(first posted 9/21/2017) I’ve long had a fixation on the lack of four speed transmissions being available on American compacts in the 1960s. The standard three speed manual transmission was a relic from the pre-war era when cars had slow-revving engines, very high (numeric) geared rear axles, and highway speeds were very modest. Driving conditions were different, but most of all, driver expectations were different.
In the 1950s, when the great import and sports car boom were under way, things changed quickly. Highway speeds increased, which meant that rear axle ratios were lowered numerically, effectively increasing the gaps between gears, especially between second and third. With a big lazy V8, or for buyers looking for minimal motoring function, the three speed was adequate enough. But the compacts’ brief was to compete against the imports, which almost invariably had four speed transmissions.
Of course the true import-fighter Corvair had an optional four speed, as of the spring of 1960. And I knew that the Falcon was available with the UK-sourced four speed behind their six from mid-year 1962 through 1964. But a four speed behind the Chrysler slant six on their Dart and Valiant? I was never aware of that, until yesterday.
1964 Valiant brochure
I had to dig up the various brochures online to determine the start and end dates of the four-speed slant-six combo, which really surprised me as to its existence. It started in 1964, which of course is because Chrysler’s excellent new A-833 four speed transmission first saw the light of day that year. It was of course primarily developed for the big V8s, especially since the B/W T-10 was felt not to be strong enough for the wicked 413 Max wedge engine. But there were two versions from the get-go, one for the sixes and the 273/318 V8s, and the other for the big engines.
The version we’re discussing had different gear ratios; 3.09, 1.92, 1.4, 1.0, for first through fourth, to accommodate the lower torque of the smaller engines. This compares to the A-903 three-speed’s ratios of 2.95, 1.83, 1.0. Note how close first and second gear ratios are in these two boxes. Which explains the very frustrating “hole” between second and direct third, especially with a six.
Here’s the excerpt from the ’64 Dart brochure. Note that it says “Optional on all Dart models”. The reason I point theta out is because I can’t quite tell if the four speed was available behind the 170 cubic inch slant six. Probably not.
This power train chart for the ’65 Dart clearly shows it not being available for the 170 six. Too bad, as it needed it even more. My dad’s ’68 Dart had the 170, and the hole between second and third was really objectionable, especially the way I was trying to drive it.
Here’s a bit more from the ’65 Dart brochure.
Of course the ’64-’65 Barracuda, which was virtually identical to the Valiant except for its glassy fastback, also offered the four speed with the six in those two years.
It all ended in 1966, when the four speed became available only with the V8s.
And then it came back again, in 1975, after the A-833 had been re-engineered into a three-speed and OD transmission, by turning “third gear” into a 0.73 OD ratio, and changing the linkage so that third and fourth were now flipped on the shifter pattern.
Of course this was done in response to the energy crisis. A five speed is what was needed, but necessity is the mother of improvisation. And the gap between second and third was tightened up a bit, with the new ratios of 3.09, 1.67, 1.1 and 0.73.
Other than the Falcon’s brief fling with the UK-sourced four speed behind the six (and the Corvair, of course), that was it for proper gear ratios in the compacts in this era. The Chevy II never offered the four speed with its four or sixes, although the Camaro did. The Rambler American and Studebaker Lark did offer overdrive three-speed transmissions, but they way they were set up to work semi-automatically, it didn’t really give as many intermediate ratios as a four speed (it requires a conversion to manual operation to do that, like in my F-100).
Obviously, the take rate on these six cylinder four speeds was minute. Most American buyers of compacts just didn’t appreciate the benefits, and once V8s were available on them, performance-oriented buyers went that route anyway. But it makes for engaging speculation to imagine a 1960 Valiant offering a four speed behind its little high-revving 170 slant six. Now that would have really vaulted it to the head of the class, even further.
170/4-speed was N/A in ’64, too, though “N/A” was rather more porous back then than it got once engine/transmission packages had to be type-approved for emissions.
