with the Suzuki Jimny JB74 i'm trying to work out if the front axle is over loaded with my new winch and concealed winch mount (East Coast Bars concealed JB74 mount). My winch and mount weigh 36kg, which if i use your Ineos calculation (37/30 = 1.2) would add 43 kg to the FA. I weigh 85kg so i'm thinking with the Jimny size and wheel base that might add 45kg to the FA. My full payload on trips is about 280kg (including me) that includes the new winch but not factored as a weight forward of the FA. Getting a bit stuck with the math from here though. Can you help? Regards from New Zealand.
I’ve also pulled the pin on my planned purchase of the Quartermaster based mostly on the poor payload. Very disappointed with many aspects of what is now actually being offered compared to the expectations that had been raised. It won’t appeal to Oz farmers, miners or tradies in any numbers and so will suffer a lack of aftermarket options including GVM upgrade, at least for some time and from what you’re saying a GVM upgrade is going to be very difficult based on the front axle rating anyhow. IMO It’s ended up far too Euro-centric and has become more of a Sir Jim vanity project. What Ineos should have done is got some Australian dual-cab engineers with experience in the target markets (miners, farmers, tradies) into the design team from the start. What a lot of people don’t understand is that not only does exceeding the vehicle GVM impact on safety and insurance but has potentially severe legal consequences. Plus until recently it was rare to see the “scalies” pulling over RVs but I see this happening more and more frequently. You are 100% correct in stating that payload should be one of the most important decision factors for a vehicle (esp dual cab) purchaser and perhaps we need a change in consumer law to ensure we can see the expected kerb weight of a vehicle prior to purchase (and also see the true ground clearance as you again rightly point out).
Agreed - for me, you work backwards - 1000kg payload is the goal, now what do we need to do to make that happen. If we need to lose the much-vaunted live axles, so be it. Otherwise, I've got a hiking backpack that weighs 8kg instead of 2....no good!
An area that I feel the Grenadier is markedly better is that the bumpers at each end are metal. I do not know of any other wagon which has this. Every other wagon, and most utes, will have at least one end with fragile plastic bumpers. Often these are not simply bumpers, but incorporate the lower panels for a substantial part of the vehicle. This means that to achieve a similar level of off road functionality on these vehicles, those fragile areas need to be upgraded. I agree, the payload on all these vehicles is disappointing. I was hoping the Grenadier would provide us with a vehicle we could simply option up and use without the huge expense of GVM and possibly GCM upgrades. BUGGER! It didn't. Maybe a review of the techniques used to fabricate the chassis, similar to the Toyota 300 series, where they reduced the overlap of folded material on the chassis, in conjunction with other changes and were able to cut 200 kg from the vehicle mass. Looking forward to the evolution of this vehicle.
Plastic bumpers are to save weight and assist in crumple zones in an impact/crash. Metal bumpers once deformed in an impact/crash, stay deformed. Metal bumpers also do greater injury to pedestrians, that's another reason they are not popular.
The GRENADIER is Brilliant just Perfect… I have two of them and I’m Impressed…. If your looking for a Good off Road 4X4 you can’t go wrong , I did originally have the New Defender 110 nothing but problems with it so Sold it .. Stay away from the New Defenders they are Crap…
Great video. Grenadier is far too heavy, and massively reduces payload. Crazy that the Quartermaster can’t even get a 1 ton capacity, so you can’t claim the VAT back. Cuts out a huge commercial market. The new Defender weighs around 2,400kg - a massive 400kg lighter than the Grenadier.
