Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

INEOS Grenadier 4X4

If it as capable and reliable as my old 200tdi's in Libya they are on to a winner.
20200904_162900.jpg
 
I am not sure (just) "making a profit", was Ratcliffe's intial motivation. He is wealthy enough, to indulge his own whims, and fueled by alcoholic conversations in the Grenadier pub, set-out to see if he could succeed where JLR did not want to go! And, having proved the "Business Plan" on paper and spread-sheets, one thing led to another.

It is all - of course - a gamble . . . and, anything/everything, that can be done to reduce the risk element, would be welcome.

As I mentioned in/at post #102 . . .

How much cash would be involved, when, for how long and where, do you re-train 500 hairy-knuckled Welshmen, who have been used to casting, milling, assembling and torqueing-down Ford’s engines?

The car assembly workers at the Mercedes (former SMART) factory in France, are already familiar with the car assembly processes and requirements.

Yer' man Ratcliffe, is very much an “Internationalist”, if not exactly “European” . . . as I am certain INEOS would like their new Grenadier to be regarded!! . . . . Axles from the tractor maker in Italy. Engines from BMW. Engineering advice and expertise from (across) Europe.

Daimler will also be keen to avoid redundancy payments, and the costs associated with decommissioning and decontaminating their site in France . . . if no buyer can be found.


1594129790461.png


www.autocar.co.uk


Nope. Not swallowing that. His business instincts probably told him that there was a market for such a vehicle and a profit to be made. I‘m pretty confident that if, at any point in the development process, he realised it wasn’t going to be profitable, he would have dropped it faster than Dyson dropped his EV.
It may not have been critical to the plan to move the fab to an established plant with a trained workforce, but I’m sure that all of a sudden the margins started looked more attractive when the opportunity arose.
 
Isn't that the whole point of it?
The issue for me is that Landrover didn’t evolve the Defender design for 25 years. For the last few years, pretty much all of their sales were into the retro-chic urban market. People bought it because it was a Landrover, with all the brand heritage etc.

This isn’t a Landrover. The brand has no consumer presence. I think they needed to come up with more than a 1990s Defender copy. They had to image what the Defender would look like if Landrover had updated it over say three model iterations.

I’m also wondering how that thing is going to score anything reasonable on it NCAP test; the A pillars in particular look particularly old fashioned and slim If it doesn’t score well, it won’t have a chance with big corporate 4x4 buyers.
 
. . . I’m also wondering how that thing is going to score anything reasonable on it NCAP test; the A pillars in particular look particularly old fashioned and slim. If it doesn’t score well, it won’t have a chance with big corporate 4x4 buyers.

:( :( :( . . . .

1599266155671.png
 

Blogg

LE
I see your point. Old fashioned but not slim.

Turning to the car, that windscreen pillar is very thin when compared with just about any modern 4x4; it’s way slimmer than the new Defender. If they don’t get a 5*NCAP rating they won’t be selling any of those to the big global fleet buyers like the mines.
Different animals.

New Defender is a monocoque. Grenadier BFO ladder frame.

However this won't help in terms of "rating", which is being made more and more subjective

 
it’s going to be pretty much impossible to get a true off-roader and 5 stars


 
Different animals.

New Defender is a monocoque. Grenadier BFO ladder frame.

However this won't help in terms of "rating", which is being made more and more subjective

But one of the key reasons why Landrover went for a monocoque is to achieve much higher primary safety levels than a separate chassis can achieve.

This is a real issue for big corporates like the big mining companies. Toyota re-engineered the 70 series Landcruiser because the Australian mines no longer allow vehicles that don’t have a five star rating. But, as you point out, safety standards are getting more stringent; the 70 Series can only comply for a couple more years. If there is a next generation Landcruiser, it will be a monocoque.
 
it’s going to be pretty much impossible to get a true off-roader and 5 stars


It’s got nothing to do with it being a “true off-roader”; it’s because they want to keep it simple. Or, probably more accurately, they don’t have the technical capability to make a vehicle that does have a 5* rating.

Companies that have a zero harm policy won’t accept anything less than 5* ratings.
 
