Trialmaster delete

[Red pepper]

[QUOTE username=paulN186 userid=8631746 postid=1332756806]Do we have it confirmed that the IG is using this box in the petrol version? [/QUOTE]

Yes, 
 

 

[paulN186]

[QUOTE username=Red pepper userid=8373838 postid=1332756950]

Yes, 
 [/QUOTE]

 

[paulN186]

Damn! Not ideal eh!

 

[ADVAW8S]

Look at that torque curve on both engines.  You are pulling 450nm from 1750 to 4000.  That is a smooth curve.  

 

[DaveB]

For those who are saying that they are using this gearbox to save money etc I can only say
Recaro seats
Brembo brakes
Tremec transfer case
BMW engine

I can think of a lot of ways they could save money before they start cheating on the gearbox 

 

[RoadBuilder]

The first three gears in the 8HP51 are lower versus the 8HP76: 5.25 vs 5.0 for 1st gear; 3.36 vs 3.2 for 2nd gear; and 2.17 vs 2.14 for 3rd gear. Perhaps they chose the 8HP51 in order to improve the acceleration of the petrol version, since it generates less torque than the diesel.

 

[Paachi]

I think @RoadBuilder s point of view around gearing makes most sense to me. In the end i think it might have been a toss up of 2 different but fully assembled transmissions vs modding the same 8HP76 transmission with two different set of gears. 
My gripe is..penny pinching or logistics efficiency or something else.. it doesn’t make sense to put in a Core component with only 11% headroom in a vehicle that’s otherwise overbuilt with quality components focusing on long term reliability. Again making it operate at the higher end of its operating range rather than at the median

 

[paulN186]

[QUOTE username=DaveB userid=8923052 postid=1332758274]For those who are saying that they are using this gearbox to save money etc I can only say
Recaro seats
Brembo brakes
Tremec transfer case
BMW engine

I can think of a lot of ways they could save money before they start cheating on the gearbox [/QUOTE]

agree they must have their reasons! Imagine the boxes would cost similar anyways!?

 

[stickshifter]

[QUOTE username=DaveB userid=8923052 postid=1332758274]For those who are saying that they are using this gearbox to save money etc I can only say
Recaro seats
Brembo brakes
Tremec transfer case
BMW engine

I can think of a lot of ways they could save money before they start cheating on the gearbox [/QUOTE]

RoadBuilder 42 minutes ago The first three gears in the 8HP51 are lower versus the 8HP76: 5.25 vs 5.0 for 1st gear; 3.36 vs 3.2 for 2nd gear; and 2.17 vs 2.14 for 3rd gear. Perhaps they chose the 8HP51 in order to improve the acceleration of the petrol version, since it generates less torque than the diesel.

I agree with DaveB - it sure doesn't seem like Ineos is penny-pinching, so RoadBuilder might have the answer. But I also agree with Paachi - I'd like a little more headroom than 11% (the B58 in the Grenadier makes 332 lb-ft of torque, while the 8HP51 has a max torque rating of 369 lb-ft).

8HP51 (Gen 3) Gear Ratios:

• 1st gear 5.252nd gear 3.363rd gear 2.174th gear 1.725th gear 1.326th gear 1.007th gear 0.828th gear 0.64Reverse 3.71

I know that this is getting really picky, but I don't need two overdrive gears in this truck. I'd rather have a really low first, and then some even spacing up to 1.00 in 7th gear, and then an overdrive in 8th. Okay - that is being really picky ?

 

[stickshifter]

The standard output from the B58 is 335 HP and 369 lb-ft of torque (500Nm). I would be thrilled with these power numbers in the Grenadier.

Ineos 'detuned' the B58 to produce 281 HP and 332 lb-ft of torque (452Nm), and then paired the engine with the 8HP51, which has a max torque rating of 369 lb-ft (500Nm).

This sounds a little crazy, but did Ineos 'detune' the B58 in order to use the 8HP51? I can't see how that would make sense, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the decision to 'detune' the engine. Sure, you might argue it is for longevity, but the B58 in stock form seems really robust.

I'd really like to see the Grenadier come with a standard output B58, and the 8HP70 (or the 75 or the 76 - whichever of these three would be most appropriate).

 

[DaveB]

[QUOTE username=stickshifter userid=8617054 postid=1332759123]

RoadBuilder 42 minutes ago The first three gears in the 8HP51 are lower versus the 8HP76: 5.25 vs 5.0 for 1st gear; 3.36 vs 3.2 for 2nd gear; and 2.17 vs 2.14 for 3rd gear. Perhaps they chose the 8HP51 in order to improve the acceleration of the petrol version, since it generates less torque than the diesel.

I agree with DaveB - it sure doesn't seem like Ineos is penny-pinching, so RoadBuilder might have the answer. But I also agree with Paachi - I'd like a little more headroom than 11% (the B58 in the Grenadier makes 332 lb-ft of torque, while the 8HP51 has a max torque rating of 369 lb-ft).

