It may seem difficult to believe, but some American full-size cars were available with a manual transmission as late as 1973. After the decline of full-sized muscle cars in the mid-60s (in favor of pony cars and mid-sized muscle cars), the take rate on full-sized cars with the shift-yourself option dropped precipitously to three, two, or in some cases even a single digit of sales per year, achieving unicorn levels of rarity.
It should come as no surprise that these exceedingly rare late-stage full-sized cars equipped with a three-on-the-three are a popular topic around here. Jason first wrote about this topic all the way back in 2014, and there are probably even older posts about the subject as well.
Most of these discussions tend to revolve around looking at brochures and production numbers. But what if I were to use my ability to endlessly go down Google rabbit holes (arguably my one true superpower) to see if I can actually locate any surviving examples of these mythical three-on-the-tree full-sized cars?
Good news – unlike every one of my previous unicorn hunts, for this expedition I actually succeeded in bagging some rainbow-emitting single-horned equestrians. Because I can only post two or three images for each car, I’m including links back to the original source so that you can check out these unicorns in their full glory.
Chevrolet
Chevrolet offered a three-speed on the Chevrolet Bel Air sedan (albeit only with the six-cylinder engine), until 1973, making them the last manufacturer to offer a full-sized car with a manual transmission. I started my quest with Chevrolet, figuring that I would have the easiest time finding examples with a three-on-the-tree, and it turned out I was correct.
1970 Chevrolet Bel Air
For the 1970 model year, I found this fabulously original 1970 Bel Air with a Turbo Thrift 250, manual transmission, and just 22,000 miles.
1970 Chevrolet Bel Air
The clutch pedal and blanked-out PRNDL are both clearly visible in this shot, confirming the 3-speeded-ness of this survivor.
Lots of room in the engine bay. You could almost stand in there while working on the engine.
1971 Chevrolet Bel Air
For the 1971 model year, I managed to locate just a single photo of this 1971 Bel Air with a six-cylinder engine and a three-speed, so at least one of the roughly 2,000 produced survived. As an added plus, the hood is raised, showing the 250 CID six in all its glory.
1973 Chevrolet Bel Air
By 1973, Chevrolet was alone in offering a manual transmission on their full-sized car, of which an estimated 1,400 were produced. I was able to find the above example at Picture Cars, a Brooklyn-based company that rents out vehicles for film and TV productions, where it was misidentified as being a 1972 model. You could theoretically call them up and rent it for your “film production” if you want to experience the thrill of driving Chevrolet’s biggest car for 1973 with its smallest available engine.
1973 Chevrolet Bel Air Interior
While you can’t quite make out the third pedal in this picture, the blanked-out PRNDL and shift lever sticking out at the three o’clock position (first gear) are dead giveaways of the 3-speed transmission. It was listed as being suitable for a period detective or undercover movie car, but good luck finding a 21st-century actor actually able to operate a 3-on-the-tree.
Gotham, Season 1 Episode 5
I did a quick search for this car at IMCDB to see if it has any film credits, and I actually managed to find a few. It appeared briefly as a background in an episode of Gotham, shown above.
1973 Chevrolet Bel Air in the movie Blood Ties.
Here’s a better shot, from the 2013 movie Blood Ties. The combination of bumper guards and whitewall tires (both unusual for a Bel Air) make this car easy to spot and identify.
Pontiac
As you would expect, moving up the Sloanian ladder makes it more difficult to find models equipped with a three-speed, but not, as we shall see, impossible.
1970 Pontiac Catalina Wagon
I was able to find this green 1970 Pontiac Catalina wagon packing a 400 V8 in front of its 3-speed transmission.
You can just make out the clutch pedal and blanked-out PRNDL in the image above, as well as being parked in first gear (shifter at three o’clock). Despite the lowly three-on-the-tree, this Catalina is not a complete stripper: The original buyer optioned it fairly well, including A/C and a power seat.
Just what mom needs to get the kids to school quickly!
Alas, sometime in 2020 this wagon was hit by a drunk driver and heavily damaged. The car was unoccupied and no one was hurt, but no word on whether this car will be back on the road anytime soon or not. Click through to the original post to see all the damage, if you dare.
Oldsmobile
For 1970 and 1971, The Delta 88 could be had with either a 350 or 455 and a three-speed manual transmission (the 455 and THM-400 were standard on the 98 and Toronado). for ’72, the THM was standard across the board for all full-sized Oldsmobiles.
