Tech Specs

[stickshifter]

It totally sounds like you have a great use case for 35s - in deep snow on unplowed they can be a godsend for sure! That extra couple of inches is the difference between building a trail of Max Trax over hours or just chilling in the heated seats ? And no judgement on the aesthetics side either -- that Gren looks GREAT on 35s! And if folks go for that because that's what they like, I say more power to them. Upon re-reading my older post it came across a bit judgmentally and that's not my way so I apologize if thats how I came across!

Oh no - I didn't think you were being judgemental at all! But thanks for the sentiment. Hope I didn't sound defensive - because that wasn't how I was feeling at all. I'm sort of working through my own priorities in my next vehicle. I have not been a fan of the 3rd Gen Tacoma. To be honest, I'm not thrilled about any naturally aspirated V6 at high elevation - I live at 8,500 feet, and go up and down a lot from here. The Grenadier is the closest thing to my dream-truck that's being made, so I'm in the process of wrapping my head around "smaller" tires, and a shorter wheelbase than I'd like. I'm tempted to wait until the long-wheel base station wagon comes out (reportedly 125-inch wheel base, same as the pick-up version), but Ineos has not committed to making it, so I'm about to send them my $450...

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Oh no - I didn't think you were being judgemental at all! But thanks for the sentiment. Hope I didn't sound defensive - because that wasn't how I was feeling at all. I'm sort of working through my own priorities in my next vehicle. I have not been a fan of the 3rd Gen Tacoma. To be honest, I'm not thrilled about any naturally aspirated V6 at high elevation - I live at 8,500 feet, and go up and down a lot from here. The Grenadier is the closest thing to my dream-truck that's being made, so I'm in the process of wrapping my head around "smaller" tires, and a shorter wheelbase than I'd like. I'm tempted to wait until the long-wheel base station wagon comes out (reportedly 125-inch wheel base, same as the pick-up version), but Ineos has not committed to making it, so I'm about to send them my $450...

I'm a Canadian so my default state is apologizing ? You didn't seem defensive at all!

I hear you on the V6. I absolutely love the NA V6 in my Canyon, and it performs admirably at altitude, but that was not what I expected when I bought it as I expected it to struggle but it's a peppy little thing. I just couldn't find one with the Duramax (and I wanted the option to go to Argentina in it, and the diesel needs ULSD). The smaller motor was turbocharged, but the horsepower and torque meant it was really not a true competitor to the V6 so the trade-off on the turbo versus the NA at altitude wasn't worth it; it might be fine if the truck is just a runabout, but I run near GVM basically all the time (I've got the rear built out with drawers, fridge, a cap, tent, etc.) so I wanted the extra power. I was initially hesitant on the ideas of turbos for reliability too, but I've since learned in more recent years that Turbo technology is really good and stout these days; Fords were having some issues with them around the 100k kms mark, but that was a heat dissipation issue, and most Turbos have that licked now. Long story short, I'm glad Ineos is using a turbo, which is an evolution of my thinking from a few years ago. 

I'm right with you on the Gren - it's about as close to the "perfect" truck for me as I can find on the market. I didn't know about a long wheelbase wagon but that would be a treat, depending on how they power it.

 

[stickshifter]

I'm a Canadian so my default state is apologizing ? You didn't seem defensive at all!

I hear you on the V6. I absolutely love the NA V6 in my Canyon, and it performs admirably at altitude, but that was not what I expected when I bought it as I expected it to struggle but it's a peppy little thing. I just couldn't find one with the Duramax (and I wanted the option to go to Argentina in it, and the diesel needs ULSD). The smaller motor was turbocharged, but the horsepower and torque meant it was really not a true competitor to the V6 so the trade-off on the turbo versus the NA at altitude wasn't worth it; it might be fine if the truck is just a runabout, but I run near GVM basically all the time (I've got the rear built out with drawers, fridge, a cap, tent, etc.) so I wanted the extra power. I was initially hesitant on the ideas of turbos for reliability too, but I've since learned in more recent years that Turbo technology is really good and stout these days; Fords were having some issues with them around the 100k kms mark, but that was a heat dissipation issue, and most Turbos have that licked now. Long story short, I'm glad Ineos is using a turbo, which is an evolution of my thinking from a few years ago. 

