[2000rpm]

They should rename this car as the "Unicorn"

I have heard about it.
People have glorified it so much on our platform.
I think it will be amazing to see one.
It claims to have special features over and above normal animals.
But I have never seen one.

These are rarer than a Ferrari in India!

[Sandman689]

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

Why do you think that rigid axle is key for a true offroader? The world has moved away from rigid axles and only a handful of offroaders still offer that if I remember correctly - Wrangler, Jimny, upcoming Ineos, Toyota 80 series. If the Toyotas, which see bad roads in under-developed countries day in and day out, still perform so well, why do we need rigid axles which will be used for some weekend offroading and spend most of the time on tarmac?

I appreciate this question very much.

If we are talking about weekend offroading and a vehicle which spends most of it's time on tarmac, then with current engineering an IFS will indeed be more than sufficient.

CVs in IFS vehicles fail more than those in solid axles.(I'll find data supporting this else I am open to correction)

I own an IFS 4X4 and know that the front CVs are susceptible to breakage which is why the steering has a narrow angle (to protect the CVs especially during offroading). I would never push the vehicle near it's limits because of this.

If I had 4X4 with solid front axles, then I would worry much less and push myself and the vehicle to it's limits knowing well it can take the abuse.


If you notice, the Toyota Landcruiser 79 series was popularized by the Australian mining industry where there have a need of carrying load in rough conditions. The wrangler has it's roots in the Jeep designed to carry load over unpaved conditions.

Can the modern Defender make it into through the wild carrying a load as well as your beloved Defender? The whole point of building the Ineos Grenadier with a solid front axle is to preserve the tough 4X4 credentials(and spirit) of the original Land Rover Defender.

Apologies for getting side tracked with this rant but the bottom line is: I am confident in having an abuse friendly 4X4 that can carry heavy loads off tarmac at the expense of on-road comfort.

This is why the Gurkha 2.2 with solid front axles would have made the perfect 2nd 4X4 for me personally.

[BlackPearl]

Originally Posted by Sandman689

Can the modern Defender make it into through the wild carrying a load as well as your beloved Defender? The whole point of building the Ineos Grenadier with a solid front axle is to preserve the tough 4X4 credentials(and spirit) of the original Land Rover Defender.

Ok, I have several questions. Do you think an SUV with independent suspension all around is less capable than one with rigid axles?

Why do you think the new Defender cannot carry load as good as the old Defender? How much load carrying capacity is necessary or is fit for purpose? What are the factors being considered? Is it mean time between suspension failures?

[ValuableRecluse]

Originally Posted by Sandman689

2 key winning components would be missed severely:

• Rigid front axle
• 2.2L Mercedes engine

A Rigid front axle is IMO KEY to being a blue blooded offroader. I don't know whom to blame, the market or Force Motors for switching to an IFS front axle.

Bringing the FM 2.2L CR engine was right step from the 2.6. I am sure some folks aren't surprised to see Force going backwards.


Hadn't it been for my recent 4X4, a 5 door Force Gurkha with the 2.2L engine and rigid front axles with diff locks would have been a no brainer purchase for me.

I may be wrong, but I don’t remember the Gurkha ever having a solid front axle.
Getting a well priced off-roader with coil sprung, lockable, solid axles at both ends would be a dream come true for most of us Off-roaders. A 140bhp diesel and a half decent interior with an Apple CarPlay/Android auto compliant head unit would bring up the rest of the wish list.
Is there a market for such a vehicle? Looking at the Mahindra Thar’s sales numbers, there evidently is!
But as usual, I don’t think Force is listening.

[Sandman689]

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

Ok, I have several questions. Do you think an SUV with independent suspension all around is less capable than one with rigid axles?

I don't think I have the exposure yet to comment on the capability. But from experience, I know Rigid axles are easier to maintain should something go wrong. I was able to drive home with a broken leaf spring in our 4X2. Had the front suspension failed, I'd have to call road side assistance.