Unfortunately, trying to actually locate one apparently exceeded my internet-fu. I did find various forum posts alluding to various 1970-71 3-speed Delta 88’s that people have supposedly seen over the years, so some were almost certainly built. Unfortunately, I was unable to bag any actual photographic evidence or surviving examples to support this.
Buick
For 1970, the 3-speed manual was the standard transmission on all full-sized Buicks except for the Electra and Riviera. This meant that the LeSabre, Wildcat, and even the Estate Wagon could have been purchased with a third pedal. There were apparently no engine restrictions on the 3-speed, meaning you could get it on any engine up to the 4-barrel 455 V8.
By 1971, only the LeSabre, was available with a manual transmission, and by 1972 the automatic was standard across the full-size lineup.
But just because the three-speed was available doesn’t necessarily mean that any were sold.
1970 Buick Wildcat
Well, Buick sold at least one. I found this racy red 1970 Wildcat on the AACA forums, packing both the standard high-compression Stage I 455 V8 and a three on the tree. This must be quite the burnout machine.
No stripper this three-speed Buick is: Not only did the original buyer opt for a Wildcat model (with its standard 455-4 V8 engine), they also sprung for expensive options like A/C, power steering, and an AM radio (but curiously not power brakes).
And here’s the money shot. You can clearly see the clutch pedal, and if you enlarge the image, you can see the knockout under the speedometer where the shift quadrant would normally be.
Cars are both a reflection of the time they were made and a window into the original buyer. That’s the central thesis of this site, that every car has a story. The story behind this Wildcat must be particularly interesting, and likely unknowable 50 years post facto, but that won’t stop us from speculating.
One thing is for sure: In this price range, a 3-speed is a choice and not a necessity. The base price of the 1970 Bel Air sedan at the beginning of this piece was $2,887 (about $22,500 in 2023). This Wildcat, by comparison, started out at $4,155. Adding in the few other options (A/C, power steering, radio) would have brought the total to $4,780, about $37,000 in 2023, representing a 66% increase over the Bel Air.
In other words, someone really wanted a three-speed manual in their Buick enough to force their dealer to special order one (no dealer would have ordered such a car for stock). Perhaps a Buick lover who wanted the space and comfort of a full-sized car, but wanted the driving experience of driving a 455 and shifting their own gears. Or perhaps a member of the “Greatest Generation” who grew up in the depression, fought in WWII and didn’t trust automatic transmissions – members of this cohort would have been hitting their peak earning years around 1970.
The buyer even specified an arrest-me red exterior color to make the Buick seem a little less stodgy. I can understand this – I actually made the same choice when purchasing my own Buick back in 2011.
This likely wasn’t even the only three-pedal big Buick produced in 1970: Members on this forum posted a link to a Craigslist post for a 1970 Wildcat convertible sporting a 3-speed, but alas the CL link had long since expired, and I was unable to find it on any of my Google searches.
Related Reading
Automotive History: The Big B-Body Rarities – Six-Bangers and Three-Speeds – JS
These are still out there but painfully scarce. A couple months ago I encountered a video on YouTube in which a guy found a ’71 Bel-Air at an auction (I think in Iowa) which had the 250 and a three-speed.
Back in 2006 or 2007, I found an ad for a ’70 Bel-Air with a six / three-speed combination. It was green and low miles; makes me wonder if it’s the same one pictured here.
That Buick blows my mind in a good way.
With the pictures of the Pontiac and ’73 Bel-Air, they appear to be in neutral more than first gear. On the various three-speeds I’ve owned and driven, first gear was always below the 3:00 position.
“first gear was always below the 3:00 position.”
I was thinking the same thing. At least that was my experience in the few 3 speeds I have driven.
I wasn’t sure about the 3:00 thing myself. I drove a three-on-the-tree pickup truck for my dad’s roofing many times, but that was years ago and that muscle memory is long gone.
As I recall, first gear was below horizontal, or at least that’s how it felt sitting in front of the wheel. It may have looked different from the side, like the photos.
I do find it hard to believe that these owners would park their cars with the transmission in neutral, though.
Looks like neutral to me. Reverse and second would be 1 o’clock, 3 o’clock would be neutral, and 1st and 3rd would be 5 o’clock.
Parking a car with a manual in neutral would be unusual in my world, you would leave it in R or 1st, depending on any hill, otherwise R (lowest gear). Remember, parking brakes, espercially in junkers, weren’t all that good.