@@L2SFBCI think Ineos made two main errors. Both the modern G-Wagen and the new Land Cruiser [Prado] only have a solid rear axle with independent front suspension, and are both excellent off-road. The Grenadier should have done this too; an extra solid axle at the front cost many more kilos. Secondly they chose an agricultural supplier Carraro to manufacture the axles, who probably pay more attention to longevity and robustness than they do weight. Payload aside, if you go off-road in a Grenadier at 2,950kg with just the driver - without even any luggage, passengers or water, that is going to have a huge detrimental effect in the off-road ability compared to a 400kg lighter new Defender! And cause more soil compaction, much more likely to get bogged. Also Ineos made a blunder by not allowing the axle diff-locks to function in high-range. A lot of farming estates need axle diff-locks in muddy conditions when most of the time they aren’t in low-range. Harry Metcalfe in Harry’s Farm review of the Grenadier was unable to realise why the axle diff locks wouldn’t work in his off-road section of the test; he had the centre diff locked in high range, but of course the axle diff locks refused to engage - because he wasn’t in low-range. If an experienced road tester like Harry couldn’t figure out the axle diff-locks, then your average country estate landowner / gentleman farmer user hasn’t got a hope. Defender went with the correct strategy with self-locking centre and rear diffs.
Yes, independent front could have worked...and so could rear. Better offroad, lighter, trade a little robustness. Weight is not a huge factor offroad; in fact, sometimes more weight on an axle = better traction which more than compensates for the additional weight. It's not like circuit racing. I watched Harry's Farm review the Grenadier, and made a comment on his video that for the paddock he was driving around cross-axle lockers would have been detrimental. His 'offroad section' was just a simple hill crest, hardly a test in my view. I don't want the lockers to be automatic, I want manual control - drivers should learn how and when to operate them, but I do see Harry's point even if I disagree for my purposes and those of my followers generally.
@@L2SFBC weight is a big factor in the kind of off-roading I do in waterlogged agricultural clay fields. I’ve seen Discoveries simply sink on flat ground, with lighter old Defenders simply driving on the surface. Yes agreed the paddock ‘off-road test’ was pretty lame, especially seeing as it was supposed to be an off-road video compared to the Harry’s Garage road review on his other channel. I agree that for experts having manual axle diff-locks is preferable, but for the casual user then auto locks are probably better as they will at least be used. I’ve seen people drive 4x4s off-road and not even know how or when to lock the centre diff! Also the Grenadier strategy guarantees that the axle locks will never be used in high range, when quite a lot of off roading on the flat is done in high range.
This is interesting. The Grenadier will really suffer in North America where we use GVWR which further decreases payload to add in safety margin. Why would farmers or overlanders use a Grenadier if the local market can buy an F-150 for much less with a curb/tare weight of 2070 kg and a GVWR of 3568 kg so essentially a payload 1498 kg, BUT a rear axle capacity (RAWR) of 2409 kg, a front axle capacity (FAWR) of 1727 kg (4136 kg of gross axle capacity)! A vehicle with a tare weight that is essentially half the Max Combined Axle Capacity.
Exactly. Payload is everything for a vehicle of this nature. It's the first spec to look at. There's no point have a super-capable vehicle that costs little, super comfortable, amazingly strong...if it can't carry. Payload is the #1. Either it carries, or it's out of consideration.
Thanks for the interesting video on weights Robert . In the queue to purchase a Trialmaster and intend to tow an off road van weighing around 3.3tonne or less depending on load . It will hopefully have a tow ball weight of around 250 kg or so . With payload of around 300-500 kgs in the Grenadier mainly in the back is going to be very close to the vehicles limit it seems . A GVM upgrade may be something we should think about? Can a GVM upgrade change the front axle limit?
The good thing about 250kg TBM is that it'll take maybe 50kg+ off the front axle! There are four types of GVM upgrade, and one type re-rates the front axle - and I stress "re-rates" not "upgrade". I can tell you the players I've spoken to in the aftermarket about Grenadier are in no rush to anything for the vehicle, they're all flat out on other projects and are waiting to see if it sells and what the demand will be. So, do not buy a Grenadier on the basis there will be a GVM upgrade shortly, as you could have bought an LC300 knowing the aftermarket was competing to get an upgrade out.
Thank you for your prompt reply, and your valued advice . I am keen on the Grenadier and I think I can keep weights under their limits by limiting accessories and careful with load weights . 😊
Robert, how do engineers derive this 3550kg number? Classification of vehicle, liability issues for component failure or accidents, tyre weight limit etc aside. Is there load testing and driving until failure?