I'm right with you on the Gren - it's about as close to the "perfect" truck for me as I can find on the market. I didn't know about a long wheelbase wagon but that would be a treat, depending on how they power it.

Yeah, I'd prefer the Chevy 6.2 V8 over any turbo-charged six, but I think you are right: Forced Induction engines have come a long way in terms of reliability. In fact, it sounds like we no longer need to let the engine idle before shut-down (news to me); the old wisdom was that idling the engine circulated oil and cooled down the turbos - extending their life.  Just found this online:  “Historically, we would provide advice on turbo cars,” said a spokeswoman from BMW “However, we no longer suggest specific tips to our customers who drive these cars.” Source: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/advice/how-look-after-your-turbocharged-car

That's great that you are loving your truck! The Canyon has better power numbers on paper than other mid-size trucks, and I've heard it drives even better than the difference in the numbers might indicate. You really have to look at the torque curve (and hp curve) to get a sense for how a vehicle drives, not just at the max output. The problem with the Tacoma, and to a lesser degree with the Gladiator, is that the power doesn't come on until you are at pretty high rpms; somewhere around a gazillion rpms for the Tacoma ? I'm hoping that the Grenadier will feel strong because the turbos bring in the power at low rpms, because I don't find the max power output all that enticing - given the weight of the Gren. I'm also keen on the Grenadier because FI engines lose very little power at elevation, whereas the 3.5 in the Tacoma and the 3.6 Pentastar get pretty winded going uphill, at elevation, under load. Its not too bad on the highway, where you can usually keep the engine in its power band, but on dirt roads I end up dropping into low range - simply to avoid being stuck in first gear in high range.  

The Gren should outperform your Canyon - both in terms of payload and low end grunt. It will definitely outperform my Tacoma!

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Totally hear you on the turbos - that idling was what was killing the Fords. People don’t just sit in their car for 10 minutes in their driveway, so the turbos apparently weren’t getting proper cooling and so “poof” they’d go. That’s great news that this is no longer a recommended practice, though I can’t see it being harmful — kinda like oil change intervals. The manufacturers quote 10k to 15k km intervals for oil changes these days…but they also don’t care about my engine as much as I do so I stick with 5k intervals. Better for the machine to change it more often than less, and I imagine I’ll likely take the same approach with my Gren’s turbos (even using a command start for 10 minutes after returning home would do the trick)

I do love my little truck — I jokingly call it my “sports truck” because it totally does drive like a little car; even the steering wheel feels like a car and not like a truck. But I also hear you on the power of some of the others — I’m used to 4x4s having a zero to 60 time of “eventually” but I certainly won’t complain if the Gren isn’t like that! If it does out perform the Canyon (and I agree with you and suspect it will) it’ll be a fantastic vehicle in general, not just a fantastic 4x4.

 

[stickshifter]

Totally hear you on the turbos - that idling was what was killing the Fords. People don’t just sit in their car for 10 minutes in their driveway, so the turbos apparently weren’t getting proper cooling and so “poof” they’d go. That’s great news that this is no longer a recommended practice, though I can’t see it being harmful — kinda like oil change intervals. The manufacturers quote 10k to 15k km intervals for oil changes these days…but they also don’t care about my engine as much as I do so I stick with 5k intervals. Better for the machine to change it more often than less, and I imagine I’ll likely take the same approach with my Gren’s turbos (even using a command start for 10 minutes after returning home would do the trick)

I do love my little truck — I jokingly call it my “sports truck” because it totally does drive like a little car; even the steering wheel feels like a car and not like a truck. But I also hear you on the power of some of the others — I’m used to 4x4s having a zero to 60 time of “eventually” but I certainly won’t complain if the Gren isn’t like that! If it does out perform the Canyon (and I agree with you and suspect it will) it’ll be a fantastic vehicle in general, not just a fantastic 4x4.