I doubt I can put a price on the peace of mind that a rigid axle will give and not leave me stranded (should things go wrong) along with saving me the embarrassment from my 4 wheeling buddies.
Also, solid axles can flex more. So that's a bonus.

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

Why do you think the new Defender cannot carry load as good as the old Defender? How much load carrying capacity is necessary or is fit for purpose? What are the factors being considered? Is it mean time between suspension failures?

Carrying load over uneven terrain equates to stress in the suspension. I am not questioning the vehicle's payload but the ability to take that abuse and be easily repaired should things go South.
I feel that the old Defender owing to simpler mechanical underpinnings can do longer distance offroad than the new Defender before it needs any kind of attention. I don't feel the air bags on the new defender would be easy to fix. Also, a lot of electronics means less repairability for the user.
If the new Defender does turn out to be as reliable as the old one, then it's a win-win for everyone.

[ValuableRecluse]

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

Ok, I have several questions. Do you think an SUV with independent suspension all around is less capable than one with rigid axles?

Why do you think the new Defender cannot carry load as good as the old Defender? How much load carrying capacity is necessary or is fit for purpose? What are the factors being considered? Is it mean time between suspension failures?

All other things being equal, an independently sprung vehicle is less capable offroad than a rigid axle vehicle, simply because suspension articulation is better on a solid axle equipped vehicle. Once you get on road, the tables are turned.

CV joints failure all depends on geometry and the torque being transmitted through them.
Failures also happen when a rapidly spinning wheel on an open differential at max suspension droop suddenly gets traction. Eg. Aggressively climbing a hill with deep undulations causing the vehicle to climb on its rear and alternating front wheels. When that spinning front wheel hits the dirt, it could destroy the CV.
Also this limits the mods you can put on the vehicle, eg. 35” wheels and 3” suspension lift.
If you’re going to put anything more than a 2” lift on an IFS equipped vehicle, you will have to drop the differential to keep the CV’s safe.
Also, as you lift an IFS equipped vehicle you need to change the upper control arm to correct the camber.

The new Defender has one of the best traction control systems available. It just doesn’t allow a wheel with airtime to spin so safeguards it’s CV’s.
But AFAIK the wheel/tire upgrade possibilities are limited.

As far as load carting goes, an IFS equipped vehicle loses ground clearance at the differential with more payload. Not the case with a solid axle equipped vehicle.
At extreme loads the wheels can even exhibit a marked negative camber, not good for tire wear.

Yes the newer LC’s have IFS, but until the LC100 there was an option for a solid front axle in developing countries, called the LC105.

Hope that answers some of you’re questions

[BlackPearl]

Originally Posted by Sandman689

But from experience, I know Rigid axles are easier to maintain should something go wrong. I was able to drive home with a broken leaf spring in our 4X2. Had the front suspension failed, I'd have to call road side assistance.

Now you are bringing ease of maintenance into the equation. Then there will be cost of maintenance. Yes these are factors. But what if someone can look beyond these factors and need more comfort and a better balance between on-road and off-road performance. What if one is willing to spend additional amounts on maintenance so that things do not fail? So, I think that going for IFS should not be held against Force Motors. Because end of the day it makes a vehicle handle much better on the road.

Originally Posted by Sandman689

I doubt I can put a price on the peace of mind that a rigid axle will give and not leave me stranded (should things go wrong) along with saving me the embarrassment from my 4 wheeling buddies.

If maintained properly I don't think that a properly designed IFS system will fail without warning unless you are looking for extreme offroading. As mentioned above, if less maintenance cost is of primary importance, then rigid axle makes more sense.

Originally Posted by ValuableRecluse

Hope that answers some of you’re questions

Yes it answers my questions. So the main point of concern is that IFS will need more maintenance than rigid axle over the same period of time if equally used/abused. But I think we are missing the point that most people will want a better handling vehicle with which they can live day in and day out. In that respect the IFS ones fare far better than the rigid axles unless used for farming with heavy loads on bad terrains. Gurkha is being positioned as a lifestyle vehicle, not a load carrying UV.

