The rear seat leg room is still trash too. I really want to like one for my daily but I need air vents back there for the dogs here in Texas. I would remove the rear seats and do a Goose Gear deck but without direct air it’s pretty much a non-starter.
Ineos Grenadier (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter DesmoPilot
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
The rear seat leg room is still trash too. I really want to like one for my daily but I need air vents back there for the dogs here in Texas. I would remove the rear seats and do a Goose Gear deck but without direct air it’s pretty much a non-starter.
I personally think a pre-IFS G500/G550 would be a better option than the Grenadier, new defender, or a restomod D110. Less nostalgia tax, good aftermarket support, v8, and mostly global platform. I'll confess though, I am G-Wagon curious.
Against all of my better judgement I am too. An 80’s or 90’s W460 is what I’d build, maybe an early 461.
One decade at a time yall!
The reviews on the toyota website are pretty terrible for the sequoia.
There are reviews??? Does Lexus have that? Id like to review the LX 600.
Check out a couple dealership websites. I can’t remember which one, but a lot of people were b*tChing about the lack of storage space, rear legroom, distance between first row passengers, etc.
The trunk situation is a big blemish on an otherwise good vehicle...
So is the lack of the drop rear window. But thats just how they are doing things these days.
Interesting video. What i find interesting from video is that although Land Cruiser/LX, Sequoia, Tundra, and Tacoma all share the same platform, the frame strength and steel gauge are all different between them. So you cannot say that Lexus LX frame is the same as the lesser brothers.
This may be old news for some of you and probably obvious, but it was good to hear from Toyota engineer.
Idaho Savage
GOLD Star
Even though I begged and pleaded with the wife to buy an IG as my Guinea Pig, a las she bought a Defender 130.
I can't tell if I like it or dislike it. It's more off-road capable than I guessed but also some weird and awkward stuff to it. Biggest complaint is road noise...it's really loud. I do like the angles, throttle response, upright styling and visibility though.
I can't tell if I like it or dislike it. It's more off-road capable than I guessed but also some weird and awkward stuff to it. Biggest complaint is road noise...it's really loud. I do like the angles, throttle response, upright styling and visibility though.
All that money went into the designer, not so much the substance of the Defender.
I wish they let the Japanese design and build them so they actually last 25 year without much issues. Oh well, makes the LC200 that more attractive.
What? You don’t like your truck made in the precision industrial manufacturing hub and renowned braintrust that is San Antonio Texas???
In all seriousness though there is nothing wrong with Tundra longevity. Is there?
I know the new ones have issues, but so do some Japan first year releases.
I love all my Cruisers, but have a long history of trouble free Tacomas, and their resale is simply insane. With over 600k miles, the only issues was a rattling airbag panel in my 99 that was fixed under warranty and a undergreased wheel bearing. Other than that it was timing belts, fluids and pads. Had similar luck with Cruisers, but a few more issues. Plus all Cruiser upgrades (bumpers, etc.) have a big $ premium on the LC.
Between the cam tower leak, radiator, coolant leaks, I'd say the Cruisers, while tougher and meant to last, have their fair share of issues. And for the price of a new 200 I could get two Tacomas. Probably the best value to cost ratio for a 4x4 IMO, especially taking resale into account.
I only had one Tundra and sold at 30k, and it was great too. Also loved the more simple radio and hvac interfaces the Tacos had through 2015. Wish I'd bought a 15 new when they were selling for $30k for a DCSB TRD OR 4x4.
I'm a big cruiser fan, but would trust a Tacoma to be very reliable. Though I'm not loving the small turbo/twin turbo offerings. I can't see them having the same long term reliability of the good ol six bangers or the 5.7.
Edit: I still prefer Japanese built yotas, and have heard the new 4Runner may be built stateside, which would be sad, especially with the 300 not coming here.
Last edited:
Is there an equivalent video like this for the 300? I would love to hear from the chief engineer why they deleted the tail gate. Horrible move.
So quick summary of above:
Good:
1. Angles are much better than LC200. Wading depth is better than LC200.
2. 4" shorter, 2" narrower, and 6" taller than LC200. Wheelbase is 3" longer than LC200.
3. CRAWL RATIO is rumored around 50:1...in comparison, LC200 ratio is 41.5.
4. ZF 8HP51 ratios: (vs. LC200 ratios)
Bad:
1. Suspension travel and RTI worst than LC200.
2. Turning radius is horrendous (44.3 vs. LC 38.7). Good luck making a U-turn on the trail or sharp turn around a tree stump!