The Slant-6 4-speed A-body is quite a great deal more pleasant to drive than the 3-speed car, if for no other reason than the Hurst floor shifter was vastly better than the sloppy, vague column shifter the 3-speed cars got starting in ’62. The Hurst shifter was dropped for a cheaper Inland unit for ’66, along with the elimination of the 4-speed option for Slant-6 cars in the states; it remained available in Canada for ’66—I haven’t looked into ’67, but I think not. By ’75 the shifter quality had slid further downward quite a bit, along with that of the rest of the car.
And yes, the ’60 Valiant would’ve been fab with a 4-speed, and stellar with a 4-speed overdrive, particularly given the rather ridiculously low/numerically high rear axle ratios and miniature tires they put on the early cars.
(No, sorry, I will not get onside with Chrysler’s silliness in calling the A833OD a “3-speed overdrive” or “3-speed with overdrive” transmission. It’s a 4-speed overdrive transmission.)
Thanks for the info on when the craptacular Inland shifter reared its ugly head. It seems like it didn’t last long, only three years (’66-’68). A not-so-fond memory of, say, Road Runner drivers was busting their knuckles into the dash on the 2-3 powershift. Chrysler managed to wise-up by 1969 when I think the much better Hurst unit began being used.
Of course, they then kind of bunged it up (again) when the Pistol-Grip shift handle showed up for 1970. It wasn’t as bad as the Inland, but it was still more awkward than the normal round shift knob.
As to the six-cylinder, 4-speed Valiant, I remember an anecdote in some Mopar magazine describing an ordered slant-six, 4-speed, 4-door mid-sixties’ Valiant coming down the assembly line with “4-DOOR, 4-SPEED?” emblazoned on the windshield.
I vaguely recall that Rick Ehrenberg had a 4bbl 273/4-speed 4-door Dart in the mid-60s.
There were a (very) few Slant-6/4-speed ’64-’65 wagons ordered and built, too.
I was a little off: Ehrenberg didn’t have a Dart. He had a 1965 4-door Valiant 200, with 273 Commando, 4-speed, fast-ratio manual steering, and manual 4-piston disc brakes…almost certainly a one of one car. The shifter was used in his Green Brick 1969 Valiant road-racer for many years.
His 65 showed up on the transporter with “4 DOOR 4 SPEED!” on the windshield.
My Dad replaced the family Peugeot 404 wagon with an early-production Volare wagon in ’76 … he was happy to find it on a lot with the manual four-speed set-up.
No one else was allowed to drive his car… ’til he got sick of the recalls for it in ’78 and traded it in on a new Malibu sedan (oops). The shifter on the Volare was nothing like that nice short stick shown for the ’64 above — what A-Body ever had a console except the Barracuda? The Volare had a bench seat (six seats!) and the shifter rose up from the front of the transmission hump. To avoid the dashboard, it had an enormous dog-leg akin to a floor shifter from the ’30s. So much for a ‘tight, slop-free shift’.
I always imagined that Chrysler’s engineers found them in the left-over parts bins from the Airflow.
Great description, Ed.
Who ‘d ever believe it was stock. ?!
I sure would like to see a photo.
The long-tall shifter on Ed N’s ’76 Volare wagon must have come from the ’34 Chrysler Airflow in this photo !
I remember an 80 Volare sedan on the showroom floor with that 4 speed OD stick. I agree, it looked like something out of the mid 30s the way that long stick curved up out of the floor in front of that big plain bench seat. I will admit that I found it kind of appealing, in an offbeat sort of way.
I’m pretty sure that Darts/Valiants/Dusters offered a 4-spd (3 spd + OD) in 1975-76.
In 1976, there was a “Feather Duster”. It weighed about 75-125 lbs less. Wheels? Aluminum hood? Some one here knows
As I recall, a Feather Duster (or Dart Lite) had aluminum decklid, lighter hood, OD 4-speed (auto optional), tall axle gears (I think 2.94, though note a Duster had fairly-short tires), and special economy-tuned carb. Most had the slant six, though a 318 was available.
