In its August 1967 test of a 4-speed 1967 Pontiac Firebird 400, Car Life magazine remarked that the Firebird didn’t really need the 4-speed transmission, and suggested that the standard 3-speed “is more than adequate and costs less.” They didn’t test a Firebird with the 3-speed for comparison, but Motor Trend did. Here’s what they found.
While the conventional wisdom among muscle car fans is that 4-speed manual transmissions were the last word in performance, Car Life came away from their comparison of a 4-speed 1967 Firebird Sprint and a 4-speed Firebird 400 less convinced. They found the Muncie 4-speed transmissions in both cars hard to shift (especially in the Sprint, whose center console seemed to add resistance to the linkage) and quite expensive: In 1967, the 4-speed listed for $184.31 on a Firebird, the inflation-adjusted equivalent of about $2,000 in 2026. The editors questioned whether the cost was worthwhile:
Both the Sprint and 400 engines proved to be very flexible powerplants, with broad torque range. In all-out dragstrip competition, a 4-speed transmission has a slight advantage in keeping an engine near its power peak over a larger portion of the strip. In city traffic operation, however, four gears become a bit redundant, and the driver is likely to find himself skipping one or more ratios. With the flexibility Pontiac engines offer, a 3-speed transmission, is more than adequate and costs less. The 3-speed fully synchronized transmissions installed as standard equipment in all Firebirds are very satisfactory units, with well chosen ratios for each powerplant.
So far as I’ve been able to find, there were no contemporary road tests of a 1967 Firebird Sprint with the 3-speed, although some were built, including the Cameo Ivory Sprint convertible pictured here. However, Motor Trend‘s May 1967 sporty car comparison included acceleration times for no fewer than ten of the available Firebird powertrain combinations, including Firebird 400s with the 3-speed, 4-speed, and Turbo Hydra-Matic (TH400).
Here’s what Motor Trend reported for the Firebird 400:
- Firebird 400/3-speed: 0 to 60 mph: 7.0 sec.; ¼ mile: 14.8 sec. at 98 mph
- Firebird 400/4-speed: 0 to 60 mph: 6.7 sec.; ¼ mile: 14.5 sec. at 99 mph
- Firebird 400/TH400: 0 to 60 mph: 6.7 sec.; ¼ mile: 14.7 sec. at 99 mph
Compared to the 400’s standard heavy-duty 3-speed, the 4-speed manual 400 was 0.3 seconds quicker both to 60 mph and through the standing quarter mile, gaining 1 mph through the lights. Like Car Life said, these fractions would be significant on the dragstrip, but on the street, there was really very little to choose between them.
This may be less surprising if you compare the gear ratios of the Ford-built H-D 3-speed and the wide-ratio 4-speed:
| Transmission | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-speed, wide-ratio | 2.52 | 1.88 | 1.47 | 1.00 |
| 3-speed H-D | 2.41 | 1.59 | 1.00 |
The wide-ratio 4-speed had a slight numerical advantage in 1st, but with so much torque, the Firebird 400 hardly needed it. (With a big engine and street tires, higher numerical gear ratios could actually hurt acceleration by overloading the tires or setting the rear axle hopping, forcing the driver to feather-foot it off the line.) The 3-speed ratios were evenly spaced, which was good for performance, so their main shortcoming compared to the 4-speed was that the 3-speed’s 2nd gear didn’t give as much torque multiplication as 2nd gear in the 4-speed. However, with the standard tires and 3.36 axle ratio, you could stay in 2nd to about 70 mph. Both transmissions had direct top gears, so with the same axle ratios, top-gear performance was identical.
What about the close-ratio 4-speed? There’s a common misconception among enthusiasts that a close-ratio gearbox was essential for any serious performance car, but that was really only true in certain narrow circumstances. Take a look at the ratios of the close-ratio Muncie 4-speed:
| Transmission | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-speed, close-ratio | 2.20 | 1.64 | 1.27 | 1.00 |
In general, lower numerical ratios tend to penalize in-gear performance unless they’re matched with a higher numerical axle ratio, like the 3.90 or 4.33 ratios usually specified with Pontiac’s Ram Air packages.
Even then, the main performance advantage of the close-ratio 4-speed gears was that engine speed didn’t drop as much on the 3–4 shift as it did with the wide-ratio gears, which was useful for highly tuned engines that made most of their power at high rpm.