[Tejas@perioimpl]

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

Why do you think that rigid axle is key for a true offroader? The world has moved away from rigid axles and only a handful of offroaders still offer that if I remember correctly - Wrangler, Jimny, upcoming Ineos, Toyota 80 series. If the Toyotas, which see bad roads in under-developed countries day in and day out, still perform so well, why do we need rigid axles which will be used for some weekend offroading and spend most of the time on tarmac?

The biggest reason for most people preferring a solid axle is that no matter what loads or articulation, your ground clearance remains the same.

With IFS, on side cambers and heavy load, your ground clearance would decrease.

IFS is great for broken roads. Not really for hard core offroading.

[ValuableRecluse]

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

Now you are bringing ease of maintenance into the equation. Then there will be cost of maintenance. Yes these are factors. But what if someone can look beyond these factors and need more comfort and a better balance between on-road and off-road performance. What if one is willing to spend additional amounts on maintenance so that things do not fail? So, I think that going for IFS should not be held against Force Motors. Because end of the day it makes a vehicle handle much better on the road.

If maintained properly I don't think that a properly designed IFS system will fail without warning unless you are looking for extreme offroading. As mentioned above, if less maintenance cost is of primary importance, then rigid axle makes more sense.

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

Yes it answers my questions. So the main point of concern is that IFS will need more maintenance than rigid axle over the same period of time if equally used/abused. But I think we are missing the point that most people will want a better handling vehicle with which they can live day in and day out. In that respect the IFS ones fare far better than the rigid axles unless used for farming with heavy loads on bad terrains. Gurkha is being positioned as a lifestyle vehicle, not a load carrying UV.

If people need a lifestyle IFS equipped vehicle that they can live with on a daily basis they’re spoilt for choice, depending on their budget, they can choose anything from a Thar to an MG Gloster. But if they want a coil sprung solid axle, serious 4x4, then it’s only the Wrangler and the phased out AMG Gwagen available.
In any case I doubt anyone with older kids or aged parents would choose a 3 dr off-roader as their primary vehicle.

Just because a vehicle is equipped with rigid axles doesn’t automatically make it a farm vehicle. I know, some of us will remember the bone jarring ride in a rural jeep taxi or a mahindra camper. But these vehicles have rudimentary leaf sprung suspensions rated to a payload of one ton! They will bounce along unless loaded up.
I’ve driven a friends LC80 extensively and loved it’s on road behaviour. The only time you’d realise there is a heavy live axle under the front of the vehicle is on sharp large bumps. Off road, it still remains the most capable vehicle I’ve ever driven.

With this config, Force has positioned the Gurkha against the Thar. I think we have a fair idea how this battle will end.

[BlackPearl]

Originally Posted by Tejas@perioimpl

IFS is great for broken roads. Not really for hard core offroading.

Yes Tejas, I know the advantages and disadvantages of IFS and rigid axles and I am a big fan of rigid axles. But the point was that it should not be held against Force Motors for giving IFS in Gurkha as that is what most cars in the markets are equipped with.

Originally Posted by ValuableRecluse

Just because a vehicle is equipped with rigid axles doesn’t automatically make it a farm vehicle. I know, some of us will remember the bone jarring ride in a rural jeep taxi or a mahindra camper. But these vehicles have rudimentary leaf sprung suspensions rated to a payload of one ton! They will bounce along unless loaded up.

I know how vehicles with rigid axles behave. I have one in my garage with leaf springs all around and another with coil springs. Both handle very bad on road, but I wanted them because my requirement was different. As I told above, I should have specified before that I am a big fan of rigid axles, but at the same time I think the market is very small for such customers. People don't deliberately buy vehicles that handle like a boat unless there is a compelling reason. Force is clearly not targeting those handful of customers as they would like to build something that sells.

Originally Posted by ValuableRecluse

With this config, Force has positioned the Gurkha against the Thar. I think we have a fair idea how this battle will end.