My sister had a 64 Pontiac wagon with 326 and 4 speed, when she traded it was for a ’77 Volare Premiere wagon with slant six and a 4 speed, but she insisted on bucket seats, the same as the Pontiac, and a console around the shifter, she would not buy it otherwise. I don’t know what the dealer did, but the shifter looked suspiciously like the early 60s shifter with a “home-made” console. The dealer kept an enclosed area with older “parts cars” to scavenge for customers cars. I always suspected the shifter and trim were from one of those cars, whatever, it worked perfectly the life of the car. I drove it many times and it shifted well. After she put a early sixties 4 bbl and split exhaust manifold on it it would cruise at 100 mph with the A/C on, and top at 120 mph. It had the premium red vinyl interior and the full trim pac outside on the Chrysler off white paint. The car passed the more lax smog tests of the time and at 312,000 miles she moved to a late 80’s Crown Vic with everything which was a fully trimmed undercover detectives car car in pearl white which is only at 110,000 miles.
Darts and Valiants were available with bucket/consoles. My family had a 318 Duster with buckets and a console.
For my 21st birthday in 1974 Dad gave me $1,000 to buy a car. I spent days scouring the newspaper ads to see if I could find a used ’67 Barracuda with a 6 and a 4 speed. I wanted a stick, but I wanted the economy of a 6 (and the cheaper insurance bills). Never found one. Of course, that was WAY before the era of Google and the Internet.
Even if you’d had the internet, you’d not have found a Slant-6 4-speed ’66 or later Barracuda. No such animal.
To American car executives in 1960, compact cars were just “cheap cars for cheap people”. I don’t believe they even wanted to build them, because they weren’t as profitable, but they felt forced to as a reactionary measure against rising European imports.
It’s hardly surprising that they installed the cheapest transmissions, the 3-speeds they already had “on the shelf”, in these cheap cars.
There might’ve been a few “already on shelf” parts in the ’60 Valiant. Things like…oh, let’s see here…a headlamp switch…ummmm…horns…oil filters…battery…uh…sealed-beam headlamps.
The transmission was not such an item.
I have terribly mixed reactions on this topic. On the one hand, the only reason 4 speeds were seen on all the European sports cars is because those cars’ small displacement engines with peaky or just plain low torque simply demanded them. We in the US had been blessed with lots of cubic inches which, especially in an era of flatheads, made that gear between 2nd and high a lot less important.
Granted that once Americans got into the fun and engaging sports cars from abroad after the war a taste developed for 4 speeds. But the 4 speed was about “fun to drive” and America wasn’t really doing “fun to drive” until the mid 60s. And once we did, “fun to drive” equated with “V8”.
I can’t really blame the US manufacturers for ignoring the teeny subset of people who might want to mate a 4 speed to a compact with a 6. For the most part the 6 cylinder compacts were not that fun to drive compared to the stuff that was still commonly available from Europe and the UK, so most real sports car fans would never buy a Falcon or Valiant anyhow. The Corvair was a little different because it tried to cater to those sports car fans. But we saw how that turned out.
Still, I can understand the urge to take a decent American compact and make it a little more fun. It would never be a sports car but it could be less of a slug.
Slant 6 + Hyper Pak + 4-speed would have been entertaining and I would have been ashamed to have that. 🙂
I’m assuming you left out a “not” in your comment. I certainly wouldn’t have.
Dang it! Yes.
(If it weren’t for the 4 lug wheels and the smaller brakes, etc I wouldn’t mind building a high performing straight 6 Mustang either.)
Do what Ford OZ did about the feeble Falcon, they raided the parts bin and loaded it up with Fairlane compact parts, same stuff would fit a Mustang 6
As we see here both Chrysler and Ford gave it a shot but a bit late. These were undoubtedly responses to the Mintz’s but in Chrysler’s case 1964 really was rather late. Too late as by the spring of 1964 all if America had mustang fever.
I think Chrysler missed a real opportunity to sell the Valiant to the import and sporty set as it otherwise was a very capable car against them. If they’d offered a two barrel version of the 170 and a four speed it could have been a real contender.
My first car was a ’63 valiant with a 170/three speed column shift. It was the 100 two door sedan and so the lightest A body but with the smallest engine. For a slant 6, that car would rev! Through first and second it was a good little performer, but as stated earlier, the huge gap between second and third gears with the smaller six just killed the fun after about 40 mph.