On many an occasion when I have taken my manual transmission car in for service, when I come back to pick it up I’ve found the technician has parked it in neutral with the parking brake on. My guess is that they knew how to drive it just well enough to move it from the garage bay to the parking lot, but don’t drive manuals regularly, and were never taught that you’re supposed to leave it in gear when parked. I could see something similar happening with the car that belongs to the film production rental company.
I’ve never driven a column-shift, but have owned/driven a bunch of manuals and have always parked in-gear:
– Dad’s 79 F150
– 81 VW Rabbit (fuel injected)
– 91 Nissan Sentra
– 2012 Ford Focus (current daily, more fun than you would think)
No park brake in the Rabbit, as the cables were long corroded through. Even when I sold it at 220K miles, it still had enough compression to hold on any hill.
I not convinced the Focus would hold well in gear. Possibly due to variable valve timing. It’s always parked in gear & with handbrake.
I learned to park a manual in gear. In winter time, we couldn’t set the parking brakes due to freezing overnight.
It’s been 20 years since since I last drove a 3 on the tree, but I believe your right. I kind of miss resting my right hand on a column mounted shifter (either standard or automatic) and driving with the left hand.
I don’t know how common it is (or was) to park in neutral, but my father always parked in neutral, with the parking brake on. He’d only leave it in gear when parked on a steep hill.
When I started driving, I did the same, until I had a Saab 900, where the transmission had to be parked in reverse. After that, I always parked a manual transmission in gear, but for some reason always in 2nd gear.
When General Motors introduced the locking steering column on the 1969 models, a manual transmission required one to shift into reverse to turn the switch to the lock position to remove the key. This was the equivalent to shifting into PARK on the automatics. This was true for both column and floor or console shifted transmissions. The floor or console setups accomplished this through the “backdrive” linkage between the steering column and transmission. This linkage also controlled the backup lamp switch on the column.
When I was a technician at Indianapolis Cablevision I had a 1979 GMC Sierra 1500 as a service vehicle which had a 250 inline 6 and 3 on the tree. Every so often the shift linkage would get hung up when shifting from first to second gear. The solution was to open the hood and pull up on the first to second shift fork. Then the linkage would synchronize and I could go on my way.
When the 5 speed floor shifted manuals were introduced this setup disappeared in favor of the “key release lever” near the ignition lock. I always wondered why GM did away with a fail safe design in favor of one to rely on the driver to be responsible for leaving vehicle in gear and to set the parking brake when parking.
This was fun – I have sometimes wondered if any of these rare beasts was still around. I know that I never crossed paths with one, despite living in GM-Land when these cars were new or only moderately old. The latest one I can recall was a guy I worked with in the late 70’s who drove a 68 Biscayne or Bel Air 2 door sedan that was a 6/3 speed car. And I cannot recall ever coming across a BOP full sizer of any kind, even as old as one from the late 50s.
My experience with GM buyers of those years, especially those who bought other than Chevrolets, was that they were tended to be people who liked style and at least moderate amounts of prestige, and there were few things less prestigious in the 60s than a 3-on-the-tree in your socially acceptable car. Me? I would love one now!
Can anybody shed some light as to why a customer would order these without p/b? I mean, besides cost. I’ve seen here (Uruguay) some really well equipped base cars, such as a Nova or a Chevelle, A/C, automatic, but no p/b. My dad had a bare bones ’68 Nova whose only options were tinted glass all around and power brakes, and for him, after driving American cars for 15 years, the assistance was wonderful. Bear in mind that American cars here were thin on the ground, only brought in by diplomats, and generally top of the line such as Caprices with most options. The market for 2 year old American cars was large in the pre-malaise era, after which it came to Volvos and Mercedes.
American power brakes of that era, especially on drum brake cars, were very touchy. Manual brakes gave a much more linear feel as you pressed on the pedal, where power brakes could sometimes feel almost like an on-off switch unless you pressed the pedal with a lot of finesse.
Power brakes of that era was one option I didn’t care much about one way or the other. My 66 Fury III was a V8, automatic, power steering, high trim level car that had manual brakes. After the first time behind the wheel in a test drive, I never really missed having power brakes.
Discs were a different thing – manual discs (in my experience) required much more leg muscle than manual drums.
IIRC, power brakes were required with an automatic transmission, at least on GM cars back in the day.
My great aunt had a ’68 Skylark with auto, PS, A/C, and manual drum brakes. It replaced a ’56 Olds with power brakes–the kind with half an inch of pedal travel. I wasn’t old enough to know if her choice was intentional or the dealer fobbed off an odd car on an old lady. She put only 4k miles in 7 years and probably never drove it over 40 mph, but it did take some effort to stop even at low speeds. You had to be careful switching back to assisted brakes.
