RE: INEOS Grenadier prototype | PH Review

[shalmaneser]

jeremy996 said:

AngryPartsBloke said:

People like you who keep saying this are living on another planet. It is a complete fantasy, none of these organisations will touch it. It has absolutely zero hope of seeing service with any Military. G wagons that are used by Militaries are the W641 variant introduced in the 90s FFS.

BMW engines in the INEOS have absolutely horrific reliability.

The British Army might use it as "white fleet", but I cannot see it getting shot at; we have big heavy armoured stuff now!

To get on white fleet, it will need to be cheap to lease; Ineos has the financial muscle to tip the scales, if they want to. Long term, it will ultimately depend on the lifetime cost of ownership.

As for the specific BMW engines being unreliable, that does not seem to be the warranty company experience, (unless someone is burying data). Toyota have put the petrol engine in the new Supra and you would imagine they would do their due diligence.

There are actually some interesting articles about the issues this hookup caused, with the petrol engines having to go through increased development to hit Toyota's requirements.

However the diesel engine which won't have benefitted from Toyota's additional reliability engineering (and will presumably be be the majority of sales?) has experienced some major issues in the UK police fleet I believe.

[MC Bodge]

dunnoreally said:

Twin turbo BMW six seems a strange old choice of engine. As I understamd, this is emphatically not a luxury sports saloon, or a Toyota Supra. I'd have thought it would want an NA four banger making no more than 150 bhp that can generally be fixed with a hammer and some duct tape.

I did wonder why they had picked such complex powerful engines.

I suppose that modern regs require complexity.

[soxboy]

shalmaneser said:

There are actually some interesting articles about the issues this hookup caused, with the petrol engines having to go through increased development to hit Toyota's requirements.

However the diesel engine which won't have benefitted from Toyota's additional reliability engineering (and will presumably be be the majority of sales?) has experienced some major issues in the UK police fleet I believe.

Listening to a podcast the other day, the diesel engine issues seem to be oil circulation/ starvation due to the way the police use them, i.e. idle for long periods then caned. I can’t see this happening on a Grenadier.

I saw a Grenadier at the Late Brake Show Live in Manchester, it looked very good in the metal. I am just a bit sceptical as to how the projected sales volumes are to be attained when it doesn’t immediately appear to offer anything to sway potential customers away from their existing vehicles.

If most of the market is going to be commercial operators then these are effectively work tools. It’s got to have a good reason to make people look to switch from what they know and what already does a perfectly good job.

[RacerMike]

jeremy996 said:

RacerMike said:

The Grenadier is as complex as a current Defender and has zero dealers capable of fault rectification currently.

INEOS say it has less than half of the processors used by the current Defender. The electric lockers are simple on/off, there are much less driver assistance aids, they have tried to confine the complex electronics to the engine, transmission and dash display. It is a modern vehicle, so large amounts of electronics are compulsory, but they have not added everything because it is available. I am assured they have thought long and hard about fault tracing and rectification in the field. Only time will tell; I do not have a problem with electronics, so long as it is not compromised by poor detail design and cost cutting.

The electronic service manual is being developed for general release and to used by agri dealers/mechanics. My local dealer will be Chandlers Farm Equipment Ltd in Belton, who are very bullish about the whole thing. My local agricultural engineer is very keen to see the vehicle and the manual.

It's a very noble desire, but unfortunately fairly baseless since all of the claims of 'simpler electronics' are playing on peoples (understandable) naivety. Just to take that one example of the locking diffs....

'simple on/off', I assume has you thinking of a two pole switch a couple of wires to 'the diff' which then makes it lock or unlock? The reality is, that two pole switch won't be a two pole switch. It'll be a CAN enabled switch with a signal and earth in it's most basic form. Or (more likely) it'll be connected to a body control module that does that job for it. The switch will have a microprocessor in it which sends the signal 'Pr_Diff_Lockrequest_Status' or something similar. This signal is then broadcast on CAN as a 1 or a 0 and interpreted as pressed or not pressed. That signal will then be interpreted by subscribed to by a number of modules. Most likely the Gateway, the Trans Control Module and the PCM. When you press the 'simple on/off' switch, the Gateway module will recognise this and send a request to the front diff control module (which may indeed be a 'simple' actuator control module that tells the solenoid to drive the locking pin into the diff). The control module will then attempt to lock it, and if it sees a voltage in the solenoid that corresponds with a successful locking event, will probably send the signal back on a CAN signal that will probably be something like 'Pr_Diff_LockAct_Status'. Meanwhile, the instrument pack will be looking for this, and will then display the message 'Front Diff Lock Engaged'.

