Who to believe?

[stickshifter]

Hi folks,

I was hoping to get a little advice as to whom I should believe.

Some of you may know that I was really disappointed when I read this excerpt from a MOTORTREND article: “Ineos promised the U.S. version will also receive features required for federalization, including automatic emergency braking, lane keep assist, and drowsy driver detection.”

I wrote to Ineos customer service, and let them know how enthusiastic I was about the Grenadier, but that I would not purchase a vehicle with autonomous braking and/or "drowsy driver detection" (which is a system involving a camera and software that monitors the driver and shuts the vehicle down if it detects that the driver is impaired whether from drugs, alcohol, or too little sleep. This is going to be required for all new vehicles sold in the U.S. beginning in year 2024 - but that deadline may get extended).

I received this response:

Regarding your email, We don't have Automatic emergency braking, lane keep assist and drowsy driver detection features at the moment in US vehicles. However, we might consider these features in our next-generation vehicles.

I wrote back to ask for more clarification, and received this:

Regarding your email, We might consider these features in our future Redesign models later after 2024. However, This is not confirmed yet.

I would really like to believe what customer service told me, that the 2023 and 2024 model years will not include autonomous braking and drowsy driver detection, but I was also told by customer service a couple of weeks ago that no member of the public in Europe or Australia had yet driven a Grenadier, and that people had only ever ridden as passenger; meanwhile we were all watching video clips of our own forum members driving the Grenadier. So I have some skepticism about customer service. Another cause for skepticism is what someone from Ineos told journalists in Scotland at the big driving event (printed in the article on Motor Trend, and quoted above). Presumably this representative from Ineos is "higher up" the food chain within Ineos than the customer service representatives.

Sorry so long. What do people think? Do I believe customer service or do I believe what I read in Motor Trend? After reading the Motor Trend article, I went truck-shopping, because I want to buy a new vehicle before they all get software I don't want. I need to put a non-refundable deposit down in order to secure one of the last 2022 models left, and I will need to move on that as soon as possible.

Obviously, the decision is mine to make, and mine alone, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts. Thanks in advance.

 

[Krabby]

I think all parties are sending mixed messages, in a combination of right and wrong. I’ve read lots of the magazine stories and there are opposite claims in some of them (pricing in US being a major one), so I would not put all my eggs in the journalists’ basket. Likewise, as I’ve gathered, IA (whether on purpose or otherwise) counters itself all the time.

That said, I do not want autonomous braking or driver drowsiness, but IA may have no choice if those requirements become law. I do support some passive safety things - especially blind spot warnings.

 

[Spjnr]

If any vehicle will shun these options, its the Grenadier! That being said, if legislation ties their hands, even IA may be forced to implement the big brother-tech.

Theres always the aftermarket. I was in a taxi to Innsbruck airport the other day and the cab driver had a plug-in that stopped his odometer I know its not ideal, but theres always a work around!

 

[stickshifter]

I think all parties are sending mixed messages, in a combination of right and wrong. I’ve read lots of the magazine stories and there are opposite claims in some of them (pricing in US being a major one), so I would not put all my eggs in the journalists’ basket. Likewise, as I’ve gathered, IA (whether on purpose or otherwise) counters itself all the time.

That said, I do not want autonomous braking or driver drowsiness, but IA may have no choice if those requirements become law. I do support some passive safety things - especially blind spot warnings.

Yeah, the American reviewers have not done a great job around pricing. I've seen starting at 50K, starting at 60K, but none seem to be aware that Ineos is talking about a 14% increase in price over original estimates (which were 50-60K).

 

[DaveB]

Yeah, the American reviewers have not done a great job around pricing. I've seen starting at 50K, starting at 60K, but none seem to be aware that Ineos is talking about a 14% increase in price over original estimates (which were 50-60K).

I thought Ineos made it clear that they hadn't worked out the NA pricing or specification yet??
I know you can't do a direct comparison but Australia's pre-tax bas price is $88,000 which s just over $61,000 USD

 

[stickshifter]

I thought Ineos made it clear that they hadn't worked out the NA pricing or specification yet??
I know you can't do a direct comparison but Australia's pre-tax bas price is $88,000 which s just over $61,000 USD

I found something published by Ineos and posted it, but now I can't remember where I read it, or where I posted it! But the average price increase was around 14% - though it varied slightly from model to model.