I think part of the problem with four-speeds in compacts is that they were expensive — and not far off the price of automatic transmission. Manual shift was already a “deduct option” in used car blue books, so it would cost you even more at trade-in time.
With a very few exceptions (a Corvette, say), buying a four-speed car and trading it after three years would end up costing you the better part of $300, which was a lot for what Americans considered economy cars!
A $300 option on a compact would have been something like 15% of the total purchase price. That’s a lot for what was basic transportation. And even if an automatic made more financial sense, you’d take a big hit on performance. For most, an AM radio was about the only option they’d get on compact. And if they lived in a climate where temps were high most of the year, A/C would make even more sense than an upgraded transmission.
Before the advent of intermediates, loading up a compact with options might have made some sense, but once the intermediates arrived, most people would rather buy a stripped intermediate before a similarly priced, loaded with options compact.
I ran across several four-speed six-cylinder A-body cars back in the day, including a Barracuda I found for a friend who really wanted that configuration.
I remember test-driving a 1980 Volare with that 4-speed overdrive box, and thinking that it was a clunky unit, even compared with the three-speed 1980 Camaro I drove right after it, let alone the earlier 4-speed transmissions I had in a 1965 Barracuda, a 1965 Valiant Signet, a 1967 383 Barracuda, and a 1969 Valiant Signet.
Did the Pontiac OHC Sprint have a 4 speed option?
Yes. And the four speed was also available on the Camaro six.
That extra gear would have been sweet on my 250 el Camino, but it had a 3 speed on the column. That gap between 2nd and 3rd…
If you read that ’75/’76 chart literally, the Torqueflite is “Opt.” with the 360 but there’s no “Std” option. Good to know that the guys writing the brochures were as quality-oriented as the guys on the line. Oh, the 70’s at Chrysler!
Mandatory with the 360, at extra cost. That practice continues, to this day!
They weren’t the only ones with typo errors, My ’64 Riviera owners manual lists the last cylinder in the firing order for tune ups was “9” good trick on a 425 V8 (should have been 3)
My screen name gives it away: We bought our ’64 Dart GT convertible on Ebay about twelve years ago. It was some kind of anniversary edition, according to the badges. But where we live now–Rocky Mountains–the old carb setup just didn’t work. So it’s getting the full restomod treatment: 318 V8 (speed isn’t the point), Tremec 5-speed, and EFI. We’ve also bought the big Mopar gascap (the one that says “FUEL”) and moved the filler to a different (higher, more comfortable) spot. It’s in for paint as we speak. The old slant-6 has gone to Mopar heaven. We’ve already got the interior set to go, beautifully done by a local guy who works out of his home garage–carpets, doorcards, and front seats from a Neon, with the GT emblem embroidered on them. They’re beautiful. I’ve just always loved the ’64 Dart, but that old Hurst was evidently worn out. We are keeping the shift lever, albeit in slightly modified form. Never realized the slant-6/4-speed was such a rarity.
Bummer. =(
I agree with you, but it’s his car to hack up however he wishes. If it were my car, my vote would count.
Those “Golden Anniversary Edition” badges were on all 1964 Dodges. It wasn’t a special edition of your Dart, it was a commemmoration of the 50th year of the Dodge car brand.
As Daniel explains, 1964 was Dodge’s 50th Anniversary. The Dodge Brothers, John and Horace, began selling their own cars in 1914. Some, but not all, 2014 Dodges had the 100th Anniversary package trim.
1978 Volare: this seems to be a photo of that shifter:
You can kind of see it in that photo that Chrysler used a unique floor pan stamping for their manual transmission cars. The difference was there was a built-up horizontal platform for the shift boot bezel. I don’t really know the precise reason, but I’d guess the rubber boot might last longer with that configuration as opposed to a rubber boot that followed the curve of the transmission tunnel.
Not a unique floorpan-I recall the shifter tower was a welded-on piece.