Yes, they want a chunk of that pie. But it will be very difficult!

[gunin]

I am looking eagerly towards the Gurkha BS6 unveiling. I don't mind the Gurkha losing the solid axles if it translates to better on-road behavior and comfort (speaking as an owner of a Bolero 4wd which has solid axles). My requirement is a capable vehicle for long trips on difficult terrains with a little bit more comfort than what my Bolero offers. Also, I could observe 3 Gurkhas (2.6 litre engine -two BS IV and 1 BS III) in our friend circle from close quarters. The Gurkha seems to keep pace with Thar CRDe (previous generation) quite easily on highways. So, I will not discount the Gurkha BS6 without a proper test drive.

[Trojan]

Objectively speaking, most are writing off the Gurkha here merely because the numbers don't sound good enough.

The vehicle is designed to fit all needs from a off-roaders point of view along with the fact that

- It can take you in comfort at 100-120kmph speeds
- Long distance travel comfort - mandatory for overlanding
- Has a metal shell
- Has a fabulous suspension
- Chiller of an AC
- Comes with off-road mechanicals which very few vehicles can boast about

This is what the previous generation came with, what it missed was
- Plush Interiors at the price point
- Airbags, ABS
- Music System, Infotainment system
- Power Windows
- Better sound insulation

Now am assuming that this second list has been plugged in the new version and it would be interesting to see the actual vehicle to figure out how well they have been executed.

From the point of view of a vehicles evaluation, one should ask, whether it
- can do all the things all the time
- some of the things most of the time
- has only tick mark features which look good but don't translate to the real world

These questions become very important especially in vehicles such as the Gurkha, Thar, Vcross, because they are expected to cover a variety of usage requirements and expectations.

Cheers,

[Kosfactor]

Originally Posted by gunin

I am looking eagerly towards the Gurkha BS6 unveiling. I don't mind the Gurkha losing the solid axles if it translates to better on-road behavior and comfort (speaking as an owner of a Bolero 4wd which has solid axles). My requirement is a capable vehicle for long trips on difficult terrains with a little bit more comfort than what my Bolero offers.

Force is no Mahindra , Gurkha is more of their summer project than an actual production vehicle. There are several Gurkha threads in our forum, feel free to read through.

[aasheeshmehta]

Picked up another detail which force motors has confirmed. As force motors was replying to every comment on their reveal video on insta. They replied this to one of them.

"Thank you for your interest. The All-New Gurkha is expected to be introduced with the 3 door variant, to be followed by the 5 door variant soon after. Please stay tuned to our page for any updates on the price reveal."

Its game over if they bring out 3 and 5 doors with 2 engine options of 2.6 and 2.2. I really hope they were able to keep the 2.2 a secret. Just dreaming ehh..

And the delay in launch which a lot of people complain and whine about was due to overwhelming orders of ambulances last year. Good on them they prioritized it first and didn't publicize the hell out of it just like anand mahindra does every time he serves his nation in whatever capacity.

Another reply

"Hello Nitin, do not worry! The All-New Gurkha will be Xtremely capable! Do test our drive at launch, we're sure it won't disappoint."


If that "Xtremely" is a hint for a 2.2L. As I said before, GAME OVER.

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by gunin

I am looking eagerly towards the Gurkha BS6 unveiling. I don't mind the Gurkha losing the solid axles if it translates to better on-road behavior and comfort (speaking as an owner of a Bolero 4wd which has solid axles). My requirement is a capable vehicle for long trips on difficult terrains with a little bit more comfort than what my Bolero offers. Also, I could observe 3 Gurkhas (2.6 litre engine -two BS IV and 1 BS III) in our friend circle from close quarters. The Gurkha seems to keep pace with Thar CRDe (previous generation) quite easily on highways. So, I will not discount the Gurkha BS6 without a proper test drive.

Amazing. I am already looking forward to my next visit to Arunachal

If only the service component was better, i would have also shortlisted this to my wishlist. For now, it will be the Jimny when the proverbial phoenix wakes up.