 

[Krabby]

I thought Ineos made it clear that they hadn't worked out the NA pricing or specification yet??
I know you can't do a direct comparison but Australia's pre-tax bas price is $88,000 which s just over $61,000 USD

Correct, they have not announced anything. But just about every article affiliated with an American publication has thrown a number out there. And as @stickshifter notes, the numbers are all over the place. I’m not sure what the source is on those prices, but it must be an unreliable one as there no consistency. My gut says $75 US for a Belstaff, but I wouldn’t be surprised by 69,999 to stay “below“ 70, or 79,999 to avoid 80. my fear is being priced out even before greedy dealers get involved.

 

[DaveB]

I found something published by Ineos and posted it, but now I can't remember where I read it, or where I posted it! But the average price increase was around 14% - though it varied slightly from model to model.

My pricing is based on the current website price which includes the price increase.

 

[stickshifter]

I found the source I mentioned, it is:

2023 Ineos Grenadier review

Not only does it live up to the original Land Rover Defender brief, the Grenadier goes above and beyond but it's not perfect.

www.carexpert.com.au

I don't know if it is reliable, so I should pull-back on that 14% idea. Here is the excerpt from the article where they are discussing the price increase from initial estimates to 2023 pricing (this is a copy & paste with no editing by me):

2023 Ineos Grenadier pricing (in Australian Dollars):

Utility Wagon

• Base: $97,000 (up 14.8 per cent or $12,500)
• Fieldmaster Edition: $107,400 (up 12.5 per cent or $11,905)
• Trailmaster Edition: $108,525 (up 13.6 per cent or $13,030)

Station Wagon

• Base: $98,000 (up 14.6 per cent or $12,500)
• Fieldmaster Edition: $109,525 (up 13.5 per cent or $13,030)
• Trailmaster Edition: $109,525 (up 13.5 per cent or $13,030)

 

[DaveB]

I found the source I mentioned, it is:

2023 Ineos Grenadier review

Not only does it live up to the original Land Rover Defender brief, the Grenadier goes above and beyond but it's not perfect.

www.carexpert.com.au

I don't know if it is reliable, so I should pull-back on that 14% idea. Here is the excerpt from the article where they are discussin the price increase from initial estimates to 2023 pricing (this is a copy & paste with no editing by me):

2023 Ineos Grenadier pricing:

Utility Wagon

• Base: $97,000 (up 14.8 per cent or $12,500)
• Fieldmaster Edition: $107,400 (up 12.5 per cent or $11,905)
• Trailmaster Edition: $108,525 (up 13.6 per cent or $13,030)

Station Wagon

• Base: $98,000 (up 14.6 per cent or $12,500)
• Fieldmaster Edition: $109,525 (up 13.5 per cent or $13,030)
• Trailmaster Edition: $109,525 (up 13.5 per cent or $13,030)

That is accurate but includes 10% tax
So to get the pretax price you need to divide by 1.11
You won't be paying our 10% GST(VAT for poms)

 

[stickshifter]

That is accurate but includes 10% tax
So to get the pretax price you need to divide by 1.11
You won't be paying our 10% GST(VAT for poms)

Oh - that's good news! Vehicle tax here in the U.S. varies by county. My county is fairly low, but I used to live in a county where sales tax was nearly 9%.

I pay enough tax, I don't need to also send money to Canberra

 

[globalgregors]

Hi folks,

I was hoping to get a little advice as to whom I should believe.

Some of you may know that I was really disappointed when I read this excerpt from a MOTORTREND article: “Ineos promised the U.S. version will also receive features required for federalization, including automatic emergency braking, lane keep assist, and drowsy driver detection.”

I wrote to Ineos customer service, and let them know how enthusiastic I was about the Grenadier, but that I would not purchase a vehicle with autonomous braking and/or "drowsy driver detection" (which is a system involving a camera and software that monitors the driver and shuts the vehicle down if it detects that the driver is impaired whether from drugs, alcohol, or too little sleep. This is going to be required for all new vehicles sold in the U.S. beginning in year 2024 - but that deadline may get extended).

I received this response:

Regarding your email, We don't have Automatic emergency braking, lane keep assist and drowsy driver detection features at the moment in US vehicles. However, we might consider these features in our next-generation vehicles.

I wrote back to ask for more clarification, and received this:

Regarding your email, We might consider these features in our future Redesign models later after 2024. However, This is not confirmed yet.

I would really like to believe what customer service told me, that the 2023 and 2024 model years will not include autonomous braking and drowsy driver detection, but I was also told by customer service a couple of weeks ago that no member of the public in Europe or Australia had yet driven a Grenadier, and that people had only ever ridden as passenger; meanwhile we were all watching video clips of our own forum members driving the Grenadier. So I have some skepticism about customer service. Another cause for skepticism is what someone from Ineos told journalists in Scotland at the big driving event (printed in the article on Motor Trend, and quoted above). Presumably this representative from Ineos is "higher up" the food chain within Ineos than the customer service representatives.