So......in all of that 'simple' system, you can see there's a lot of possible error states. The switch itself could break, which means that you need a new switch pack. Winding the wires together won't work as it's not a simple make or break connection. It needs to see the signal on CAN. You could also have the situation that the diff (now old and full of old oil after 20,000 hard desert miles) fails to engage properly. So now the solenoid may have a go again but it may still not get the desired result. So despite your 'simple' button press, your diff lock won't engage. So you'll get a 'Front Diff Lock Unavailable' message. Plug in your 'to hand' DTC reader and you'll get a nice DTC probably saying 'Front Diff Lock Actuator - Voltage too high/low'. So obviously you'll know exactly how to fix that in the middle of a field right? And have the right parts?

I know this is a long and overly detailed answer....but that was intentional to show just how complex any modern car is. 'But surely they'll just do away with the CAN stuff....it can just directly connect to the solenoid'. Well....no it can't anymore, because the car has to pass legal requirements that define it's response in emergency situations on the road (where it will mostly be driven). So for the ABS, Transmission or Powertrain to not know that the diff is locked (or indeed which one is locked) is simply not acceptable/compatible with the regulations since it has a significant effect on the cars stability on road.

And as for the toasters.....the analogy was reversed. My point was that whilst a car might look simple and purport to be 'mechanical', these days it really isn't unless you're in the un type approved Caterham/Aerial Atom end of the spectrum. Which the Grenadier most certainly isn't.

The ECU statement compared to a Defender may be true. But that's probably being generous and comparing to a high spec 110 with a powered pano roof, rear seat entertainment, 4 zone climate, remote start, wifi etc. You could add up probably 30 ECUs for optional functions alone....none of these actually bear any relationship to how the car drives, or it's reliability as a car.

Edited by RacerMike on Wednesday 23 February 14:30

[ChocolateFrog]

When it was first mooted I scoffed at a rose tinted pastiche.

Having seen a few initial reviews I've actually warmed to it. Quite like the industrial style buttons and switches.

I've no need for 3 locking diffs or grab rails on the roof but I can see the appeal.

If they can price it reasonably keenly then it has no rivals.

[JWH]

silvermog said:

leef44 said:

But the Grenadier has a latest technology BMW engine. Surely you will need BMW diagnostic equipment to evaluate error codes and it will take more than a spanner and screw driver to fix. Or are we saying this is common for "network in the bush"?

Yes, those "tractor/farm supply" dealers will need new diagnostic equipment, not much of an issue to most tractor dealers (seen how much tech is in a modern John Deere?), but some will definitely need to up-skill on the engine tech, but the rest of the truck is pretty approachable.

I'd be much more worried by the engine reliability, given that diesel will be the preferred option and I believe these are using the BMW B57 diesel and b58 petrol lumps … the B57 particularly is going thru some horrendous reliability issues, related to oiling and maintenance currently. Common sourcing/fitments on UK police fleets until recently they're now causing all sorts of issues, even though the usage is inevitably different, they are both heavy duty cycle deployments, hence I'd want some assurances Ineos have done some extra due-diligence.

No, the issue that the police are having are with N57 engines, essentially the last of the F series cars. Not this engine which is the following generation.
(As an aside I’m continually frustrated by folks posting inaccurate statements on this forum and presenting it as fact.)

Edited by JWH on Wednesday 23 February 14:52

[2xChevrons]

MC Bodge said:

I'd never heard of these.

I wonder what their design cues were?

It's a 'modernised' version of the Santana PS-10, which in turn was a modernised version of the 'Series IV' Land Rovers that Santana had developed under the terms of its license with Land Rover/Leyland, which were lightly-updated Series IIIs but with Santana drivetrains, suspension upgrades and interiors. The PS-10 still sat on the 109-inch LWB Series wheelbase chassis and all-round leaf springs but they were parabolics. It had a 2.8-litre Iveco engine, a Santana LT85 gearbox and a Santana selectable 4WD transfer box.

Under a marketing and supply deal with Iveco (Fiat), the Massif was a restyled PS-10 (on 109- or a new 96-inch wheelbase chassis) with a 3.0-litre Iveco engine, a 6-speed ZF gearbox and all-round disc brakes.

As noted, it was a complete failure on the global market despite the PS-10 selling reasonably well in the markets that Santana targeted and having the clout of Fiat behind it.

[ChocolateFrog]

Chris944_S2 said:

I don’t know if others on PH read/follow car mags and forums from other countries.
I’ve barely seen any media coverage outside of UK-centric press like PH.