Ah, thanks. Still, wasn’t Chrysler the only one who went to the trouble? Even then, there was at least one model they didn’t weld in the tower, and that was the E-body. In fact, when you ordered a console with a floor shift on one of those, it was just the automatic console assembly with the PRNDL selector opening omitted.
I recall all E-bodies (being “performance” cars, and many getting console shifters) had the shifter mounts in the regular floor stamping.
So could you get a floor shifter with a console, or were consoles only for the floor-mounter automatic shifters? I get the distinct impression that manual transmissions in compact and larger cars were an afterthought for Detroit. It’s rare for manual transmissions to even be pictured in the brochures as in the Volare brochure shown above; usually the only reference to the standard manual transmission was on the specifications page.
As awkward as Mopar’s dogleg shifter was, it’s leaps and bounds better than what GM was offering in their similarly-sized cars at the time. Here’s a rare 1979 Pontiac Grand Prix with a factory-installed 4 speed manual transmission; instead of the lovely integrated dash/console that the automatic floor shift Pontiac A/G bodies had, they used a smaller, uglier console (seemingly designed for another car, though I don’t recognize which one; Firebird?) that didn’t reach the dashboard center stack, and shoehorned a stick shift in front of it with a ridiculously awkward shift knob that’s nearly horizontal, not to mention a long reach for most drivers. They didn’t even bother to color-key the plastic surround molding.
Generally speaking, it was possible to get some sort of console with a floor-mounted manual transmission. But the configurations were all over the map. A lot of the earlier, smaller cars skirted the issue by having the console as a completely separate unit installed between the seats, regardless of the shifter location (including the column). This is exactly how Ford equipped early, bucket seat Falcons.
As the years went on, the manual shifters became more integrated with the console. Like I said, with the E-body, they just punched-out the automatic selector panel (back then, it was a ‘Slap-Stick’ which was similar to the prior Hurst gated shifters) from which the manual poked through from its normal floor mount. My guess is this was a result of not using the built-up, welded-in shift tower that other, earlier Mopars had.
Other makes did some different things. Chevrolet had a solid, sliding panel that moved with the shift lever in their floor-mount manual consoles. I always wondered how those worked in practice; it seems like they’d be prone to interfering with moving the shift lever.
In the 1970s, a close childhood friend who like me graduated in ’73 had a 1970 Challenger with a slant six and a manual transmission in the floor with no console, just the carpet.
One of my high school friends bought a ’77 Aspen coupe (/6 and 4-speed overdrive) when it was about 2 years old. That dogleg shifter did come out of the floor the first time his dad drove it. After re-insertion of the handle, I don’t remember any other transmission-related problems.
I thought the Aspen shifted OK, but then my frame of reference for stick shift driving was limited to my dad’s VWs.
Overall, the Aspen seemed screwed together pretty well, but the interior was on the cheap side, being a base model. It gave him about 5 years of mostly reliable, economical service.
1978 Volare: engine/transmission lineup:
Dad’s ’74 225 3 speed stripper Duster went OK, but probably only weighed around 2500 lbs. I converted it to a Hurst floor shifter, Mom hated the column shift (it was pretty sloppy) but would tolerate driving it with the floor shifter, even without power steering with it’s skinny tires it steered pretty easily but took a lot of spins. I would have enjoyed driving it lot more with a four speed, though. I would think if 4 speeds were available with all 6 cylinder engines back in the day at least a few more people would have passed on the V8 option, those weak 6 cylinder engines really needed the extra gear.
The ’70 C10 was fine empty with the 3 speed and 307 V8, but had to be in second towing heavy trailers climbing the Grapevine and Siskiyou’s around 30 MPH, the same setup after adding a 4 Speed Saginaw with Hurst shifter would be in third gear, 45-50 MPH and could toggle between forth and third, making a world of difference. And having another gear for braking down those steep hills was a big benefit as well. 4th gear ratio was the same as the 3rd gear in the original transmission, coupled to a 3.73 rear ratio, so didn’t really improve fuel economy when unloaded at highway speeds. Around town when empty I would usually skip second gear using it as a 3 speed.