Ha ha ha! I do the same thing with oil changes, and I'll also be letting the turbos cool in my Gren! I suspect people interested in the Grenadier do not represent a random sample of the general population, but when it comes to cars, are of a certain type ?

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Ha ha ha! I do the same thing with oil changes, and I'll also be letting the turbos cool in my Gren! I suspect people interested in the Grenadier do not represent a random sample of the general population, but when it comes to cars, are of a certain type

I am loving that aspect of this — there’s a real community already springing up of like-minded folks. We shall have to figure out a Grenadier equivalent of a “Jeep wave” - perhaps raising a glass across a pub or something is more fitting!

 

[stickshifter]

EDIT to comparison table posted on page 1 of this thread: this website won't let me edit the table I posted (the post is too old to edit), and there is a mistake in the payload I posted for the Wrangler Rubicon. I posted a payload of 1320 pounds - which I knew sounded too high, but I found it on the Jeep website. The actual payload for a 4-door JL Wrangler Rubicon is 892 pounds. Sorry for the mistake! The Grenadier is supposed to have a payload in the neighborhood of 2000 pounds - more than double that of the Wrangler Rubicon.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

EDIT to comparison table posted on page 1 of this thread: this website won't let me edit the table I posted (the post is too old to edit), and there is a mistake in the payload I posted for the Wrangler Rubicon. I posted a payload of 1320 pounds - which I knew sounded too high, but I found it on the Jeep website. The actual payload for a 4-door JL Wrangler Rubicon is 892 pounds. Sorry for the mistake! The Grenadier is supposed to have a payload in the neighborhood of 2000 pounds - more than double that of the Wrangler Rubicon.

I think thats Jeep playing games -- my JK rubicon was the same, and I remember looking into the JLs but ruling them out for that reason, but then months later the website seemed to claim 1320 lbs, which I could have worked with, but I think you are correct that the 892lbs number is the accurate one. 

 

[stickshifter]

I think thats Jeep playing games -- my JK rubicon was the same, and I remember looking into the JLs but ruling them out for that reason, but then months later the website seemed to claim 1320 lbs, which I could have worked with, but I think you are correct that the 892lbs number is the accurate one. 

Yeah - Maybe they are embarrassed by the low payload, and bury the actual numbers, but posting 1320 on the Specs page for the JLU Wrangler Rubicon really lacks transparency. Folks on the JL forum were posting their sticker payloads and almost everyone had a door sticker that read 800 pounds!

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Yeah - Maybe they are embarrassed by the low payload, and bury the actual numbers, but posting 1320 on the Specs page for the JLU Wrangler Rubicon really lacks transparency. Folks on the JL forum were posting their sticker payloads and almost everyone had a door sticker that read 800 pounds!

I imagine that a bare-bones JL with ONLY the rubicon package might get up to 1320 -- MAYBE -- but good luck finding one on the lot - the addition of the nicer speaker systems, command start, seat heaters, steering wheel controls, things like carpet, etc. probably eat up a chunk of that. And I agree with you, that means it's not transparent. I have a more general bone to pick with specs of North American vehicles. What's the wading depth of a Tacoma TRD Pro? The same as a Tacoma, which is the wheel hubs, according to Toyota - a proper off-road vehicle should at least give more than 12 inches of wading depth! What is the Roof Load rating of a JL? Good luck finding that, and if you can, then really push your luck and figure out if that is static or dynamic, on road or off! How much does being off road reduce the tow capacity of my Canyon from it's 7k lbs? Apparently, it doesn't, which is BS and the reason a lot of "Utes" bend in the middle -- but the manufacturers don't feel it's necessary to share this info. They do in other markets, so they definitely have it. But I guess they don't think we need that info to make buying choices here. The only exception is Land Rover; they will tell you everything about the New Defender, as it should be. 