The six-cylinder Sprint is a trickier question. Let’s take a look at the ratios:
| Transmission | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-speed | 3.11 | 2.20 | 1.47 | 1.00 |
| 3-speed | 2.85 | 1.68 | 1.00 |
Obviously, the OHC 6 didn’t have nearly as much torque as the big 400-cid V-8, so for all-out acceleration, it might have benefited from the higher numerical 1st gear and additional intermediate gear. Also, upshifting from 3rd to 4th didn’t drop the revs as much as going from 2nd to 3rd with the 3-speed stick, which would probably be helpful on the dragstrip.
However, the 4-speed ratios used with the six-cylinder engine had a really big gap between 2nd and 3rd, which would probably create moments where you’d have to choose between revving the engine’s guts out in 2nd or lugging in 3rd. Also, with a 2.20 2nd gear and the standard 3.55 axle, you could probably start in 2nd without too much complaint. For around-town driving, the standard 3-speed stick might be a better overall compromise.
Another consideration, at least in 1967, was that the 4-speed linkage used in the Firebird left a lot to be desired; the problems Car Life experienced were not isolated ones. Testing an experimental Sprint prototype in July 1967, Motor Trend said of the 4-speed linkage:
In short, it’s bad. Funny thing is, they [Pontiac] know it, but haven’t been able to rectify the situation due to a logistics problem. Firebirds are made in Ohio, on the same premise as Chevy’s Camaro, and getting their kind of linkage to that line poses a problem. This problem isn’t exclusive to the trim Sprint package; it involves all their 4-speed Firebirds. Until the time they can get proper linkage in the ‘Birds, buyers would do well to set aside a few extra dollars for a decent setup. The shifter is so non-positive that it caused us to get jammed in traffic a couple times because we couldn’t downshift and move away in another lane.
The tempting alternative for Firebird 400 buyers was Turbo Hydra-Matic. This cost cost $226.44, $42.13 more than the 4-speed stick, but it was highly competitive in performance, generally more pleasant to live with, and easier to sell on. Unfortunately, the three-speed automatic was available only with the big engine, which probably needed it least. With the sixes or the 326, you were limited to the two-speed automatic, which seriously penalized the performance of the sixes. (Automatic cost the Sprint over 2 seconds from 0 to 60, a difference you WOULD feel on the street.)
At least for the big-engine Firebird 400, though, Car Life was right: Except on the dragstrip, what you were buying with the 4-speed was more bragging rights than actual performance. The same was true of a lot of muscle cars and hot pony cars of this era: There were a few high-strung examples that really needed a 4-speed (like the original 302-cid Camaro Z28), but unless you expected to spend your weekend with numbers written on your windows in shoe polish, three speeds was usually plenty.
Choosing the 3-speed stick did have one big downside that had nothing to do with performance: resale value. Today, 3-speed manual cars are uncommon enough and novel enough that it may not matter, but the standard stick shift wasn’t a great short-term investment. When these cars were still relatively new, the 3-speed took a big hit in trade-in value compared to the 4-speed or automatic. After late ’60s sporty cars started to become collectible, 4-speed cars were usually worth substantially more. The 4-speed might not have had a meaningful edge on the street, but as long as people still thought of it as the hot ticket, they were prepared to pay a premium for it.
Appendix: Firebird Acceleration Figures from Motor Trend
Here are all the Firebird performance figures published in the May 1967 Motor Trend. An important caveat: The published results don’t specify the axle ratios or the individual curb weights, presumably for space reasons, although it’s clear from the text and accompanying photos that the 326-2V car was the heavier convertible while the 326 H.O. was a hardtop.
All times were recorded with two aboard, typical road test practice at the time.
| Engine | Transmission | 0 to 60 mph, sec. | Quarter mile, sec. | Trap speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OHC 6-1V (165 hp) | 3-speed manual | 13.2 | 19.7 | 74 |
| OHC 6-1V (165 hp) | 2-speed auto | 15.8 | 21.0 | 72 |
| Sprint OHC 6 (215 hp) | 4-speed manual | 9.8 | 16.9 | 83 |
| Sprint OHC 6 (215 hp) | 2-speed auto | 12.2 | 18.8 | 78 |
| 326-2V (250 hp) | 2-speed auto | 10.0 | 18.3 | 82 |
| 326-4V (285 hp) | 2-speed auto | 7.8 | 16.0 | 90 |
| 400-4V (325 hp) | 3-speed manual | 7.0 | 14.8 | 98 |
| 400-4V (325 hp) | 4-speed manual | 6.7 | 14.5 | 99 |
| 400-4V (325 hp) | 3-speed auto | 6.7 | 14.7 | 99 |
| 400 Ram Air | 3-speed auto | 6.4 | 14.3 | 100.3 |
Unfortunately, Motor Trend didn’t test either any stick-shift 326s or the 3-speed Sprint.