The GVM in this case I think was limited by UK law of 3500kg - they couldn't have gone any higher without re-categorising the vehicle. Once a GVM is set, all the calculations, testing, strengths, tolerances, margins would work around that. So to up it to say 3700kg would throw all that out. OEM engineers are appalled at the way Australians just take vehicle and say "yeah, you guys reckon 3300kg, we reckon 4000kg is the go" and plate it accordingly! Then the owners exceed even that limit!
Also Robert you say INEOS should have used independent suspension and I understand your line of reasoning, however most manufacturers who do that make up for reduced articulation with more advanced traction control systems and in sone cases like Land Rover, sophisticated air suspension. INEOS has tried to keep things similar. As much as you can with a modern vehicle, the Grenadier traction control is single mode and pretty basic. Do you think they would have had to ise a more sophisticated system if they went Independent
Yes brake traction control becomes more important with fully-indie, but Land Rover mastered it nearly 20 years ago with the Discovery 3, so others can get it right too. Cross-axle lockers also help, and the Grenadier has that option. The Land Rover air suspension is cross-linked to replicate a live axle, however Toyota and Nissan have developed systems such as KDSS and HBMC to replicate that effect for IFS/IRS - the Toyota KDSS and eKDSS system is explained in my interview with Toyota LC300 engineers.
To me all vehicles should automatically have all fluids including a full tank of fuel included when factoring their base weight or tare weight and that’s it. Just seems to make sense to me. It doesn’t make sense to me to include less than a full tank of fuel. That’s just odd to me. I’ve also seen some manufactures include 150lbs for an occupant in their tare weights. Makes no sense. It should be a standard across the board.
i'll correct you is 8 tons on a car license, if stated weight is 2.5 ton on vehicle your catrry capacity carry capacity or gvcm is 5.5 ton.. however even straight 6 turbo diesel you might have the capacity pull it don't mean you have the capacity to stop it
Sorry I don't get the correct? In Australia 4500kg is the limit for a car license. I'm not talking towing, as the limit for car licenses isn't set, it's whatever your car you can drive can tow. The rig weight may well exceed 4500kg though if that's what you mean?
@@L2SFBC you can drive up to a 8 ton truck on a car license however your combined mass can not exceed 8 ton if the if you weight 4500 kg in motor vehicle you 2500kg tow limit
Is the Grenadier suspension based off the live axle version of the Mercedes G Class? Interestingly that has a GVM of 3560kg. I wonder if it has similar axle load limits. IFS Ineos would have defeated the entire purpose of building the vehicle.
@@L2SFBC They were manufactured in the same car manufacturing plant in France. In addition, Ineos purchased existing solid axle suspension designs from the market. I wonder how similar the axles are in practice.
@@L2SFBC I think his comment alludes to Ineos claim the suspension was fully designed by Magna Steyr, although the axles themselves were handpicked from Italian manufacturer and are unrelated.
Is there a way to have axles re-rated locally without any changes? I can see someone easily exceeding the front limit as you said with 2 people, some bar work, a winch and some stuff on the roof
On a related topic, does anyone know how GWM can advertise a 2500 kg braked towing capacity for the Tank 300 without specifying a GCM? GVM, kerb weight and payload are given, but no GCM.
Ahh........GWM. The short answer is the Australian operation doesn't know. On behalf of a Patreon I tried and tried to get that information and they just couldn't answer. Also, at the Tank300 preview the spec sheet I was given was in Chinese and I had to use Google Translate. So my view is they don't understand the need for the information and couldn't get it even if they did. I hope things have changed since I asked some months back.
How do you spell decision Robert, at 9:43? Good review otherwise. In fact I realise that my XJ Jeep Cherokee at 1640 Kg is bloody brilliant off road, nice lazy engine - it does not have the weight (however you measure it) to bog it down.
Robert, I don't need to join any body, just post me the vid prior to release and I will proof read the text, this is not the first time that I have notified you re a spelling error, and I will even do it for free.