Regardless of how good this may end up being, without any marketing it won’t sell. Is the UK alone a big enough market to sustain it?

It reminds me of the Iveco Massif, which despite also having military applications and having the whole iveco/Fiat network for distribution, ended up being a complete flop.

The Fast Lane Car YouTube channel did a walkaround review recently. It's quite good and made me warm to the car somewhat.

https://youtu.be/Xn01mCjAoLg

[Gareth9702]

Newarch said:

Gareth9702 said:

I write the same comment whenever I read a review of the Grenadier by a journalist who cannot see beyond his own school run. There are many places in the world - including Australia - where a vehicle like this is really needed. Ineos have been very astute in creating a plan for a servicing network in the bush- so overcoming one of Toyota's advantages. The relative simplicity of the mechanicals are a major advantage here. For many it will be a choice at the price suggested between an old Lancdcruiser or a new Grenadier. If it gets a foothold in the market, and everything suggests it will, it will become a best-seller. The Defender is in demand for urban style but is seen as to fragile and unreliable for serious use.

Have you ever been to Australia? Most Aussies live in places very similar to this.



For those that don't the main advantage the old model Land Cruiser has is that it is basic, reliable, easy to fix and parts are easily available. The Grenadier is no less hi tech than the new Defender.

I live in Australia. Sure, it is the most urbanised country there is, but thousands of us tour the outback regularly, and many thousands more work out there.

[Gareth9702]

Bill said:

Er, the Hilux seems to have a half-decent reputation...

It is a best-seller in Australia but there is also a highly publicised class action lawsuit in progress because of failure due to DPF filters in HiLux, Prado, and Fortuner. So a mixed reputation, not a bullet-proof one.

[RacerMike]

Gareth9702 said:

Bill said:

Er, the Hilux seems to have a half-decent reputation...

It is a best-seller in Australia but there is also a highly publicised class action lawsuit in progress because of failure due to DPF filters in HiLux, Prado, and Fortuner. So a mixed reputation, not a bullet-proof one.

That's not going to be any different with the Grenadier....

[oilit]

Why so many switches (and that does not mean i want a f****** screen) but it has more switches than the space shuttle doesn't it?

[ruairi50]

Just after reading this Thread and by God ye Brits come across as a bunch of SAD, JEALOUS People
The complete HATRED of the brand because it isnt BRITISH BUILT. Finding Fault with everything from
the design, the electronics, the switches, the engines, the way it will handle and hoping its a FAILURE
Before it has even launched is gobsmacking. Get over yourselves to fk
And from me, I wish INEOS well and hope it sells like hot cakes
Thank you

[Nick Pappagiorgio]

Unless I've missed it, are there any plans for a 2-door (SWB "90") model?

With the SWB Shogun getting canned, and new Defender having fewer doors if you want, that must be on the cards?

[ChocolateFrog]

oilit said:

Why so many switches (and that does not mean i want a f****** screen) but it has more switches than the space shuttle doesn't it?

Appealing to the target demographic maybe?

One whole panel is pre-wired for aftermarket accessories. The rest is probably a result of not having all the functions of a modern car run through a touchscreen.

[loudlashadjuster]

RacerMike said:

CAN bus stuff

Very few people understand the inordinate complexity in most modern systems, cars absolutely included.

In fact, with general disinterest in science/tech and active attempts to discredit or misinform in so many areas ("we've had enough of experts!") it's getting scarily close to a 'The Machine Stops' kinda situation. Always looking for simple answers to complex problems.

Anyway, back to the car...

[Angelo1985]

Max_Torque said:

Ivan stewart said:

At least it keeps its wheels on the ground most of the time, unlike the new pretender .

oh.

As i repeatedly explained on many a previous Grenadier thread, you can't setup a passively sprung off roader to have decent articulation in 2022, even with those mythical beam axles because in 2022 people simply won't put up with a car that rolls around the road like a drunken sailor at just 25 mph. In fact, to even pass the necessary "moose" tests, your vehicle has to have significant cross axle stiffness to stop it falling over!

Landrover get around this issue by using active systems (air springs, electric ARB's etc) and Jeep use electronically disconnectable ARB's to get the similar effect. But a passive (ie wire sprung, fixed ARB) off roader cannot today have what i would call "high" cross axle capability.

Any dual purpose vehicle, ie a 4x4 is realstically not actually speding that much time doing extreme off road, in most of the world, dirt and gravel roads are the major use case, btu even in the farest flung hell-holes in the world, there is a lot of tarmac these days.