8HP51 (Gen 3) Gear Ratios:

• 1st gear 5.252nd gear 3.363rd gear 2.174th gear 1.725th gear 1.326th gear 1.007th gear 0.828th gear 0.64Reverse 3.71

I know that this is getting really picky, but I don't need two overdrive gears in this truck. I'd rather have a really low first, and then some even spacing up to 1.00 in 7th gear, and then an overdrive in 8th. Okay - that is being really picky ?[/QUOTE]
Make use of low range, you can drive on road in low without the centre diff locked up to 80kmh or 50 mph
That gives you a 2.5:1 turn down ratio
The acceleration is fantastic

 

[RoadBuilder]

Heat is typically the killer of an automatic transmission. 20 minutes on a racetrack (or towing a trailer up a mountain) using stock power output is often far more damaging to a transmission than a 10-20 second burnout from an overly boosted street racer due to the buildup of heat. It is not uncommon for tuners to take the Supra (B58 and 8HP51) up to 600-700 horsepower and 550+ ft-lbs of torque yet never blow the transmission. That is because they are used in short bursts and don’t buildup the heat. The internal components are strong. When they do fail, it is usually the torque converter that goes first.

The transmission cooler on the Grenadier visually appears to be larger and more robust than that on the Supra (no empirical evidence, just a visual observation from pictures), which should enhance cooling. Also, a magazine article indicated that, for the Grenadier, they are using a new “heavy duty torque converter” (https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/2023-ineos-grenadier-price-and-specs). These are both good signs for the durability of the transmission.

 

[stickshifter]

[QUOTE username=RoadBuilder userid=8631835 postid=1332760874]Heat is typically the killer of an automatic transmission. 20 minutes on a racetrack (or towing a trailer up a mountain) using stock power output is often far more damaging to a transmission than a 10-20 second burnout from an overly boosted street racer due to the buildup of heat. It is not uncommon for tuners to take the Supra (B58 and 8HP51) up to 600-700 horsepower and 550+ ft-lbs of torque yet never blow the transmission. That is because they are used in short bursts and don’t buildup the heat. The internal components are strong. When they do fail, it is usually the torque converter that goes first.

The transmission cooler on the Grenadier visually appears to be larger and more robust than that on the Supra (no empirical evidence, just a visual observation from pictures), which should enhance cooling. Also, a magazine article indicated that, for the Grenadier, they are using a new “heavy duty torque converter” (https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/2023-ineos-grenadier-price-and-specs). These are both good signs for the durability of the transmission.[/QUOTE]

Some of those Supra guys are also building up the 8HP51 - the full kits run around $6,000 and then the transmission can handle 1000 lb-ft of torque. But you are correct - a lot of folk are tuning the Supra without blowing their stock 8HP51.

 

[stickshifter]

[QUOTE username=DaveB userid=8923052 postid=1332760834]
Make use of low range, you can drive on road in low without the centre diff locked up to 80kmh or 50 mph
That gives you a 2.5:1 turn down ratio
The acceleration is fantastic[/QUOTE]

yeah, that is an advantage of 2.5:1 low range. But I prefer the 4:1 in the Jeep Rubicon for the control it provides on steep and technical terrain - both going up and coming down (I prefer engine braking and low gears on steep descents, not computer controlled crawl control or hill descent).

 

[DaveB]

[QUOTE username=stickshifter userid=8617054 postid=1332761112]

yeah, that is an advantage of 2.5:1 low range. But I prefer the 4:1 in the Jeep Rubicon for the control it provides on steep and technical terrain - both going up and coming down (I prefer engine braking and low gears on steep descents, not computer controlled crawl control or hill descent).[/QUOTE]
Sorry I thought you were driving on the road not rock crawling. 
Shame you guys won't be getting the diesel then, Plenty if engine breaking there. 
I don't think the Grenadier was ever designed for true rock crawling, it would need a lift kit and larger tyres as a minimum. 

 

[stickshifter]

[QUOTE username=DaveB userid=8923052 postid=1332761257]
Sorry I thought you were driving on the road not rock crawling. 
Shame you guys won't be getting the diesel then, Plenty if engine breaking there. 
I don't think the Grenadier was ever designed for true rock crawling, it would need a lift kit and larger tyres as a minimum. [/QUOTE]