I'm not aware of a definitive answer to this question, from Ineos or anyone else for that matter. Based on photos of Grenadiers with steel wheels, the forged hub centre suggests a semi-floating rear axle. If my suspicions are correct that would mean it is likely to be one of Carraro's twin taper roller bearing light truck axles. These use a forged half-shaft with a dual taper roller bearing fitted from the back of the hub flange and held in place by a very large threaded nut. The Carraro light truck axles are a very strong unit given they use twin taper rollers similar to those used for most fully floating axles, but the inner race (and therefore the bearing assembly) is likely to be very hard to remove in the field even after the large nut is removed. This is the same family of axles fitted to Iveco Daily 4x4 trucks in some markets. Without any more specifics I'm not sure if the version fitted to the Grenadier (if indeed I am correct) has a weight limit for other applications that might make amenable to GVM upgrades on the Grenadier. Only time will tell, I suspect.
@@L2SFBC Unfortunately, it's only my 'best guess' based on what I can see and know of Carraro's axles on other products. Unless Ineos or Carrara (or someone who pulls a Grenadier rear axle apart) confirms my suspicions it will just have to remain a best guess for now. To be entirely accurate, the bearing/axle setup on those particular Carraro axles should really be referred to as 'three quarter' floating, since a broken half shaft will still allow the hub to carry the weight of the vehicle in the same way a broken half shaft and a fully fully floating hub does. It's the same deal, remove the broken inner piece of half shaft, then replace the hub and bearings back in the axle housing. Strictly speaking a semi floating axle requires the half shaft to be intact to maintain bearing/hub alignment.
Lots of things including materials, but budget would be an issue as would be repairability etc.Land Rover took significant weight out of the D5 for example.
I believe they were originally going to make the panels out of aluminium which would have made it easier to hit their weight target. When they changed to steel is when the weight shot up
@@L2SFBC I've seen photos of the one Ratcliffe rides and it had 33"s. I am not sure if one of the UK journalists didn't ask that in previews roughly 1 year ago.
@@L2SFBC On the German Ineos website they write 17 inches and 18 inches - unfortunately there is no information on whether you can put even larger tires on it.
On my personal vehicle I have reduced the weight over 200kg below the factory kerb weight. I did not do this with any intention to improve load carrying capacity , however it has made me think it could be possible to simply go through the process of weight reduction rather than do gvm upgrades on 4x4s. Is this a stupid concept?
No, it's not...but what would you take out? There's not much that can be done for most people. Swapping the steel rims to alloys would be a start, then you might look at removing soundproofing, changing the Trialmaster AGM batter to lithium (along with the controller/charger of course)...what else?
@@L2SFBC in a modern vehicle I guess you couldn't really remove too much stuff legally so you would have to replace components exhaust system , lithium starting battery wheels , full floating two-piece brake rotors , aluminium tailshaft decent amount of weight to be saved when removing air conditioning you could just add a standalone system and only have it in summer the benefit is you can run it without having the car running. Considering the cost of a gvm upgrade surely you could knock a decent amount of weight out of a car for the same price.
Indeed, as I said I don't think weight was a priority otherwise they wouldn't have made that door two-piece for starters! It is AWD so no need to over-build the rear diff, the front will always pull too.
This is a great vid, especially for people just getting into offroading. Im not surprised. Ineos has really pissed me off throughout the introduction of this vehicle by giving us some total BS and acting like we’re too fing dumb to figure it out. The ground clearance numbers, for example, I never bought (and you proved me right in your last vid going over it- again they never specify what they are measuring to and I knew that with 31.6 in tires there was no way that was the measurement to the diff). The articulation is not up to par for a solid front and rear veh. They wouldn’t show the underside and surprise- some low hanging fruit and lack of skids. They completely keep glossing over the fact that the rear seats dont fold flat. And now this. They keep playing games with the numbers and specs so they can keep saying it’s the ultimate offroader. Just stop it. You say you built this for offroaders- well we can figure out if what you are saying is legit or bs. And when we find out it’s bs I, for one, get pissed and lose confidence in the other stuff you say. It’s not even like these things mean I wouldnt buy it, but I need to know what I am getting so I can plan accordingly. And here’s my colonial gripe- the whole thing has a whiff of imperial elitism you know, the kind of thing one might expect from some uber rich knighted (for what exactly?) person who hired an entire entourage of vehs and people to back him up and carry all his stuff so he can say HE crossed the Gobi) that was on full display in the test drive with TFL- they knew who Tommy is, that he has experience with offroad vehs, understands them, and has driven offroad, yet continued to treat him like an absolute noob auto journalist who has no clue what the difference between a center and axle diff like is. I really liked them when they were introduced, but the more their marketing has pushed the less of a fan I have become. There’s a reason we threw their fucking tea in the Boston harbor. Don’t treat us like fing idiot subjects. Rant over.