Sorry so long. What do people think? Do I believe customer service or do I believe what I read in Motor Trend? After reading the Motor Trend article, I went truck-shopping, because I want to buy a new vehicle before they all get software I don't want. I need to put a non-refundable deposit down in order to secure one of the last 2022 models left, and I will need to move on that as soon as possible.

Obviously, the decision is mine to make, and mine alone, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts. Thanks in advance.

Bear in mind that the design engineering is contracted to Magna Steyr, it would not be strange that customer service - who deal primarily with finished products - would have no visibility of the product roadmap at this granular level.

From there, the best one could hope for is that the customer service rep would pick up the phone… but even then would we expect them to know who to call? And that that person would tell customer service what is presently on a whiteboard (let alone drawing board)? Is it not more likely that customer service have been told “don’t call Magna, for chrissakes”.

I suspect that like other manufacturers Ineos will move as slowly as regulators allow them to get away with as each new widget is more complexity, more chips, more cost.

On the other hand, lobbying like this is a great idea… but perhaps best go all the way and email the CEO with your concerns.
To be clear, it’s a corporate affairs bod that will handle your correspondence but the seed will be planted.

 

[MileHigh]

I’ve done some searches, but can’t find anything about those features being mandated. The speed thing is an EU first, we aren’t there yet- but I don’t know when the anti-DUI stuff is supposed to kick in. Frankly, I don’t see that actually being implemented- for very long. But it would be a good way to get older drives who can’t figure it out off the road…

 

[Reducs]

I remember when Lotus first brought the Elise to the states it received exemptions from some regulations, but I can't remember how or why. Maybe the first year or two Ineos can get around some things just because of the small sales numbers.

Also, a rough equivalent in pricing between the British Pound and USD used to exist; UK price in Pounds was about the same number as US price in dollars due to taxes, etc., which still gives me some hope of ~$58K base, $69K Belstaff. I can dream, right?

 

[globalgregors]

I remember when Lotus first brought the Elise to the states it received exemptions from some regulations, but I can't remember how or why. Maybe the first year or two Ineos can get around some things just because of the small sales numbers.

Also, a rough equivalent in pricing between the British Pound and USD used to exist; UK price in Pounds was about the same number as US price in dollars due to taxes, etc., which still gives me some hope of ~$58K base, $69K Belstaff. I can dream, right?

Could be that Ineos is pursuing a region/market-specific pricing strategy, which might only make sense from outside once the various puzzle pieces are visible.
In Oz I think they're interested in the sizeable fleet market, which can run to multi-year orders of hundreds of vehicles.
In the US it could be they're thinking to go after the premium SUV market with the future pimped-out version hinted in the press, and possibly the recreational SUV with the short wheelbase FCEV.
As others have indicated, the US is a difficult market for the present model.
Maybe the objective is to sell enough to defibrillate/shake out a dealer/agent distribution model for the oncoming products?

 

[AnD3rew]

I found the source I mentioned, it is:

2023 Ineos Grenadier review

Not only does it live up to the original Land Rover Defender brief, the Grenadier goes above and beyond but it's not perfect.

www.carexpert.com.au

I don't know if it is reliable, so I should pull-back on that 14% idea. Here is the excerpt from the article where they are discussing the price increase from initial estimates to 2023 pricing (this is a copy & paste with no editing by me):

2023 Ineos Grenadier pricing (in Australian Dollars):

Utility Wagon

• Base: $97,000 (up 14.8 per cent or $12,500)
• Fieldmaster Edition: $107,400 (up 12.5 per cent or $11,905)
• Trailmaster Edition: $108,525 (up 13.6 per cent or $13,030)

Station Wagon

• Base: $98,000 (up 14.6 per cent or $12,500)
• Fieldmaster Edition: $109,525 (up 13.5 per cent or $13,030)
• Trailmaster Edition: $109,525 (up 13.5 per cent or $13,030)

Based on the average differences between the Australian and US prices I reckon that will work out to about $60k USD and just under $70k for Belstaff

 

[emax]

Obviously, the decision is mine to make, and mine alone, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

I understand your concerns, but there is no sure advice.

But if you buy a Grenadier and it is not what you want, you can always sell it without making a big loss. The bad thing is, as you said, time will pass and things will change and eventually there will be no more alternative.

I would maybe buy a 2023 car and still keep my Grenadier order and wait for it. When it comes time to pick up the Grenadier, you'll have all the information you need and can sell the 2023 - maybe at some loss, but still better than missing out on the Grenadier if it doesn't have the bad "features" or missing out on the 2023 if the Grenadier isn't what you wanted. For the transition, a temporary loan can help.

