No manual trans, on purpose?

[Roach]

Curious, is the reason the grenadier doesn’t have a manual trans because of emissions, bmw doesn’t offer one, better off road capability, ???? Was this a “market issue” (demand)?

I’d prefer manual but maybe because that was my upbringing.

 

[Baron von Teuchter]

Early sketches show 3 pedals but I suspect it was a packaging issue, one of the official Ineos production videos has an Ineos engineer categorically saying that it would never have a manual box.

 

[Roach]

I recall that discussion but was it purpose driven or forced? My experiences off road have always been with manual and I felt the clutch was my friend. Sometime we would rock back and forth and I don’t see easily doing that in an auto. Dual clutch would have been interesting.

 

[Asnes]

Likely added engineering cost, time and overhead was too high to spread across all buyers to recover vs the handful that would want a manual. You can only spend so much $ on engineering (physical mounting, computer, engine tune, additional testing, etc) and then someone needs to support and stock all the parts globally for a different transmission. I have no doubt they did the market research and the volume wasn’t there to justify. The US is reportedly their largest market and only 6% of vehicles sold in the states are manual (low demand)

 

[Mountain4x4]

Here are a few issues;
1. Low take rate, so another design for a handful of typically not the target audience buyers.
2. An Automatic is FAR easier to use off-road then a stick
3. A stick shift transmission is far less reliable due to burned out clutches and the like. Also easier to check fluids, cool, ect on an Auto.
4. A stick shift transmission reduces reliability of the vehicle as a whole, and dramatically increases breakage as its a much more violent engagement.

 

[Roach]

So it’s more reliable, I would have thought the opposite but that comes from a pretty narrow experience with off-road technical driving.

Easier? I’ll take your word for it as I only have a few hundred hours of off-road experience and it’s a little dated

I imagine that snow/ice driving is better with an auto. My experience was always desert/mountains.

 

[Eric]

I recall that discussion but was it purpose driven or forced? My experiences off road have always been with manual and I felt the clutch was my friend. Sometime we would rock back and forth and I don’t see easily doing that in an auto. Dual clutch would have been interesting.

Land Rover haven't made a manual since the demise of the old Defender. Not sure if a new manual off roader is available in the UK or EU currently. Suzuki??

 

[AWo]

It will become more and more difficult to adhere to exhaust regulations with manual transmissions.

Computers do a better job and the engine and gearbox ECU can communicate.

AWo

 

[LC0013]

It will become more and more difficult to adhere to exhaust regulations with manual transmissions.

Computers do a better job and the engine and gearbox ECU can communicate.

AWo

Sounds like they need to make a better computer.

 

[Roach]

It will become more and more difficult to adhere to exhaust regulations with manual transmissions.

Computers do a better job and the engine and gearbox ECU can communicate.

AWo

For me, this seems like the most logical reason.
Reliability and technical capability were a surprise to me that the ZF trans did a better job.
I'll add that in stop-n-go driving on the 405 the auto will be superior

 

[evomind]

Anyone can make excuses for and/or against.
I prefer sportscars with a manual but for off roaders I prefer an automatic, but I totally get how the manual is more engaging, never mind what's easier, better, reliable and all that stuff.
Ford was not going to do a Bronco with a manual for the 2.7 until the overwhelming demand by potential customers.
Ferrari doesnt make a manual trans anymore but look at the value of their used car prices of the manuals as opposed to their F! trans counterparts.
Even Porsches.
The Gren is already a niche vehicle....

 

[Roach]

But isn’t the sports car market a bit different: the speed in which a decision is made going gear to gear.

I’m coming from zero experience for off road and auto but I’m imagining that I want to rock my way out of a situation…how easy is that in an auto.

 

[Baron von Teuchter]

Autos are great for towing and there’s something to be said for not having to slip the clutch too much off-road but i do feel a bit more comfortable with a manual on really steep stuff.

Pros and cons I guess.

Imagine trying to squeeze 3 pedals into the RHD footwell though?

 

[Roach]

Autos are great for towing and there’s something to be said for not having to slip the clutch too much off-road but i do feel a bit more comfortable with a manual on really steep stuff.

Pros and cons I guess.

Imagine trying to squeeze 3 pedals into the RHD footwell though?

100%, wouldn’t fit given the current parameters.

 

[stickshifter]

Here are a few issues;
1. Low take rate, so another design for a handful of typically not the target audience buyers.
2. An Automatic is FAR easier to use off-road then a stick
3. A stick shift transmission is far less reliable due to burned out clutches and the like. Also easier to check fluids, cool, ect on an Auto.
4. A stick shift transmission reduces reliability of the vehicle as a whole, and dramatically increases breakage as its a much more violent engagement.

Though I was disappointed, I was not surprised that there was no manual option, and I am fairly sure the investment to produce a manual would not have been a wise decision for Ineos, given the low-take rate. But I thought I'd respond to the points you made above.