Related Reading
1967 Firebird Convertible – With The Rare And Special OHC Inline-Six (by J P Cavanaugh)
Driveway Find: 1967 Pontiac Firebird – Hot Street Machine (by Rich Baron)
I still don’t know why the couple extra cogs needed to go from 3 speeds to 4 would cost almost as much as the far more complicated THM automatic. Must have been pure greed unless Ford was literally giving away the 3 speeds to GM to keep their factory running at economic levels. With the advent of high speed Interstate highways with 70+ mph speed limits – it sure took automakers a long time to offer overdrive type gearing (either with an OD 4th gear or a very tall real axle ratio with direct drive 4th gear) to keep the RPMs down on road trips. I guess with gas at 25 cents per gallon buyers didn’t care about MPG, but having a big V-8 spinning along at 3000+ RPM on the highway would certainly be wearing on both passengers and the engine.
It was a way to claim a lower sticker price, knowing that almost all buyers would opt for the 4-speed or automatic.
Transmission comparisons are meaningless without also knowing the rear axle ratio and tire diameter. Unless these cars were all identical in those respects, the numbers can’t be compared.
They were.
I was a 4 speed fan, but I eventually reached the same conclusion about not needing all 4 gears if all you were considering was acceleration. BC, where I live, is very mountainous and in the ’70s and ’80s most of our highways were hilly, curvy 2 lanes once you got away from Vancouver and the south coast. That extra gear between 2nd and 4th made all the difference in any kind of spirited driving.
One big consideration is how well matched the trans ratios are to the rear axle ratio. Up until the late ’70s most domestic 4 speed cars were well matched for general purpose use, though you could order a close ratio box with a low gear for “specialized use” in some cars. In the late 70s though, you started to see very wide ratio transmissions matched with very high rear end ratios. This was likely an attempt to increase highway mileage while preserving at least some initial acceleration. Such cars had a huge gap between 2nd and 3rd, and hitting 3rd felt like a sudden 40 mph headwind. At that point, the automatic was a far better choice for most people.
I still love a 4 speed, but these days I get my fix in my Corvair, Now that’s a car that really needs one!
There’s no question that in mountainous terrain a 4-speed is desirable. In Germany in the ’50s and early ’60s, a 4-speed was sometimes referred to as “mountain transmission” as quite a lot of German cars came standard with a 3-speed. Given their very limited engine power, the additional gear was highly desirable and recommended in the mountains.
It all really boils down to the engine in front of the transmission and the weight of the car. A car with a very advantageous power to weight ratio, especially one with a large displacement engine with a very fat torque curve will rarely actually feel the need for the additional intermediate gear. And especially so in more typical terrain.
But yes, a Corvair or any car with a smaller engine derives very considerable advantage from that extra gear.
I’ve been saying this for years now. Obviously it all depends on the engine and the weight of the car, among other factors. But the typical lazy, fat-torque big American V8 like this 400 very much did not need a 4-speed. There’s plenty of vintage reviews I’ve done where the testers came to the same conclusion. The 4-speed became a bragging rights thing.
As to the Sprint, I’m a bit more on the fence about that one. I had assumed it was a bit peakier than it turns out to have been, or it least it seems that the one tested in the recent review wasn’t quite running at its best as it did not like to rev past 5,000 rpm. The nasty shifter is the turn-off here; if it shifted well, I’d be inclined to go for the 4-speed in the Sprint.
I generally agree about the number of gears being unnecessary, however I’d spring for the 4-speed solely to not have the dogleg first of the 3 speed. If the biggest mechanical problem of the 4 speed is the linkage surely that could be remedied by Hurst linkage?
Generally, yeah (although the console interference might still be a problem), but that was added cost on top of the $184 you were already spending on the 4-speed transmission.