My brother had a ’64 Canadian Valiant convert
with a 225 and the Hurst shifted 4 speed.
Fun article!
Of the cars discussed here, these would be my 6 cylinder, 4-speed picks. (Home built included, if not available from the factory. Slightly warmed over.)
67-69 Firebird or Tempest with Sprint 6.
67-69 Camaro.
60s Barracuda Or Dart 2-door. Probably w. 225 2-bbl. but would like to experience a 170.
65 or 66 Mustang.
I had a 67 Camaro with 250 and Powerglide and it was adequate but not inspiring. The MPGs were disappointing, though. I bought a rusty 68 with 327 2 bbl and 3-speed to use as a parts car. Had to put a clutch in it right away. After that, the car was pretty fun to drive and the MPGs seemed equal or better than the 67. Resources to do an engine swap were pretty slim and I found another CC that I liked better, so both Camaros were sold.
Considering how well I liked the 327 3-speed, I can’t escape wondering how well I’d have liked an early Camaro with a 6 and 4-speed.
Those Dart Lites and Feather Dusters are noteworthy in that drag racers would supposedly buy them up and transfer the lightweight body parts to their racers, or just transplant in a race engine and drivetrain.
One could effect five speeds with the OD setup that Studebaker and Rambler used. I Had a ’64 Chevy truck with a 230 and 3/over, factory with an 8 foot stepside on a half tonner no less. I would usually drive it like a 4 speed by skipping 3rd direct and going from second over to 3rd over. 20 mpg all day.
I had two cars with the 225 6 with hyper-pac, a ’63 Valiant convertible that had a TorqueFlite and a ’64 Valiant convert with 4 speed. Both prepped at the local dealer. The ’64 felt faster,(Had a 65 Valiant convert with 4bbl 273 and TorqueFlite that was a match to my 65 Barracuda) but in actual timed runs they were remarkably similar. In those days the four speed felt sportier. Then I started driving Doc’s cars, which included several Ferrari’s, a 250 California Spyder, a 246 GTS, and a Daytona Spyder, all with the wonderful Ferrari shiftgate. After that, none of the shifters in other cars felt good, I’ve driven Automatics pretty much since, although in detailing I’ve driven everything. I do love some pre selector boxes, but that’s a whole different thing.
Mmmm…I think maybe not; let’s check: exactly what do you have in mind when you say your cars had the “hyper-pac” (which was actually spelled “Hyper Pak”?
I could be wrong, but it looks like the Hyper Pak was a dealer-installed option. It was normally installed on the 170 but I guess it could have been had on a 225 in 1963, particularly since the 273 V8 would not arrive until ’64.
It was a [i]parts package[/i] from the dealer parts counter, not an option (dealer-installed or otherwise). It was available from late ’60 to mid ’61, because that way the parts in it could be called “stock” and used in the NASCAR compact races held in ’60 and ’61 only. It was designed for the 170. It could be installed on a 170 or a 225, with the caveat that you were on your own for an air cleaner if you had a 225, because even the low-profile item that came with the kit would not clear the hood on the Valiant/Lancer with a 225 engine). There were parts in the kit specifically for the ’60-’61 cars, and the incompatibility started in ’62 (’62-up starter would not clear rear exhaust manifold, no manual choke parts provided compatible with ’62 dashboard) and got bigger on post-’62 cars someone might try to install a leftover kit on. It (specifically the camshaft) was not compatible with an automatic transmission.
I doubt LRF’s recollection of having ’63 and ’64 Valiants with Hyper Paks.
In the early/mid1970’s (the passing of 40 years has fogged my time reference), the Pastor of our church purchased a used ’65 Plymouth Barracuda for his wife to drive.
It was equipped with the 225 cubic inch “Leaning Tower of Power” slant 6 engine, power steering, factory air conditioning……and the “four on the floor” transmission.
He remarked that his wife absolutely LOVED the car; that she felt “so young and sporty” (she was in her late 40’s at this time) when driving this Barracuda.
