| Author |
Message |
    
Zdenko
| | Posted on Friday, May 10, 2002 - 11:44 pm: | 
|
Hello,
Can you help me out? I am interested in two 1996 land Rover Discoverys. One is automatic and one has a manual transmision. Can you tell me which one is better??
and what kind of lift should I go with.
Thank you for your help |
jay caragay (Jcaragay)
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 12:47 am: |
|
Again, I'm no expert but from what I've heard from others who have way more experience than I, it is said that the automatics have an advantage off-roading over the manuals.
But if you're just driving on the street it would be cool to have a manual - mainly because there are so few of them. |
Mars in Oz
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 05:52 am: |
|
I haVE A 5 SP manual,which is my main mode of transport, I thinks is great! except in rush hour bumper to bumper traffic,then gear changing can be a pain. |
Russell Smith (Rusty)
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 06:03 am: |
|
I'm certainly no expert either but this question raises a few more:
I believe the concensus is that an automatic transmission has an advantage over manual in the driveability (is that a word?) stakes. Particularly with the ability to pull up to an obstacle and smoothly apply power.
But am I correct in assuming a 5 speed manual transmission would have a lower 1st gear ratio than a 4 speed auto? If so, this may have advantages for hill descents and possibly steep ascents.
As far as reliability is concerned i have been told the Auto box is pretty much indestructable, but have not heard much about the Manual.
Anyone ??
Russell |
Arthur
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 08:59 am: |
|
We have a 96 5 spd manual. We took it to the Land Rover off road clinic a few years ago. The expert that was there told us that the 5 spd is much better off roading then the automatic--more control. Also told us the series 1 is better then the series II.
As compared to the loaner's we've gotten from the dealer over the years (auto trans) the 5 spd is quicker and gets better highway mileage.
In the end I think it boils down to a personal preference. The reason the 5 spds are so rare (and were discontinued) related to very low demand. Most people don't want to shift, they'd rather have the option of talking on the phone.
Good luck.
Arthur |
Gil Stevens (Gil)
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 09:08 am: |
|
my 97 is a 5-speed. I would never trade it for an autobox. Off road its no more difficult, you just have learn how to drive it differently than an automatic. Yes, you defintely have more control over the vehicle in my opinion. Everybody says the r380 is weak, but I beat the tar out of my truck and have never had a single issue. On road, the truck is a ton of fun to drive. Go with the 5-speed, put on a flowmaster and it will at least sound like its fast. fwiw.. my manual disco with 265s will blow the doors off a stock auto disco  |
-OTTO-
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 09:29 am: |
|
Hi guys!
In good old europe mostly of the disco got 5 speed manuel.
I think specially for TDI engine and 235/85 its better if you don`t tune injectionpump and get more bar on turbo!
Disco I built in `96 with now 135PS and 340Nm by 1400rpms.
100 inch are enough
-greatings from good old Germany!
-OTTO- |
Carter Simcoe (Carter)
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 11:13 am: |
|
5 speeds are alot better offroad (once you get good at driving them), thats the only thing I don't like about my disco is the automatic trans. |
Ho Chung (Ho)
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 11:32 am: |
|
the "manual trans gives better control" blah blah, only applies if you know what you are doing. and if you know what you're doing, auto or manual shouldn't matter.
now, i dont' know what i'm doing, so i go with auto.
 |
J
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 11:42 am: |
|
Most off roading with an automatic is done with one foot hovering over the brake to prevent spin after hitting the gas - I don't worry about that with my stick. Its convenient to rev and launch you on to on-ramps too. I drive in gridlock daily as well - but you can do 12 MPH comfortably in 3rd gear - ask the other guys. Playing with the clutch on climbing and pulling gingerly (like a car out of beach sand) is much easier with the soft feel of a stick than just pressing the gas harder and HARDER until you finally lunge or spin the tires with an auto. ALSO - at 70-71 MPH - I GET 17.3 MPG!!!
Oh yeah - and when you're pissed at your woman you can rip out & releive stress -- admit it - it feels good and its cool ;)
-J |
Zdenko
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Thank you all for your help ;)
I guess it all boils down whic\h one will be available at the time I purchase the vehicle.
