Guys,
Many thanks for the last 2 posts; this is all sounding pretty good and the Mk 1s are cheaper on the market than the later Mk2s.

Anymore for anymore?

__________________
Dave

I’ve not used one in anger but have been a passenger in both types. MK1 was surprisingly competent off road, traction control doing it’s stuff. There was a significant facelift to the MK1 btw at some point. All the petrol engines have a poor reliability reputation (K Series overheating issues, the V6 I think has it’s roots in the K series).
The MK2 seemed a huge step forward to me. Very refined on road, nice build quality and significantly bigger. Recognise it’s limitations and I think it would be a great all rounder.
Russ

Interested to read this. I was recently toying with the idea of a freelander at some point in the next few years (a hip op is going to effectively rule out riding motos off-road) for modest trips to Morocco and the like.

I reckon for two people travelling light it could be a good bet. I've also heard they are surprisingly good off-road. A more 'gnarly' alternative would be a Hi-Lux/Surf I suppose.

There are also loads of them for sale on auto-trader and the like and they are cheap as chips. The vast numbers of them around should make spares availability good.

Will be interested to see how/if this thread develops!

Matt

__________________
http://adventure-writing.blogspot.com

http://scotlandnepal.blogspot.com/

*Disclaimer* - I am not saying my bike is better than your bike. I am not saying my way is better than your way. I am not mocking your religion/politics/other belief system. When reading my post imagine me sitting behind a frothing pint of ale, smiling and offering you a bag of peanuts. This is the sentiment in which my post is made. Please accept it as such!

As per Matts' last post, I am also interested to see any more information/views/opinions about the utility of the Freelander.

To "progress" a few points made earlier:
The diesel engine for the mark 1 is from the days when BMW were supplying and it seems to have a good reputation.
Inevitably, being older, it is quite hard to find a Mk 1 with low mileage showing on the Odometer.

How good is the Mk 2 diesel engine?

I haven't looked into this aspect, but I am assuming that they are on a monocoque chassis construction - therefore not as rugged as the full-in-your-face-offroaders (?).

Mk 2s are still pretty expensive, is my first impression looking around online, but being newer have that elusive low mileage on the clock.

I am still a bit concerned about the lifestyle aspect, in that you get the road car fixtures that are, IMO, of no use. Such as built in satnav (a "removal" satnav is fine, but not for me when it is built into the dash board), or parking/reversing sensors and similar bling - more cupholders for instance!!

One key hangup I have in looking at this vehicle, and similar, is that lack of a low ratio box; any more input about that therefore?? Just how often and in what circumstances are folks using the low ratio gears on their vehicles?

ps
Matt,
yes, the bones are creaking and the appeal of riding a fully loaded bike, properly dressed for protection but in a heatwave can waver, at times.
Being able to just chuck the gear in the back is a definite + as well.
(So, a lightweight bike on the back of a 4x4 has attractions)

__________________
Dave

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

Cheers Russ,
I have had some interesting conversation, just this week, with garage mechanics who work on Citreons - but their point could apply to any modern vehicle I believe. It was about your final point above; the electronically controlled auto gear boxes are causing them issues in:-
1. Diagnosing the problem
2. Explaining to their customers how much the repair is going to cost!

I still don't profess to know much about this, but it seems to come down to the disposable nature of the various fittings (throw away items rather than repairable) combined with the way they are designed to interact with each other = one electronically controlled actuator for the clutch and yet another to change the gears (all so that we don't have the physical effort of doing it ourselves!).

Apart from that, what is the advantage of an auto box; instinct would be that the vehicle is always in the right gear ratio for the driving conditions - anything else??

__________________
Dave

"Apart from that, what is the advantage of an auto box; instinct would be that the vehicle is always in the right gear ratio for the driving conditions - anything else??"
It’s not so much that it’s always in the right gear.

My point is to do with the pseudo low range you get with a torque convertor. The slip you get with a torque convertor allows you to progress at a lot slower pace than you can with a manual. With some practice you can progress in a far more controlled and smooth pace. Combine that with left foot braking (again practice needed, and some electronically controlled setups don’t like this) and you can cut out the wheel spinning lurch/stop/lurch which just stresses the drive train.

Combine the above with the excellent terrain response software and you have a very capable machine.
It also has a torque multiplying effect.


Above applies to conventional torque convertor auto's, not the constantly variable (derived from the DAF rubber band auto's but with steel bands and electronic control that mimics the Audi Tiptronic setup).

Sorry if I've just added to the confusion:confused1:
Russ