I worked on the car occasionally for them, adding freon to the A/C and a yearly adjustment of the solid valve lifters, brake shoes, carb kit and then would “test drive” it to make sure my work was satisfactory. I found it a peppy (but not fast) driver, with more than enough oooomph to scoot thru traffic. The shifter felt quite direct and solid, for an American car. (Nothing like a Toyota Celica, of course). The combo of the torquey six, power steering, c-c-cold A/C and the tight 4 speed shifter made it an under-rated pleasure to drive.
A few years later he tried to buy her a new Chrysler Cordoba. She turned him down flat; instead requesting that her Barracuda be refurbished. He happily complied.
A generation later, of course, but memory tells me that the early K Cars were available with bench seats and a manual floor shifter with several bends like the Aspen/Volare shifter.
Bench seats and a bent shifter? Yes and yes:
I had a K-car 2 door, equipped with the 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine, 4 speed manual transaxle with a floor shifter, bench seat, factory A/C…and nothing else.
As long as I kept air in the tires the steering effort was not hard at all (I was big time into weight lifting during this time period). It’s acceleration was adequate for the time (1980’s). If I didn’t try to be “Speed Racer” it shifted fine.
Goodness! Look at the tilt on that front seat! Or could it possibly be that the seat was not attached to the floor?? You’d need to have LOOOONG arms to reach the steering wheel! 🙂
The stupidity of the product managers of the time is incredible. Why keep the 3 speed on the books after the 4 speed becomes available? Added inventory, more complicated assembly, and poorer driving experience for the few people that wouldn’t want to pay the extra $3 dollars it probably cost Chrysler to provide the 4 speed instead of the 3 speed. They should have just made the 4 speed standard and charged an extra $10 retail and hyped the “sportiness” and “economy” compared to the 3 speed Falcon, Chevy II, and Rambler. The Americans finally got around to widely offering 4 speeds about the time the Japanese and Europeans were all offering 5 speeds.
This is right up my alley because I’M STILL TRYING TO FIND ONE OF THESE DANG THINGS! I broke the reverse gear on my 3-speed 903 behind the slant in my Belvedere and I’ve been trying to find a non-OD 833 for a couple of years (I still drive it but I have to remember not to pull into a space. They pop up occasionally in a far away town and immediately disappear. It’s been a frustrating hunt.
Do you need a bellhousing, or just a trans? If the latter, any B, E, or truck unit should work.
Allpar.com forums might help, of FABO/FBBO.
Unless the 3-speed bell housing is the same, I’d need both.
No idea. You need an old Hollander book.
You need the bellhousing and the transmission, and no, a “B, E, or truck unit” will not work. The needed transmission and bellhousing come from a ’64-’65 A-body with Slant-6 and 4-speed. V8 transmissions have the wrong ratios, E-bodies didn’t get this transmission and neither did trucks, and 3-speed bellhousing won’t fit the trans, though a bellhousing for a ’75-’87 Slant-6/A833OD transmission in any car/truck/van can (IIRC) be used with minimal or no adaptation required. Go put a want ad on the forum at http://www.slantsix.org .
Early (64-66) A-body 833s ALL used the “slant six” gear ratios, even in V8 cars. You can swap gearsets into different cases…witness Rick Ehrenberg’s Valiant, using the slant six gearset in a Direct Connection ALUMINUM 833 case. (And behind a rip-roaring stroker engine, at that.)
Nick: you need this page: http://www.slantsix.org/articles/4-speeds/ODA833fourspeed1.htm
I bought the second Barracuda that came in to Owosso Michigan can’t remember if it was late 63 or early 64. The first was a slant 6, the 2nd was a 273 with a Hurst 4 on the floor, don’t know how many 64 4 sps were sold but they are a hard find now, for I’ve been looking for looking one. 65s is just as hard.
Back in 1985 or so, my cousin had a 76 Duster with a 225 and that 4 speed (3+od) and something along the lines of a 2.56 gear.
One night, after he got off work, he was traveling down the interstate and (what we believed) the output shaft main bearing seized. It not only broke the tranny, but twisted the driveshaft and busted the ring gear.