Back in the day, vehicles with genuinely long travel suspension had very soft springs and no ARBs at all, and they could indeed "keep their wheels on the floor" but unfortunately, that mean't they went round corners like this:



;-)

Edited by Max_Torque on Wednesday 23 February 12:50

THIS. nothing more to add.

except that maybe, people thinking this is going to be as "mechanically simple" as an old defender are living on a planet called Delusion.

honestly, in 2022 do you actually expect a car to be built with the same standards as an old defender? It's not like the old defender was a super-reliable car! in fact it was, dynamically and from a reliability point of view, a piece of s##t. relatively simple to fix maybe, but definitely not reliable.

it's not the electronics that make a car unreliable: it's the engineering and build quality. If the electrical components are well engineered and built, they will last.

[Angelo1985]

Chris944_S2 said:

I don’t know if others on PH read/follow car mags and forums from other countries.
I’ve barely seen any media coverage outside of UK-centric press like PH.

Regardless of how good this may end up being, without any marketing it won’t sell. Is the UK alone a big enough market to sustain it?

It reminds me of the Iveco Massif, which despite also having military applications and having the whole iveco/Fiat network for distribution, ended up being a complete flop.

agree. there were also issues with the massif/campagnola (aka the civilian hard toop version): Iveco/Fiat weren't keen on giving a car to the press for a proper, indipendent test. apparently the ride was the same of a car from the '70s. much like the original defender, but at least everybody was kinda honest in saying "I like it because it has character"

[Maccmike8]

If he'd put his money where his mouth id and built it in the UK Id wish it all the best in sales.

[jeremy996]

RacerMike said:

It's a very noble desire, but unfortunately fairly baseless since all of the claims of 'simpler electronics' are playing on peoples (understandable) naivety. Just to take that one example of the locking diffs....

'simple on/off', I assume has you thinking of a two pole switch a couple of wires to 'the diff' which then makes it lock or unlock? The reality is, that two pole switch won't be a two pole switch. It'll be a CAN enabled switch with a signal and earth in it's most basic form. Or (more likely) it'll be connected to a body control module that does that job for it. The switch will have a microprocessor in it which sends the signal 'Pr_Diff_Lockrequest_Status' or something similar. This signal is then broadcast on CAN as a 1 or a 0 and interpreted as pressed or not pressed. That signal will then be interpreted by subscribed to by a number of modules. Most likely the Gateway, the Trans Control Module and the PCM. When you press the 'simple on/off' switch, the Gateway module will recognise this and send a request to the front diff control module (which may indeed be a 'simple' actuator control module that tells the solenoid to drive the locking pin into the diff). The control module will then attempt to lock it, and if it sees a voltage in the solenoid that corresponds with a successful locking event, will probably send the signal back on a CAN signal that will probably be something like 'Pr_Diff_LockAct_Status'. Meanwhile, the instrument pack will be looking for this, and will then display the message 'Front Diff Lock Engaged'.

So......in all of that 'simple' system, you can see there's a lot of possible error states. The switch itself could break, which means that you need a new switch pack. Winding the wires together won't work as it's not a simple make or break connection. It needs to see the signal on CAN. You could also have the situation that the diff (now old and full of old oil after 20,000 hard desert miles) fails to engage properly. So now the solenoid may have a go again but it may still not get the desired result. So despite your 'simple' button press, your diff lock won't engage. So you'll get a 'Front Diff Lock Unavailable' message. Plug in your 'to hand' DTC reader and you'll get a nice DTC probably saying 'Front Diff Lock Actuator - Voltage too high/low'. So obviously you'll know exactly how to fix that in the middle of a field right? And have the right parts?

Edited by RacerMike on Wednesday 23 February 14:30

Thank you, understood and not a surprise, (background in computer systems).

INEOS say that they are trying to manage the fail states so they don't necessarily "brick" the vehicle. The "Off-Road" button in the roof turns a lot of systems off, (like the DRLs and the on-road ABS), so there should be a default running state when some systems are offline.

In an Australian video one commentator asked whether they had to have AdBlue in the diesel for it to work; there was a hint that some controls could be overridden in an emergency. (I suspect that is really dodgy from a compliance point of view!)

If INEOS can just concentrate on making it dependable and not bricked by a random failed sensor with no default map to fall back on, then it would be a big help. A published service and maintenance manual is a step in the right direction, giving a clue to a potential showstopper; a cam or crank sensor is not too expensive, but a modern ICE won't run without one.

There have been mutterings about tools and spares packages for the more fanatical owners.