 

[Stu_Barnes]

EDIT to comparison table posted on page 1 of this thread: this website won't let me edit the table I posted (the post is too old to edit), and there is a mistake in the payload I posted for the Wrangler Rubicon. I posted a payload of 1320 pounds - which I knew sounded too high, but I found it on the Jeep website. The actual payload for a 4-door JL Wrangler Rubicon is 892 pounds. Sorry for the mistake! The Grenadier is supposed to have a payload in the neighborhood of 2000 pounds - more than double that of the Wrangler Rubicon.

Edited to 892.

There is a 7 day editing period for posts, "to preserve the integrity of the conversation" so I'm told.

 

[stickshifter]

Edited to 892.

There is a 7 day editing period for posts, "to preserve the integrity of the conversation" so I'm told.

I can see how that makes sense. Thanks for making the change to my earlier post!

 

[stickshifter]

I imagine that a bare-bones JL with ONLY the rubicon package might get up to 1320 -- MAYBE -- but good luck finding one on the lot - the addition of the nicer speaker systems, command start, seat heaters, steering wheel controls, things like carpet, etc. probably eat up a chunk of that. And I agree with you, that means it's not transparent.  I have a more general bone to pick with specs of North American vehicles. What's the wading depth of a Tacoma TRD Pro? The same as a Tacoma, which is the wheel hubs, according to Toyota - a proper off-road vehicle should at least give more than 12 inches of wading depth! What is the Roof Load rating of a JL? Good luck finding that, and if you can, then really push your luck and figure out if that is static or dynamic, on road or off! How much does being off road reduce the tow capacity of my Canyon from it's 7k lbs? Apparently, it doesn't, which is BS and the reason a lot of "Utes" bend in the middle -- but the manufacturers don't feel it's necessary to share this info. They do in other markets, so they definitely have it. But I guess they don't think we need that info to make buying choices here. The only exception is Land Rover; they will tell you everything about the New Defender, as it should be. 

I totally agree! There should be a stat sheet - standardized - and all manufacturers should be required to fill it (using the same methodology). In the past - when cross shopping vehicles for purchase - I have made pretty comprehensive tables comparing all the variables relevant to me (ground clearance, wading depth, etc.). Its crazy how much work it took, and how much BS you had to wade through. It seems like there are two sets of problems: (1) Manufacturers misrepresenting upper-trim models by presenting max-possible capability from the stripped down model. Case and point: Jeep posting a payload of 1320 for the Rubicon, when that is actually the payload for a stripped down Sport. (2) Inconsistent methodology for measuring the data. For example, Ram lists the ground clearance for the Power Wagon as 14.2 inches! Take one look at the vehicle and you can see that the rear differential is super low to the ground. I crawled under the truck at the dealer with a tape measure and measured about 8.5 inches from the ground to the bottom of the diff. It took years for the online car reviews to catch on to this. Even TFL was presenting the ground clearance as 14 inches in their videos (in their defense, after they caught on, they began presenting both the official figure and the distance to the diff). I don't know how Ram was defining "ground clearance" but its not how most of us define "ground clearance". This inconsistent methodology for measuring data is obviously part of a marketing strategy, but it is aggravating, and results in your challenge in discerning whether a "roof load" is static or dynamic. As an aside, I have noticed that the South African manufacturers of toppers (RSI, RDL, AluCab) are very transparent, and present both dynamic and static load ratings for their toppers. Okay... rant over ?

Screenshot from Carfax just now:

 

 

[PL1]

Something I just heard doesn't sit right -  There is no OEM Satnav but they're relying on Apple Carplay or Google Auto...
Do they still work if you don't have a cell phone signal and you only have a GPS satellite signal.  Can anyone enlighten me?
TIA.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Something I just heard doesn't sit right -  There is no OEM Satnav but they're relying on Apple Carplay or Google Auto...
Do they still work if you don't have a cell phone signal and you only have a GPS satellite signal.  Can anyone enlighten me?
TIA.