The power brakes on my ’73 LTD were much like your description of “an on-off switch” JPC, and they were DISCS! Finesse was an absolute must.
When I got the ’79 Futura however, they were discs up front, and although manual, they didn’t require too much force. They were more pleasant to operate after the touchy brakes on the Big Ford. Maybe it was because that Fox was a lot lighter than the LTD.
“– manual discs (in my experience) required much more leg muscle than manual drums.”
Yes, most drum brakes are “self – energizing” where the rotational force of the brakes forces the shoes against the drum, amplifying the braking effect.
This effect is technically a form of power assist engineered into the brakes themselves, reducing the need for a separate brake booster.
Of course, disc brakes have no such engineering assist.
You are correct JP about manual disc brakes requiring more leg muscle than manual drums. Discs do not have the “self energizing” characteristic that drums do. The rotation of the drum tends to pull the shoe into it. This quality was often called the poor man’s power brake.
One small comment: The three o’clock position of a three-on-the-tree shift lever usually indicates NEUTRAL not FIRST.
Given that beancounters pretty much had total control of GM by the late 60s and early 70s, I can’t believe they approved an option that had such a low takeup rate. It’s not like a 3 on the tree is an image enhancer for the brand, but it would have required added inventory for the gearbox, linkage, steering column, clutch and linkage, and auto-trans blankout, plus added assembly line complication and perhaps even some crash and emission testing requirements, plus a few extra pages of printouts in the owner’s manual and sales brochures, which would have added far more costs than the few hundred extra sales would ever pay for. I can only assume that the GM plant making the 3 speed and linkage had some pull with the beancounters – perhaps making the argument they really needed the extra few hundred sales to generate the desired economies of scale.
Given the rising popularity of imports at the time, most sporting 4 speed floor shifts, it would have made much more economic and brand image sense to skip the 3 speed and offer a 4 speed Muncie for those who really wanted a full-sizer with a clutch pedal.
I think the answer was inertia. Manuals had always been there and had been low volume items for years (especially for big cars that were not Chevrolets). It’s easy to not change things. Also, there was no crash testing or CAFE certification then, and emissions was not transmission dependent. The owners manual thing would have been probably a paragraph and a picture.
The last point is that the Divisions could advertise a low base price while getting virtually everyone to pay a few hundred dollars more for the optional automatic.
I read DeLorean’s On A Clear Day You Can See GM recently. He took over Chevrolet division in 1969 and goes into quite a bit of detail on the dysfunction of that organization. By his credible-sounding description, it was a bureaucratic mess, with right hands, left hands and backhands not knowing or caring what the others were doing. It’s not hard to imagine 3-on-the-tree and other unicorn options languishing on order sheets unexamined in that environment.
He said the number of options available on every model was mindbogglingly inefficient and reducing them was one of his agenda items. Apparently, manual transmissions on full size cars didn’t make cut while he was there.
Kind of answers why they kept Biscayne to ’72, overlapping Bel Air.
GM actually had Opel engineer a 3-speed manual (floor shift, at least) for the Vega despite not having catalogued one for some time, simply because they wanted the extra profit of holding out the 4-speed as an option.
Both Datsun and Toyota made their US debuts with 3-on-the-tree, the norm in the Japanese home market where floor shifts were considered truckish, which lasted a year or two into the 410 and first Corona generations, Datsun having abandoned them first.
Speculation time, but I can easily imagine Yutaka “Mr. K” Katayama cabling back to Nissan in Tokyo that there was no need to engineer a left-hand-drive column shift for the 510 since Americans considered “four on the floor” sporty and either a bit upmarket or simply the norm on a small import car since it was what the VW had.
Japanese pickups were column change well into the 70s until 5 speed manuals became standard and even the Nissan kept making 5 on the tree pickups into the 90s
Not in the US market, which makes me wonder if they were in any LHD ones or were right-hand drive only after 1970 or so.
I think it was almost entirely due to concerns about keeping base prices low. Even Powerglide cost around $200, which was enough to present a psychological barrier for low-price shoppers. Having three-on-the-tree technically standard avoided that, and made it possible for big-volume dealers to order one strippo base model with three-speed so they could legally advertise “a new [model] from as low as $XX* (* one at this price)!” You really had to go well up the price ladder to find cars where automatic was standard equipment, even though almost no one actually bought full-size models with three-speed manual.
