Originally Posted by RussG

The 2.2 diesel is a joint Ford Peugeot/Citreon development. I’m guessing similar to the LR Discovery/Transit engine. I’ve not heard anything disastrous about them. Apart from the usual common rail complexity stuff (dislike of poor quality fuel). I have looked in to them (for different reasons) and they seem OK. BTW not all MK1's had the BMW engine. Some had the Rover L Series, best to confirm what age the change took place.

Yes they are monocoque. Modern monocoque design and build promises tortional rigidity far greater than separate chassis so in theory your doors will actually continue to fit in the hole they were made for! I guess suspension mounts / subframes will be the weak point eventually.

MK2’s will be more expensive because they are more desirable to the “lifestyle” crew and as I say above I do think they are a step forward in quality compared to the MK1's. Maybe there’s a commercial variant which will dump the unnecessary sat nav type stuff? Being a commercial doesn't always mean they have had a hard life. It's a tax dodge thing.

Lack of low ratio I do actually think is a big down side. Not so much from the point of view truely needing the additional capability it gives in extreme off road situations. I would look at it from the point of view of low range giving you so much more control over the vehicle in tricky situations. In my vehicle I do use it constantly, but mine has syncro on the hi/lo range so it’s very easy. Lo range in these circumstances equals less stress on the drive train and you. So in the absence of a low range gearbox go for the auto every time. Down side is added complexity on modern electronically controlled autos.


Russ

Originally Posted by Walkabout

"Sorry if I've just added to the confusion:confused1:"
No worries on that score; I am still absorbing this stuff in order to be better informed.
E.G.
Torque converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, after all, is this a superior aspect to a hi-low ratio box? I suspect not, because of the extra complexity.
I am all in favour of keeping this simple.

Originally Posted by RussG

Quite an interesting read your link, you learn new stuff everyday
But to answer your question. No I would not say it’s superior, but in the absence of a hi/low range IMHO it’s way better than a straight manual for the reasons above.

It has to be said, in the UK, I’m probably in a minority who prefer auto’s off road.

My order of preference would be something like:
Basic, non electronically controlled, auto with hi/low range and at least a centre and rear diff lock (centre diff locks are not always std. For example on some Discovery 2’s). Combine the advantages of the torque convertor with a low range option and you have a great setup. In the context of your Freelander question you can ignore this. Diff locking doesn’t apply, it’s sorted by the electronics.
Manual with hi/low range.
Auto without hi/low range.
Distant 4th. Manual without hi/low range.
Dependant on your thoughts/confidence on traction control systems and you will have options within the 4 I’ve talked about above.

I guess a question around say the Freelander terrain response system would be “will it keep going even if some of the sensors fail or even if the entire system failed?” Although I have a G Wagen I wouldn’t trust one of the latest ones. A. Because I don’t understand the complexities of can bus systems. B. Because I believe (maybe incorrectly) that if the gearbox electronics start playing up the systems are that integrated that the entire thing will grind to a halt!

My basic approach is keep it simple, less after market modifications the better and keep it light.

Russ

Originally Posted by tacr2man

Prettywell all modern autos are electronic controlled , as are the engines , its down to emission standards mainly and trying to chase fuel economy , so its something that everyone is going to have to live with . Having said that , modern vehicles are amazingly reliable and fuss free when you look at mileages etc compared with old morris oxfords for example!
They also look after themselves eg when something goes wrong they go into limp mode etc to protect from catastrophic damage if possible .
So at the start you have to decide what camp you are going to live in so to speak . If you have the "mechanical knowledge" etc you can operate an older style of vehicle . If you dont then it doesnt matter much if its electronics or mechanics that fail , you are not going to be able to sort it yourself . People often say use so and so type vehicle as a "bush mechanic" in "Sudan" can fix it up . The thing that comes across is that most of the time more damage is done to the vehicle in the long run by these "bush butchers" as I call them .
So what i would choose if I was not an experienced mech , is the newest (low mileage) good service history vehicle that I could afford, and load it well within its limits , and not try and push its "operational envelope"
If you are intending to try HD overland travel eg Congo in the wet , dont go in a honda CRV for example .
Most of the time luckily a "lifestyle" Rec Vehicle, will cope with good conditions , as locals cant afford exotic HD 4wd to get about anyway, but you have to plan well and be prepared to take things a lot slower overall, eg waiting for a stream to drop rather than just pushing ahead.
Please dont be offended by some of the above if it seems i am just stating the obvious , as I am just mentioning things that people often overlook FMHE