1. Absolutely right

2. Agreed. Even when you are good with a manual off-road (the only thing I have ever owned), an auto is easier.

3. This is not as open/shut as you suggest. A good driver can avoid burning a clutch. You just have to get off the clutch quickly, even when something in your brain is telling you to keep it partially engaged. I have always found maintenance with a manual transmission to be very simple.

4. Again, this partially depends on the driver, and there are ways in which the manual is more reliable. For example:
(a) A manual will let you know hundreds, if not thousands of miles in advance that something is wearing out. Autos can simply stop functioning out of the blue (less common with new ones, but still possible). Manuals do not simply stop functioning out of the blue. I would rather own a transmission that might need occasional service, but that gives you plenty of feedback as to its health, than a transmission that seems to be fine, until it refuses to function. I think modern autos (like the ZF 8-speed) are much improved in this regard.
(b) An auto can overheat when towing, or under other hard driving, in ways that a manual will not. Overheating an auto can be a pretty big deal, potentially leaving the vehicle immobilized.
(c) If you lose your starter motor or have a low-juice battery you can push-start a manual - which is also super-fun, and particularly exciting on steep rocky trails, or in the city, on a hill, heading into traffic. Its possible I have experience with both scenarios

A few more points:
(1) A manual has traditionally been much safer on snowy / icy roads, being able to hold a gear or downshift at your discretion. Of course, the manual mode found in modern autos has taken away this advantage with a manual.
(2) A manual makes you pay closer attention to your driving, which - one might argue - is safer.
(3) A manual is more engaging, and provides one with a greater sense of connection with the vehicle. For manual-enthusiasts - this makes driving more interesting and more fun.
(4) A manual is pretty miserable if one regularly drive in stop-and-go traffic; it is also a bit more tiring on really long road-trips.

 

[Tinerfeño]

Some views:
1. Low take rate, so another design for a handful of typically not the target audience buyers. - Possible, but still.

2. An Automatic is FAR easier to use off-road then a stick - Certainly not. This lady has used his fathers auto converted Defender for many years and I once borrowed my blue 200Tdi Disco to her and at first stop she said: "This is SO easy to drive!"

3. A stick shift transmission is far less reliable due to burned out clutches and the like. Also easier to check fluids, cool, ect on an Auto. - Totally disagree. Your computer may fail as well, and the gearbox mechanics can fail. Manual box may not need cooler. Do you know how many autoboxes have left you without transmission or completely broke the autobox after cooler or cooler piping failure?

4. A stick shift transmission reduces reliability of the vehicle as a whole, and dramatically increases breakage as its a much more violent engagement. - Again disgree and can prove it. Above Disco has now done 600' km with original manual gearbox. The original clutch lasted nearly 500' km. Please rise your hand when your ZF autobox has done the same ...

 

[LC0013]

Curious, is the reason the grenadier doesn’t have a manual trans because of emissions, bmw doesn’t offer one, better off road capability, ???? Was this a “market issue” (demand)?

I’d prefer manual but maybe because that was my upbringing.

I would have paid extra for a manual transmission. In general, one likes to purchase features he would like to have and not what an engineer thinks you should have. Oh well, probably the bean counters kept us from getting a manual transmission.

 

[Catpaw4x4]

Land Rover haven't made a manual since the demise of the old Defender. Not sure if a new manual off roader is available in the UK or EU currently. Suzuki??

For the US - last major import of 5 sp manual were the 96 Discoveries (I have one ). There were only 80 imported in 97 - US market wants the ability to drink coffee, smoke, shave, curl hair, apply makeup, read the newspaper, watch YouTube etc while driving ... trying to figure out how to drive a manual and do all the other stuff would require an act of God ( in the sense of a 3rd arm ).
A manual is an inconvenience to vast majority of people ... poor folk just don't know understand what joy they are missing!

 

[AnD3rew]

I think many of the things people think about autos vs manuals are based one very outdated views and information. I agree I prefer the engagement of a manual in a sports car, but if it’s pure speed you are after. these days an auto can change much faster than a human and probably choose a better gear in many circumstances with a 6-8 speed box. Autos these days are definitely more reliable, particularly if you change the fluid more often than manufacturers claim you should. There are more situations offroad where an auto is better than there are where a manual is better, changing gear in sand is one, getting started in a forward direction on a steep hill is another. You can use left foot braking to replicate or replace things like rocking on the clutch and brake pads are easier and cheaper to replace than clutches.

But I suspect there were only one to two main considerations for INEOS, the main one being the economics of an additional large variation on the assembly line and all the computer programming and testing required these days for what will be for some time a relatively small market and physically getting it in there particularly for RHD versions.

 

[Roach]

I would have paid extra for a manual transmission. In general, one likes to purchase features he would like to have and not what an engineer thinks you should have. Oh well, probably the bean counters kept us from getting a manual transmission.

I would have paid extra as well.
The explanation that makes the most sense is computer/emission issue cited earlier.