There is no free lunch, so you may have to bite the bullet. But with some luck you might even manage to not make a loss at all.

 

[stickshifter]

I understand your concerns, but there is no sure advice.

But if you buy a Grenadier and it is not what you want, you can always sell it without making a big loss. The bad thing is, as you said, time will pass and things will change and eventually there will be no more alternative.

I would maybe buy a 2023 car and still keep my Grenadier order and wait for it. When it comes time to pick up the Grenadier, you'll have all the information you need and can sell the 2023 - maybe at some loss, but still better than missing out on the Grenadier if it doesn't have the bad "features" or missing out on the 2023 if the Grenadier isn't what you wanted. For the transition, a temporary loan can help.

There is no free lunch, so you may have to bite the bullet. But with some luck you might even manage to not make a loss at all.

Thanks Max - that was helpful!

 

[stickshifter]

I’ve done some searches, but can’t find anything about those features being mandated. The speed thing is an EU first, we aren’t there yet- but I don’t know when the anti-DUI stuff is supposed to kick in. Frankly, I don’t see that actually being implemented- for very long. But it would be a good way to get older drives who can’t figure it out off the road…

Hi MileHigh,

The legislation is part of a much larger bill, passed into law in December 2021. It is called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I posted a link to the full text of the law in a previous post, and to a fact checking article that was on Snopes. You can find either using google. Below I am posting screen grabs from the law including the title page, and then from pages 403 and 404, where the relevant text is located regarding the coming requirement. You could also google "Bob Barr" who is a former Representative from Georgia's 7th Congressional District, and he has been leading the effort to get the law rescinded. He has been criticized for referring to the new software as including a "kill switch" that stops the car from operating. The law does not use that language, but the law requires that the new system "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation" - so I think its fair to call that a "kill switch" - but I guess some people are trying to paint him as reactionary.

Here are those three screen shots from the law:







Note the figure of 10,142 alcohol-related road deaths. This is up after a decades long downward trend. Road deaths went up in the last couple of years - related to the increase in alcohol and drug use over the last few years. But think about this: there are 900,000 obesity-related deaths per year in the United States (i.e. deaths in which obesity is a major factor - Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.) - and this does not include data from Covid-19. Why don't we have the government monitoring people's diet, since we are talking about a problem that kills roughly 100 times more people than alcohol-related road deaths, and costs the health care system far more than the road deaths?



Source: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/

 

[Sillius Soddus]

Hi MileHigh,

The legislation is part of a much larger bill, passed into law in December 2021. It is called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I posted a link to the full text of the law in a previous post, and to a fact checking article that was on Snopes. You can find either using google. Below I am posting screen grabs from the law including the title page, and then from pages 403 and 404, where the relevant text is located regarding the coming requirement. You could also google "Bob Barr" who is a former Representative from Georgia's 7th Congressional District, and he has been leading the effort to get the law rescinded. He has been criticized for referring to the new software as including a "kill switch" that stops the car from operating. The law does not use that language, but the law requires that the new system "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation" - so I think its fair to call that a "kill switch" - but I guess some people are trying to paint him as reactionary.

Here are those three screen shots from the law:

View attachment 7803336

View attachment 7803334

View attachment 7803339

Note the figure of 10,142 alcohol-related road deaths. This is up after a decades long downward trend. Road deaths went up in the last couple of years - related to the increase in alcohol and drug use over the last few years. But think about this: there are 900,000 obesity-related deaths per year in the United States (i.e. deaths in which obesity is a major factor - Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.) - and this does not include data from Covid-19. Why don't we have the government monitoring people's diet, since we are talking about a problem that kills roughly 100 times more people than alcohol-related road deaths, and costs the health care system far more than the road deaths?

View attachment 7803340

Source: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/

We don’t monitor people’s diet because if I eat myself to death I’m not taking anyone else with me. An impaired driver on the other hand endangers everyone around him. My wife, who used to dispatch for 911, told me off one particularly gruesome accident where a drunk driver crossed the median and collided with a van full of children, some as young as a year old. They all died miserably in the ensuing fire. Furthermore, not a single day goes by where I don’t see at least one instance of someone using their phone while traveling down the road at highway speeds, and those idiots would hopefully also be covered by such technology.
Remember, driving is a privilege not a right. That’s why we have licenses, registrations, insurance etc. With all that being said, the law instructs the NHTSA to create standards and regulations by 2024 to implement these technologies in new vehicles. I don’t believe they have actually done so yet, but once they do they’ll have to give manufactures a few years to implement.