The Grenadier Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to contribute to the community by adding your own topics, posts, and connect with other members through your own private inbox! INEOS Agents, Dealers or Commercial vendors please use the contact us link at the bottom of the page.

Stuck at Cape York

Is anyone else surprised that Budget Direct are supposedly covering this claim? Hats off to them if they are, but I would have thought this type of mass market insurer would have run a million miles from this type of claim. I had a quick scan of their PDS and could not find a limitation like use only on public gazetted roads (maybe that track is such a road) nor any distance or cost restrictions on towing and recovery. I would have thought this claim would have been excluded due to the driver acting in a wilful or reckless manner?
 
Is anyone else surprised that Budget Direct are supposedly covering this claim? Hats off to them if they are, but I would have thought this type of mass market insurer would have run a million miles from this type of claim. I had a quick scan of their PDS and could not find a limitation like use only on public gazetted roads (maybe that track is such a road) nor any distance or cost restrictions on towing and recovery. I would have thought this claim would have been excluded due to the driver acting in a wilful or reckless manner?
Yes I am. Arthur dodged a bullet.

Lucky man, which makes the reckless video, now taken, all the more extraordinary. He gets the damage covered and then takes a dump on INEOS and opens a can of worms. Arthur has had a few sleepless night over the past week, I bet. A spectacular own goal.
 
Last edited:
Is anyone else surprised that Budget Direct are supposedly covering this claim? Hats off to them if they are, but I would have thought this type of mass market insurer would have run a million miles from this type of claim. I had a quick scan of their PDS and could not find a limitation like use only on public gazetted roads (maybe that track is such a road) nor any distance or cost restrictions on towing and recovery. I would have thought this claim would have been excluded due to the driver acting in a wilful or reckless manner?
Without hard evidence at that time, it may be a case of letting that go through to the keeper. If it was recovered from in or next to the creek, things may have been different.
 
From The Ineos Club of Vic, Statement from Ineos Australia


Statement attributed to INEOS Automotive Australia - December 3rd 2025

INEOS Automotive Australia is aware of significant misinformation circulating about an incident that affected a customer’s Grenadier vehicle during a multi-vehicle trip to Cape York, Queensland.
Recent commercial social media content has omitted key facts and has created a misleading impression.

To clarify this matter:

  • A customer attempted a water crossing that had the potential to exceed the Grenadier’s 800mm wading depth limit.

  • The vehicle’s air intake accidentally submerged during this crossing. The customer’s vehicle was the only vehicle in the convoy without a raised air intake.

  • Inspections by both INEOS’ technical team and an independent authorised dealer confirmed that water ingress ultimately resulted in engine failure.

Specifically, the assessment identified water-damaged turbocharger vanes and the presence of muddy water in the intercooler. The report shows that this water ingress ultimately resulted in a broken conrod, holed crankcase and subsequent engine failure.


  • These findings were provided to both the owner and the owner’s insurer in September 2025. The insurer accepted the owner’s claim as accidental environmental damage.
· There was no mechanical or design fault with the vehicle.

  • We have provided ongoing support to the customer, including the selection of their preferred repairer, sourcing a new engine from the INEOS global parts network and voluntarily covering the cost of urgent airfreight to minimise delays. The customer has received regular communications throughout the process.

  • All appropriate steps were taken in relation to the vehicle recovery, inspection, repair and insurance.

  • We continue to support to our customer, and our priority is to maintain their privacy and wellbeing.

INEOS stands firmly behind the Grenadier’s proven reliability, durability and capability in arduous o -road conditions. We are grateful for the strong support received from Grenadier owners and the wider 4x4 community. We are taking active steps to address the misinformation circulated by several commercial social media publishers, and we have contacted the relevant account holders.


 
Outstanding response that needs to be spread far and wide all over social media.
The pdf is posted above of the INEOS release.

Here:

 
Without hard evidence at that time, it may be a case of letting that go through to the keeper. If it was recovered from in or next to the creek, things may have been different.
On second thoughts they have a TV add suggesting they will pay out if you are stupid enough to tie so many balloons to your car to make it float down the streets of Sydney causing mayhem and damage, that’s about as stupid as crossing that river without additional intake protection then fudging the facts.
 
Just to reinforce the efforts and goodwill Ineos have demonstrated in Australia, this is from Arthur's FB page after the recovery.
1000056749.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20251204_130355_Lite.jpg
    Screenshot_20251204_130355_Lite.jpg
    245.5 KB · Views: 14
Where is Mr. John Canny? It was previously stated that he is a member of this forum. Perhaps he wants to come forward and offer up an apology for his extremely misleading video. While he is at it he should drop into all the FB Ineos groups and set the record straight.

What matters here is that he knew the truth long before he made that hit job video. There is a name for someone like that but I’m going to be a gentleman.
 
Last edited:
The happy ending/closure is nigh
 
Back
Top Bottom