Fair point, but I’ve known many people who’ve bought brand new Mustang GTs and within months upgrade the factory shifter to MGW, Steeda etc. I’d imagine for the kind of buyer who’d spring the $184 for the 4-speed option back then, spending another $70 or so(not entirely sure what they cost back then) to get the most out of it would have been a given.
Having been around back then, I’d say that only the genuine racers would spend the money to upgrade the shifter, and they were a quite small percentage of the total sales of popular muscle cars like the Firebird 400, GTO and all the rest.
Having a 4-speed was…cool, regardless of whether it was an actual improvement or not, as was having a Firebird 400, GTO, SS396, etc., but that did not mean many of their owners actually raced them. The Great majority of the buyers of these cars were looking for image and sex appeal of these cars, and frankly often had no real clue as to what they had, or didn’t. I saw this first hand in the rather affluent parts of the Baltimore suburbs where we lived.
Whereas the more recent stereotype of all Chevelles being 396s and such is grossly off base, in their heyday,these cars did sell in quite significant numbers. And after 3-5 years, they traded it in for a Monte Carlo or Cutlass Supreme coupe because they got tired of the noise, ride and having to shift the damn 4-speed! 🙂
About Pontiac 3 speed manuals, there was a heavy duty ‘3.03’ 3 speed available throughout the 60’s in Tempests, G.T.O.’s, and I believe Firebirds as well. This transmission was not available in Chevy’s as is sometimes referred to as the Dearborn 3 speed, because it is actually a Ford Toploader. It was a well regarded gearbox.
Regarding the balky GM 4 speed shifters of the day, I wonder if those were the notorious Inland ‘Guess-A-Gear’ shifters Mopars were cursed with around the same time.
I’m pretty sure that Ford top loader 3-speed was available in Olds and Buicks too.
It doesn’t appear to be the case with the Firebird (as reported) but on certain cars in certain acceleration tests, a 3-speed could be faster than a 4-speed. In theory (as an example) a 0-60 run might only require 1 shift (1-2) with a 3-speed, while a 4-speed might require a 2nd shift (2-3) thus slowing down the run.
What will probably be the last car I own with a manual transmission had a six-speed manual. It often felt like I had too many gears, and spent too much time shifting.
I have to wonder if the 326/4V might not give the 400/4V with the 3 speed fits if it had been equipped with a 4 speed.
Good article! Probably few people realize that one of the real performers of the muscle car years came with a 3-speed standard, and that would be the 70 Buick GS Stage 1. There was an unmodified one for sale nearby 40+ years ago near me, with the stock 3-speed. It didn’t help it to sell.
It’s too bad that the lower output engines, that could have benefited from an extra gear or two, weren’t usually the ones to get them! (I know there were some exceptions.)
All too often we fall prey to ‘what’s expected’. When I was a teen, three speeders were for your dad’s or grandpa’s car – ‘everyone knew’ serious perfomance cars had a four speed.
What we didn’t stop to think about was that those serious performance cars had small engines, peaky engines, or both. What nobody told us back then was that the gearing depends on the power output charcteristics of the engine. A big, gently tuned engine doesn’t need a lot of gears.
Or more likely we just weren’t listening.
I remember being really shaken when elderly Auntie Grace’s new Morris 1500 came with a five speed! Okay, it was an overdrive, but still – where else did you get five gears in 1970? Once I drove it I realised what they had done. What a great idea, I thought – little realising the concept ot overdrives had been around for decades.
My Acura RSX Type S had a 6 speed box that shifted beautifully. Sometimes I drive the car with no destination in mind just to work the transmission and feel it’s precision.
For general use I’d skip gears. I forget the sequence, but I eliminated two shifts with no bogging. I skipped gears with my 5 speed Cummins diesel Dodge, too. I could take off in 3rd gear with that beast, but typically started in 2nd.
Frankly I would’ve traded a gear for an extra 50HP / 50 lb-ft of torque with the Acura.
The real reason to buy a four-speed is that three-speeds had unsynchronized first until the mid-60’s.
I don’t think I’m qualified here, the only 3 speed manuals I’ve driven were in Benford dumpers. It occurs to me that the 4 speed with a crawler low used in pickups is driven like a 3 speed and with a decent size V8 that’s all the gears you needed. The exception was an F350 dually with a 6.9 diesel and a very low rear axle that would climb a wall at idle in first but was screaming at 55mph in 4th. That truck really needed a fifth gear.