It’s got nothing to do with it being a “true off-roader”; it’s because they want to keep it simple. Or, probably more accurately, they don’t have the technical capability to make a vehicle that does have a 5* rating.

Companies that have a zero harm policy won’t accept anything less than 5* ratings.

The trouble is it could have a 5 star rating in most areas regarding occupant safety but they've stopped the scores being presented like that and now its an overall score for all areas including pedestrian and looking above it now seems there will be (as a sop to the anti 4x4 lobby ) a test of SUVs against small cars - which will again lower the shown safety rating and be used to prove they are death trap.
 
The trouble is it could have a 5 star rating in most areas regarding occupant safety but they've stopped the scores being presented like that and now its an overall score for all areas including pedestrian and looking above it now seems there will be (as a sop to the anti 4x4 lobby ) a test of SUVs against small cars - which will again lower the shown safety rating and be used to prove they are death trap.
I think they’ll struggle with the primary safety more than the secondary; they won’t be able to achieve the necessary structural integrity into a body-on-chassis structure that looks like an old Defender. The secondary safety stuff they can buy in; it’s all Tier 1 supplier IP, not manufacturer IP. Still got to integrate it, of course.

I think Landrover have got this right, in a way that none of the other 4x4 manufactures have cracked. They’ve moved the game on 30 years compared with the competition, including addressing some of the pedestrian safety issues. I hope they find a way to produce more utilitarian versions. I’ve already heard stories here in Aus of big corporate buyers looking at Landrover for the first time in decades because they have cracked the primary safety issue.
 
The trouble is it could have a 5 star rating in most areas regarding occupant safety but they've stopped the scores being presented like that and now its an overall score for all areas including pedestrian and looking above it now seems there will be (as a sop to the anti 4x4 lobby ) a test of SUVs against small cars - which will again lower the shown safety rating and be used to prove they are death trap.

NCAP is a rather odd metric.

see my older CRV, 3*, but my wife’s newer Jazz, 5*

but in the real world of wifely crash testing.

She puts my CRV into reverse, forgets to open security gates, gates die, a cracked bumper.

She puts her Jazz into reverse, reverses into post in car park, dented bumper and whole tailgate implodes.

my car is clearly a much tougher vehicle, and you’d want to be in it not the Jazz in a proper shunt, but it got slammed in the tests on pedestrian safety.
 
The 5th star is mostly from pedestrian impact safety and all that passive safety stuff that’s utterly irrelevant mud plugging. See the banning of bush bars and hardened bumpers. Squishy pedestrian friendly bumpers are as much use as tit’s on a bull off road and quickly break off.
So speaks the expert on off-roading. The one that posted a film of a Honda CRV on a gravel track.

WTF is bush bar? Do you mean bull bars or roo bars? Neither of which are in the slightest bit relevant to off-road driving; they’re fitted to protect a vehicle from hitting large wildlife at speed on the road.

The issue of bull bar safety is a current significant one in Aus; they’re a bit of a necessity in rural Australia because hitting a roo is inevitable. But they’re seriously dangerous for pedestrians when you take the same vehicle into the city. As many Aussies do. Manufactures have to sort this.

Only Landrover appears to be making an effort. Which is why there’s a pedestrian airbag on my Landrover, a car which I can guarantee goes a lot further off-road most weekends than you have ever driven. Oddly enough, it’s pedestrian friendly bumpers haven’t fallen off.
 
The Grenadier will be commercially viable, inasmuch as the company is hard-headed.
When production of the Defender ceased, 20,000 pa were being sold in Africa. Add to that 15-20 years worth of spares per vehicle, and that one market is at least worth not, as JLR decided, abandonment. And the market was abandoned because the JLR Defender is a less readily adaptable, much more expensive, vehicle.
One continent buying 20,000 pa (were that to be achieved) may/will not be viable - more orders will be needed. There's a host of Defender - based military vehicles. It will be very interesting to see a military Grenadier, when it comes. Any large military order might allow Ineos to achieve economies of scale, which would then further assist sales. Fingers crossed for Ineos - hopefully the potential adaptability of the Grenadier will be a winning factor.
 
Top