Ahh, I did switch up on you - sorry! A granny-gear is great for that quick use of a low gear, and it gives you a super low crawling gear when in 4-low. My current truck has such poor torque at low rpm, and it’s not geared low enough to compensate. You need to be in 4-low to get any power on steep inclines. Problem is, I can’t always be in 4-wheel drive in those situations (steep winding tarmac, with hairpin turns). I’m really not in the right truck, but I wanted a manual and there were very few options. The Grenadier will solve most of my problems: good torque at low rpm, low range available in its default ‘all-wheel drive’ mode, a manual transfer case (unlike the dial I have - my first dial - and it sucks). 
I know the G is not intended to be a rock crawler, but with really low gearing you can tackle some tough trails with confidence and with minimal concern about vehicle damage. The G is heavy, and I think it needs a stout crawl ratio to control speed on descents. An 80:1 crawl ratio is money. I could get out of my manual trans Jeep and walk next to it when it crawled in low; if it came up against a n obstacle it couldn’t climb it didn’t stall, it just sat there pushing. Super cool. Touching the brakes in a heavy rig on a steep descent is no bueno. But I’m rambling.

thanks for your comments - always helpful!

 

[DaveB]

[QUOTE username=stickshifter userid=8617054 postid=1332761473]

Ahh, I did switch up on you - sorry! A granny-gear is great for that quick use of a low gear, and it gives you a super low crawling gear when in 4-low. My current truck has such poor torque at low rpm, and it’s not geared low enough to compensate. You need to be in 4-low to get any power on steep inclines. Problem is, I can’t always be in 4-wheel drive in those situations (steep winding tarmac, with hairpin turns). I’m really not in the right truck, but I wanted a manual and there were very few options. The Grenadier will solve most of my problems: good torque at low rpm, low range available in its default ‘all-wheel drive’ mode, a manual transfer case (unlike the dial I have - my first dial - and it sucks).  
I know the G is not intended to be a rock crawler, but with really low gearing you can tackle some tough trails with confidence and with minimal concern about vehicle damage. The G is heavy, and I think it needs a stout crawl ratio to control speed on descents. An 80:1 crawl ratio is money. I could get out of my manual trans Jeep and walk next to it when it crawled in low; if it came up against a n obstacle it couldn’t climb it didn’t stall, it just sat there pushing. Super cool. Touching the brakes in a heavy rig on a steep descent is no bueno. But I’m rambling.

thanks for your comments - always helpful![/QUOTE] You can either manually select the gears, they said they have changed these so they hold gear, or use Hill Descent Control and the cruise control to adjust the speed. I used that method in my previous 4WD and you could adjust the speed in 2kmh increments  

 

[emax]

It's the first time I see "the G" as a designation for the Grenadier. What at first looks like a randomly chosen term is probably a strong signal.

"The G is dead, long live The G!"

?

 

[paulN186]

One quick thing about the b58 tune they have done for the IG is that they have really limited the revs stopping them at 4750 so maybe it would just be a case of a tuner raising the Rev limit to access more power at the top end but keeping similar torque low down. For my application I don’t think higher torque rating is going to be a problem as won’t be towing and would only use the power in short bursts. That all being said the more I read about the deasil I am thinking that is a very good engine also 

 

[NoGaBiker]

[QUOTE username=stickshifter userid=8617054 postid=1332750076]

Hi Mark,
Yes, you are absolutely right - as is emax. I appreciate your comments! Maximum horse power and torque numbers are just a small part of vehicle performance (a fact I did recognize in my previous posts). What maximum power numbers do not tell us is when the power is delivered. In modern forced induction engines, full power is reached at low rpms, and then the power curve stays quite flat for the next few thousand rpms. This provides much better driving characteristics than a typical naturally aspirated six-cylinder, where the power often arrives at over 3500 rpms. If the engine is not very torquey (3rd Gen Tacoma, for example), you have to rev it out like crazy to make power. Combine that with high elevation, and you have an anemic engine at lower rpms. On back roads in the mountains, I regularly down-shift into first gear (manual transmission). As anyone with experience driving manuals knows, this is not a good downshift. I know that the Grenadier will drive much better than a vehicle with a naturally aspirated engine with similar max power numbers. I'm really looking forward to a test-drive. I truly hope that between the forced induction (power arriving at low pms), and the ZF 8-speed, the Grenadier will be able to accelerate at any speed and road-grade. There is no way I am buying another vehicle that can't cope with mountain driving, and certainly not at twice the price I paid for my current truck. So I am cautious - but consider me cautiously optimistic. All the best![/QUOTE]

Perhaps you mentioned it earlier and I missed it but I’m curious why you aren’t standing in line at Land Rover of Denver (or wherever the nearest JLR dealer is to you) waiting for a L663 Defender P400? 400hp/400tq with the ZF8 makes for a plenty fast truck for me even in the mountains, and my other cars over the past 18 years have been Porsche Turbos and GT cars so I’m not a stranger to acceleration.

I too wonder why BMW’s turbo 3.0 I-6 makes 120hp less than Jaguar’s, as well as considerably less torque (350 vs 400, iirc). Whether I will overlook that and keep the IG and sell my P400 when my number comes up or not remains to be seen once the IG gets to the US. But I’m still puzzled about the discrepancy in output.