Thanks for that comment, entertaining reading and I largely agree. Like you, soon as I saw 264mm I was sceptical given the tyre diameter and live axles...and yet again, I was right on this topic. That's now Mercedes, Ford, Nissan and Toyota who have ALL made the same mistake. I'll have to watch the TFL video, which one is it? It's interesting, normally I'm trying to explain to PR people what my questions mean not have tech staff assume I don't know! The bit I most agree with is your view of treating the buyers like adults. The people buying this car are for the most part, VERY experienced, detailed-oriented, tech-savvy and knowledgable. They are a VERY different audience to other car buyers. They are the sort of people who look at 264mm ground clearance and say "no, that can't be right" and "we need to know our weights". I'm not entirely sure INEOS really understand this market internationally. The way to win them over is, I agree, be up front because people like you will figure it out anyway. The ground clearance is a good example, they're still insisting it's 264mm when it is very clearly not. Yet here we are. Why?
I watched the TFL video. The driver clearly knew his stuff, as he asked questions like "if I engage the front locker will the rear auto-engage" - that alone was enough for me to establish cred. However, the INEOS staffer in the left seat was entirely professional and did not I think in any way patronise anyone. He's got a job to do, and as someone who has spent time demonstrating vehicles including to journalists, and instructing offroad/race/towing...you don't know what you're getting so you need to play safe. He did however say there's never any reason to engage a front locker before a reason and that's definitely wrong.
It is indeed disturbing to see just how heavy modern vehicles are getting and perhaps the 4x4 market is the most difficult. You have added drivetrain parts and an expectation that you can stand on any horizontal surface or hang a spare wheel on a random hinged panel. I do understand the enthusiasm for a separate chassis but it is not the most efficient use of materials to produce a rigid structure. Look at the weight of a Lotus Emira and compare it to the earlier Elise, the weight has doubled, such is the price of safety, emissions and comfort...
Yes, it's not carmarkers, it's regulations saying "be safer" and "use fewer emissions". I don't have a problem with that by the way. I agree that a seperate chassis is heavy, but as I said in the video, it's necessary for a ute. As for Emira vs Elise, agreed again but the Emira is also a larger vehicle. Comparing it to Evora is perhaps fairer.
@@L2SFBC thank you for the reply, your video was well presented and informative. The regulators have a tough time, dynamic loads on identical vehicles will of course vary wildly between different use types. Sadly being old and cynical I have talked myself out of a "proper" 4x4, I have enjoyed them in sever conditions in the past but in more normal conditions I have lost about 2 minutes in the last 10 years by having a front wheel drive car bellied out on snow. The Grenadier however does have great appeal...
No, Colin would have built a Grenadier that fell apart as the owner reversed into their driveaway after a trip because anything else would be over-engineered. I would suggest Gordon Murray, who also has the advantage of being alive.
Question, if manufacturers (Ineos in this case) chose to fudge the tare weight (in terms of the definition which they follow) for higher model grades, doesn't the liability remain with the manufacturer? Cheers and thank you for your time and content
I don't think it's a question of liability, as liabilty for what? I also don't think any carmaker fudges figures, it's more they fail to understand that BUYERS OF 4X4s NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE CAR CAN CARRY!!!
@@L2SFBC Agree, buyers do need to know what they can carry however if the manufacturer does not provide the correct specifications how can the buyer be liable/accountable for overloading the vehicle?
Only in Oz where you need a Phd to drive your vehicle "legally". Watch a few videos of how these vehicles are used in 3rd world countries and you will note the design margins are way in excess of the 30kg that are haggled about here.