We discovered that a 4 speed from a slant 6 was the only thing that could replace his busted tranny. We scoured the junk yards until we found a 60’s Dart with the slant 6 and 4 speed. We were unable to find a rear (most were gone from Dusters & Darts). He also had a 71 V-8 Maverick that had a bad engine. After some quick measurements, we decided that 3.00 geared 8″ Ford rear would fit. Only thing that kept it from being bolt in was some adaptation for the parking brakes.
Let’s just say that the gearing changes took that Duster from a slug to a spritely driving car.
Soon after, I cousin got a Clifford Products catalog. We installed a high lift cam, 4V intake with a 450 cfm Holley, and a split header with dual exhaust.
There were several Fox body Mustangs & IROC Z’s ( and others)that were very surprised in the stop light Gran Prix. For a six banger; it ran pretty strong.
Sounds like you had the OD, which usually had 2.94 (sometimes 3.23) gears.
But you didn’t need a slant six trans-any A833 4-speed would swap using your six cylinder bellhousing.
I was 18 and relied on “the good ole boy network” for information on the tranny. I honestly didn’t have a clue but took their word for it.
The Pontiac OHC six of course was available with a four speed, and I also believe the 215 cubic inch six used on the 1964-65 Pontiac Tempest and Le Mans was also available with a four speed transmission.
Pleased to see the Hyper Pak mentioned. As a young teenager I used to peruse the specs in a MOTOR auto repair book and lust after the performance engines. Although the early 60s V8s loomed large, I was intrigued by the Hyper Pak, probably because it was so unusual. (All those vehicles were actually unusual in New England, where a straight six was pretty much the norm.)
Our family had for many years a 1983 Dodge B-150 van, which had a 4-speed manual, floor shift, and a 225 slant six. I was told it was an “overdrive” transmission, I guess that was the A-833. The shifter was long and willowy coming up out of the floor, but it didn’t seem that sloppy, though it probably was and we just didn’t know any better. I guess you could also get a stouter NP-435 or 445 which was actually 1:1 in 4th – how would one really know the difference as the end result would be dependent also on the axle ratio chosen?
Yes, the A-833 was in that van. No, those HD 4-speeds were not available in the vans; certainly not the light-duty B-150. But I’m quite sure they weren’t available in the B200/300 either.
You are correct.
I didn’t realize the Valiant/Dart could be had with a 4 speed manual on the floor, but knew the Volare/Aspen could. Looks like the 60s manuals were 1:1 in 4th, while the 70s 4 speeds were referred to as overdrive. I may have missed it, but was 4th actually an overdrive ratio? I recall some older 3 speed manuals with overdrives had a separate lever or switch (to a soleniod?) to engage overdrive. I think a full size van with a manual floor shift is cool, I did have one of those rarities, a 1980 Ford Club Wagon with a 300 cid 6 and a 4 speed manual on the floor. If I had come across a Dodge B-150 van with a manual and the 225 cid 6, I’d certainly want that as well. I currently have an older Toyota Tacoma, 2.7L 4 cylinder and of course, a 5 speed manual. In that era the manual gets slightly better fuel economy than the 4 speed automatic.
My current car is a 2000 VW Golf; despite being a 5 speed, it also has a sizeable gap between 2nd and 3rd gear…unfortunate in that I do a lot of in-town driving and cross that gap frequently, plus the 2 liter isn’t much on torque. So even with an “extra” gear you can still have a pretty big gap in the shifting sequence.
It has a 4.11 final drive, which isn’t bad around town, but seems to run out of breath at higher speeds.
Guess I’m following my Dad’s example, his first car was a ’56 Plymouth Plaza bought new with the 3 speed manual. He bought it before he bought my Mother, who never really took to driving manuals, so after they married the next car purchased had automatic…but when he got around to his “2nd” car he bought manual, at least for a decade and a half, with his ’59 Beetle, and ’68 Renault R10. Never got to drive those (missed the Renault by weeks) as I didn’t yet have a license. But I’ve only owned manuals for going on 42 years, though probably my next car will be automatic, but that part will be a grudging compromise…I just don’t like torque converter…maybe a manualmatic would be OK.