I believe Google Maps does have an offline mode. I'm not sure about Apple Maps, but I do know that Apple Car Play supports Gaia GPS which is an excellent GPS app for off-road travel (far better than any built-in mapping program) and that app does allow storing maps offline. I've used it extensively in my current rig. 

 

[stickshifter]

I believe Google Maps does have an offline mode. I'm not sure about Apple Maps, but I do know that Apple Car Play supports Gaia GPS which is an excellent GPS app for off-road travel (far better than any built-in mapping program) and that app does allow storing maps offline. I've used it extensively in my current rig. 

Off-road travel should be fine with the Grenadier set-up. Like ChasingOurTrunks said, Gaia has an offline mode, and so does OnX Offroad. But I think I have the same question as PL1: if you are driving on road, and you lose cell service (happens a lot where I live), you would be able to access Google Maps offline mode, but you would not get any live updates - as you would if the car had a built-in Nav system. So you would be able to see the map, but you would not get info on traffic or accidents. Is that a correct assessment?

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Off-road travel should be fine with the Grenadier set-up. Like ChasingOurTrunks said, Gaia has an offline mode, and so does OnX Offroad. But I think I have the same question as PL1: if you are driving on road, and you lose cell service (happens a lot where I live), you would be able to access Google Maps offline mode, but you would not get any live updates - as you would if the car had a built-in Nav system. So you would be able to see the map, but you would not get info on traffic or accidents. Is that a correct assessment?

That is correct - no cell signal means no live updates. Typically, Apple and Google both seem to "stream" data to your phone for a period of time (i.e. if you have a route that takes you 4 hours away, it likely will have the route "pre-loaded" for a period of time; anecdotally I've seen this work on my iPhone for about 20-30 minutes after losing signal before I hit the edge of the map; I was back into a signal area not long after). So, it's not like a light switch where as soon as signal drops off you are suddenly without navigation as there seems to be some buffering in my experience, and thus the mapping software does seem to compensate for momentary drops in cell signal from time to time. 

I think the cons of a built-in Nav system are far greater than the cons of relying on CarPlay/Android Auto. In my limited experience, built-in nav systems seem to be constantly out of date, and they all seem to be designed with minimal User Experience stuff in mind - for instance they often require very specific syntax (i.e. "1234 50th Ave" gets you to a totally different city than "1234 50th Ave E.", even if there is no 50th Ave W. in the city I'm in!). I also know of quite a few that would require you to put in the name of the city, the zip code, etc. before getting to the address; if I'm nipping across town to an unfamiliar store, why do I need to tell the machine that my intended destination is in the same city using 4-5 clunky menus? An aftermarket standalone device, like the Garmin Nuvi, suffer from this somewhat, but they seem to do a much better job all around than the built ins, but they pale in comparison to my phone in terms of everyday usability.

Of course, it's also always a good idea to have a reliable road atlas on hand - no matter the tech, sometimes it breaks!

 

[PL1]

@stickshifter  I hear you - the interface for most Satnav systems is pre-2000's.  Accuracy has improved but not entering addresses, and getting a list that meets a search criteria isn't a lot of use.  It's a perfect ML (Machine Learning) app because so much of what I enter is repetitive.  I guess to go "off the grid" means getting a 3rd party GPS tracker & screen.  

 

[Paachi]

I can second that validation in Google Maps. Quite often I ride on my motorcycle on remote back roads and have been been doing it much before I started using Gaia. There are a couple of options

1. You can download all the maps you need offline in Google Maps so that it will work even if you dont have a cell signal. You won’t get traffic data and if you aren’t already on a preset route you won’t be able to start a turn by turn navigation without cell signal but you can see and read maps
2. If you have preset a route and then lose cell signal then Google Maps will continue to give you turn by turn navigation but no traffic estimation. 

 

[PL1]

Thanks for the info...  I guess traffic info & road works are not so important when you get out to "where the sidewalk ends."  
That's a title of a kids book by Maurice Sendak. 

I used that a lot with my kids whenever things got sketchy, or we weren't quite lost but we didn't know exactly where we were.   ?