automatic or stick shift ?

[Scott Brady]

An automatic is better in technical terrain and when commuting.

A manual is more challenging and more fun to drive. I prefer a manual for those reasons.

There is simply no advantage argument for a manual transmission on the trail. An automatic is better in sand, mud, rocks and hill climbs. A manual can give a better sense of control on descents, but any Rover built in the last 20 years has great brakes and a long pedal throw for excellent modulation. It is easy to maintain threshold braking and control with a Disco, RR and Defender. All of these vehicles are not equipped from the factory with cross-axle differential locks. Without a rear diff-lock on technical descents, you are relying on the brakes for ultimate control anyways (manual or automatic).

All of the trucks I drive (Disco I 5-speed, TLC 5-speed) are manuals, but only because I enjoy it - not because it is better

 

[David Harris]

Another point to consider is a Disco or Defender feel a bit sportier and more powerful with the manual. Rover motors are not known for their power, and the extra cog of the 5 speed gets a bit more out of the motor, and as stated above, the auto scavenges a bit of power/torque. And the manual is just more linear putting you in better touch with the vehicle, IMHO.

Good point as well. If you are short on engine power, then a manual is the way to go, because you have more ratios to work with and the power is transferred with less loss. Autos seem to need more powerful motors to work well in general. A possible exception is if you have one of the newer autos with more gears available.

 

[David Harris]

All of these vehicles are not equipped from the factory with cross-axle differential locks.

The operative phrase here is "from the factory." Rover did this because their great stock suspension articulation was deemed enough to maintain traction without locks. From my experience, most serious Rover owners add cross-differential locks eventually, and should because the stock carriers are too weak for much abuse off road.

 

[Antichrist]

An automatic is better in technical terrain and when commuting.

I absolutely loath automatics for commuting.

The operative phrase here is "from the factory." Rover did this because their great stock suspension articulation was deemed enough to maintain traction without locks.

I think it's more likely they didn't include them because 90% of owners don't need them.

 

[roverrocks]

I absolutely loath automatics for commuting. When I've been involved in miles long stop and go at 1-2 mph in interstate log jams in Salt Lake City and Denver I absolutely hate driving our Honda's manual tranny and wish for an automatic. Driving up and down Colorado and Utah mountain paved roads in my automatic Disco, I long for a manual tranny for better control. Can't always be happy with either an auto or manual.

 

[Antichrist]

I was including Atlanta rush hour traffic in my commuting comment.
But then, until we got my wife's automatic '97 year before last I'd never owned an automatic since buying my first Land Rover in '74 or '75. So you could say I'm somewhat biased, though I never wished for an automatic.

 

[rover4x4]

manual.

 

[HillbillyfromAL]

though I never wished for an automatic.

This X2

The big one for me is a manuals first gear is low enough that it controls the decent for the most part even in technical terrain/steep slopes without using the brakes as much. I miss that about my Jeep. HDC is reactive so while it does some things great your still having to ride the brakes a lot of the time, as first gear isn't really low enough. Then again in my Hilux I was running dual T-cases and could walk down hill faster than my lowest gear would let the truck roll Again if you can get it in a manual do it, and stay away from full ceramic clutches they don't let you slip it enough.

 

[don]

Manny Tranny

Years ago an instructor friend told me to get my foot on the floor instead of floating on top of the pedal especially when on trail. Learning that (as well as a few other tips he gave) I feel like you can concentrate on picking lines just like an auto but have the advantages of more controlled descents. Was at Rausch this past Friday and did a steep *** double drop section that I felt like I was able to keep it a tick slower than the auto trucks.

The auto trucks were a lot smoother/faster on the green access roads as going from 1st to 2nd in low locked on a tired R380 is a chore. But if I knew the trail better that wouldnt be an issue.

As far as shifting within a tech line, idk - I use the same mentality as I do riding mtn bikes - get into the right gear at the beginning and spin or mash as you need to. Easier to change RPMs and might actually be better. Forces you to look ahead as well.

 

[Snagger]

I'd agree with the consensu here - manual is generally better, but it depends on the application. Manual is better for performance, economy and off road control, but auto is easier for road driving, especially in town (not really a LR's natural habitat, but a RR more so). The ZF auto gear boxes are generally stronger than any of the Rover manual boxes (though I think the new Defender's six-speed may be a ZF and has a reputation for being tough too), but they require religious servicing to keep their reliability - the manual units might get a little wear in the selectors or synchro baulk rings, but they tend to keep going with much less fuss and maintenance.

Swings and roundabouts, really. If you have a RR as a commuter and don't mind the cost, then auto is best. For anytheing else, manual.

 

[cosmic88]

Soooo, if you could convert a Range Rover Classic LWB from the ZF to an R380.... would you? do not consider cost, parts availability or anything technical.

Would you like to drive a manual RRC? (in America with a V8)

 

[Antichrist]

When I was looking for my first "modern" Land Rover I didn't even consider Range Rovers because they weren't available with a manual gearbox. So yeah, I would.

 

[VRock]

What Scott Brady said is essentially my take on this. My Series II 88" was obviously a stick, with a Roverdrive, and I really enjoyed the working those gears. It really was ideal to get into driving off road, and satisfying. Then, so was was a short wheelbase, leaf springs, and narrow track.

When I decided on a Mercedes G to replace it, I was certain of two specs for that rig: long wheelbase model, and auto box.

It's been discussed here how an auto is a torque multiplier. How about a feature of auto boxes that I and many I've talked to feel is legitimate: that an auto transmission provides a cushion between the engine and the rest of the drivetrain, therefore potentially preventing breakage on any of those components.

 

[Antichrist]

... an auto transmission provides a cushion between the engine and the rest of the drivetrain, therefore potentially preventing breakage on any of those components.

Having used Land Rovers for hard work, play and daily drivers for a number of years, I've not really had a concern about that.

 

[David Harris]

It's been discussed here how an auto is a torque multiplier. How about a feature of auto boxes that I and many I've talked to feel is legitimate: that an auto transmission provides a cushion between the engine and the rest of the drivetrain, therefore potentially preventing breakage on any of those components.

It's true that the cushioning effect of an auto can mitigate weaknesses in your drivetrain. However, that very effect also isolates the driver from what the vehicle is doing at any moment. The directness of the manual really puts the driver in communication with the vehicle, and hence more in control. With an auto, you're not really driving the vehicle to the degree you are with a manual. A manual makes you a more sensitive, subtle, and skilled driver.