I am hoping that the 5 speed is there, I have always driven a with manual trasnmission.
Once again thank you.
Z |
Gil Stevens (Gil)
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 12:27 pm: |
|
not to mention the fact that youll get 80,000 miles out of a set of brake pads with the manual.. |
PerroneFord
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 05:13 pm: |
|
Why is that Gil? Hopefully you're not suggesting using engine braking all the time. Brake pads are a hell of a lot cheaper to replace than trannys!
-P |
M. K. Watson (Lrover94)
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 05:24 pm: |
|
ho is hitting it on the head, in the end it really doesnt matter what you like as long as you know how to use it. i have had both autos and manuals in a wide variety of cars and trucks, i can honestly say that in that it really comes down to the color of socks you have on when you go to buy. they both perform and do it equally well (as long as you know what to do with it). as far as mileage, i beg to differ, i believe that its the auto that suffers around town but highway mileage would be equal if the overall final ratio between both trannys are equal then it should not make a difference. if you used only four of the five gears then the fuel use would be almost equal (insert disclaimer here). the five speed may get slightly better mileage due to its extra gear (overdrive i believe its called). rocket scientists please correct me if i am wrong. as for me i will keep my slush box it works and i really dont know a damn thing. hehehe
mike w |
Gil Stevens (Gil)
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 05:40 pm: |
|
perrone.. that was a bit of humor. But for real i did get close to 60k out of my rear pads. Obviously i wouldnt suggest engine braking ALL the time, but inevitably with a stick (provided u know how to drive it) youll do more engine braking than with an auto. gas mileage? better with a manual? you must be kidding.. im lucky if i can peel 175 miles from a tank of petrol (no highway). I find youll get worse mileage with a stick because youll have more fun driving it.. |
chris browne
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 06:33 pm: |
|
For a novice off road driver and for in town use, an auto is best...just understand that off road downhill the auto doesn't provide as much engine braking therefore a tad more care is called for there. The auto however provides far better control in slow tricky conditions where you can use left foot braking when a stick has to slip the clutch
I've driven both, don't expect fast slick changes with the five speed, be prepared to gently row it between gears
Engine braking I swear FWIW is mostly drivetrain friction on road..... |
Norm
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 09:19 pm: |
|
Obvioulsy, 5-speeds are sexier -- just compare gear shift levers. Besides, everybody knows that automatics are for sissies.
---Norm |
Sean H
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 09:33 pm: |
|
With the 5 speed there is no need to slip the clutch. You can start the truck in 1st low on the steepest of inclines and never touch the clutch and the truck will SLOWLY creep. My experience with the auto was so so. Steep decents required a good deal of braking which made things a bit sketchy in loose soil. The auto is easier to wheel with but by no means is it better. The lack decent control also translates to accent control and rock crawling is much more difficult. If I had to choose as a newbie I would go ZF if I were to choose knowing what I know now R380 baby! |
Milan
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Why would engine braking be bad for the tranny? Aren't the engine and tranny there to make the truck go as well as slow it down? I love engine braking and have always done it/used it on all cars/trucks with no ill effects as far as I know.
I know brake pads are cheaper but on a long downhill I'd definitely use the engine as overheating brakes and warping rotors is not good either. |
LR Max
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 12:34 am: |
|
For the first time out, I drove a 95' disco w/an auto box. Just because I didn't know what I was doing, the auto box was a life saver. But now I have a Series 3 109", and stick is better . This backs up Ho's claim about experience. If your having a hard time telling the difference between your shoe strings and a tow strap, get the auto box ;).
On another note, the guys who do the insane, crazy rock crawling prefer automatic tranny. Go figure .
Just my .02
Max T. |
Ron
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 01:37 am: |
|
Watch out for the known issues on the 5 speeds. Spline wear at the Tcase input/mainshaft output (this only effects pre suffix F LT230s) and the fact they have a tendencey to go boom and the synchros are complete crap. The only way I would buy one is if the synchros in it were perfect (ie no grind on quick high rev shifts in all gears) or if I was prepared to replace it.
Ron |
Carter Simcoe (Carter)
| | Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 02:43 am: |
|
I agree with Milan, engine braking should put the same strain on everything as accelerating. Someone correct me if I am wrong but what is the difference?? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page