3. Curb weight same as LC200 (5800 lbs).
4. At 282 HP / 332 TQ with 5800+ curb weight, it is way under-powered! It will be a really slow turtle, especially on highway! That is why they use the excuse of not being certified as a way to prevent people from driving on the road??
5. Note: engine is DIRECT-INJECTED. (Does it also have port-injection?) Carbon buildup risk?
6. I assume due to the heavy weight and low power, the 8-speed ratio is tuned rather aggressively (see above). Thus, the piss-poor fuel economy (14/14 vs. LC 13/18)!! Box shape probably does not help.
7. TINY brakes for such a heavy vehicle!! 12.4" Ventilated / 12.0" Solid. (vs. 2016+ LC200 13.9" Ventilated / 13.6" Ventilated...2008-2015 LC200 13.4" Ventilated / 13.6" Ventilated)
8. ZF Transmission...Torque Limit: 500 NM (369 lb-ft) ........I find this interesting...the transmission TQ limit is quite close to the B58 engine's torque output (332 lb-ft)!! Forget about "tuning" the B58 engine afterwards!! You're stuck with the stock engine configuration! And the TQ limit is way too close to the engine output IMHO!
Conclusion for me: IG will be great off-road (if it turns out to be reliable & durable). But as daily driver on-road, it is barely livable by modern standard. Bad acceleration. Bad brakes. Bad fuel economy. And my guess is that it will ride & handle like those early Wranglers.
Good:
1. Angles are much better than LC200. Wading depth is better than LC200.
2. 4" shorter, 2" narrower, and 6" taller than LC200. Wheelbase is 3" longer than LC200.
3. CRAWL RATIO is rumored around 50:1...in comparison, LC200 ratio is 41.5.
4. ZF 8HP51 ratios: (vs. LC200 ratios)
8HP51 (Gen 3) Gear Ratios:
- 1st gear 5.25 (LC 4.795)
- 2nd gear 3.36 (LC 2.811)
- 3rd gear 2.17 (LC 1.844)
- 4th gear 1.72 (LC 1.429)
- 5th gear 1.32 (LC 1.213)
- 6th gear 1.00 (LC 1.000)
- 7th gear 0.82 (LC 0.817)
- 8th gear 0.64 (LC 0.672)
- Reverse 3.71 (LC 3.785)
- Torque Limit: 500 NM (369 lb-ft)
Bad:
1. Suspension travel and RTI worst than LC200.
2. Turning radius is horrendous (44.3 vs. LC 38.7). Good luck making a U-turn on the trail or sharp turn around a tree stump!
3. Curb weight same as LC200 (5800 lbs).
4. At 282 HP / 332 TQ with 5800+ curb weight, it is way under-powered! It will be a really slow turtle, especially on highway! That is why they use the excuse of not being certified as a way to prevent people from driving on the road??
5. Note: engine is DIRECT-INJECTED. (Does it also have port-injection?) Carbon buildup risk?
6. I assume due to the heavy weight and low power, the 8-speed ratio is tuned rather aggressively (see above). Thus, the piss-poor fuel economy (14/14 vs. LC 13/18)!! Box shape probably does not help.
7. TINY brakes for such a heavy vehicle!! 12.4" Ventilated / 12.0" Solid. (vs. 2016+ LC200 13.9" Ventilated / 13.6" Ventilated...2008-2015 LC200 13.4" Ventilated / 13.6" Ventilated)
8. ZF Transmission...Torque Limit: 500 NM (369 lb-ft) ........I find this interesting...the transmission TQ limit is quite close to the B58 engine's torque output (332 lb-ft)!! Forget about "tuning" the B58 engine afterwards!! You're stuck with the stock engine configuration! And the TQ limit is way too close to the engine output IMHO!
Conclusion for me: IG will be great off-road (if it turns out to be reliable & durable). But as daily driver on-road, it is barely livable by modern standard. Bad acceleration. Bad brakes. Bad fuel economy. And my guess is that it will ride & handle like those early Wranglers.
Last edited:
nuclearbeef
SILVER Star
The asterisk for the fuel economy numbers:
*All values are in US mpg. Preliminary data subject to change. Final fuel economy values will be published prior to launch. Always obey local speed limits.
I suspect the number in the brochure is a very conservative preliminary estimate. An artificially low estimate would prevent lawsuits for false advertising if the final number were to come in under the estimate.