Interesting.
IIRC most of the three-on-a-tree cars that I drove back when they were common had first gear more towards the four o’clock (or even 4:30) position with neutral at three o’clock. To my eyes, the cars pictured here look like they’re in neutral.
I wonder if any of these later versions of these American three speed manuals had a synchronized first gear. Not that the big V8 models even needed first gear, but it seemed to me back then that American brand vehicles of all sizes with three speed manuals and no synchronized first gear were an embarrassment.
Even $1,565 1960 VW Beetles had four fully synchronized gears.
(I know, I can hear American auto engineers back then saying “well with those tiny VW engines you need to get into first gear while rolling; with our big engines, there’s no need!”)
Probably all of them are syncro in first, probably from the ’50s at least.
None were syncro in first gear in the 50s. Only in the mid-60s did the first syncro first gearboxes arrive, and there were non-syncro first gear boxes still being sold as late as 1976!
Full story here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/transmission-history-the-last-three-speed-manuals-with-non-synchronized-first-gear-grinding-gears-until-1976/
I stand corrected. Sorry. I don’t think I’ve driven anything older than a ’65, and I never came across a non-syncro. I’ve only driven a couple of 3-speeds, though.
HD truck 4- and 5-speeds often (usually) have a non-syncro “low” 1st gear, but it is usually off-road/extreme service and you start in 2nd on-road.
Again, sorry for inserting imaginary syncros.
Non syncro 1st evaporated on Australian big cars by the late 60s it was gone on 6 cylinder British cars in the early 60s, and now the art of double clutching has been lost and young guys these days cant drive trucks with crash boxes.
In our small farming town, full size manual transmission cars were always popular. Usually a Chevy, Ford, Plymouth or Rambler. I recall them as being the norm right up until the dawn of the 70s. Generally not strippers either. A V8, power steering, nicer upholstery and a radio were popular options. Power brakes not so much. A/C? What might have been a necessity in Texas was still regarded as useless frippery in Wisconsin.
Our dealership had a large number of customers who farmed. We always had dealer stock of at least a few choices with a manual, usually paired with a V8. No one thought it unusual as the cars were equipped with powertrains pretty much identical to those found on the farm pickup truck.
One of the features I remember owners valuing was the ability to push start a manual transmission. Since most vehicles were kept for a number of years, this advantage acquired importance as the vehicles aged.
Rob: another advantage of a car with a manual in Wisconsin – “rocking” in deep snow. It was easier to get a car unstuck from a drift if there was a manual transmission. With an auto all you could do was spin the tires. Rocking the car with an artful use of the clutch, first and reverse could often get one unstuck and on the way. I know this from a RWD Mustang and I’m sure it worked well also on a large manual RWD sedan.
Unless you could shift the manual faster than the automatic that wouldn’t make sense. With a clutch you can rock in one direction better, but it takes longer to shift than the car normally will rock. Power up, roll back (and farther each time). Maybe not, but that was my experience.
If you could get the car to rock, you could leave the car in first gear and just work the clutch so that the engine would pull you forward and gravity would make the car roll backwards. With every try you’d gain a little ground.
Exactly. Or in reverse.
I remember reading about rocking a car in snow. I grew up in Wisconsin as well. Car companies recommended shifting between reverse and first. That never worked for me. You would lose cadence or rhythm . I never did that and thought it was bad for a transmission. For a stick shift it was 1st gear and in and out with the clutch. For an automatic it was leave it in low, and in and out with the throttle. I would get unstuck and no damage to the transmission.
These arguments are why GM stuck so long with its (eventually) controversial PNDLR shift pattern, and why many automatics had both front and rear oil pumps until into the sixties. Putting “L” and “R” next to each other facilitated rocking, and having a rear oil pump made it possible to push-start.
I do vividly recall my parents’ 1966 Olds F85 wagon with it’s 2 speed Jetaway transmission (Buick ST300) and PRNDL quadrant, the very 1st paragraph in the owner’s manual said you can not push start the car. or you will damage the transmission. The Corvair Powerglide transmission could be push started. I’m not sure on other Chevy Powerglides.
According to the brochure for 1971 a Pontiac Grand Ville or Grand Safari could still be had with a manual in 1971. I believe a Buick Centurion or Delta 88 Royal were also available. They were all gone in 72. As close as you could get to a C body with a manual.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Pontiac/1971%20Pontiac/1971%20Pontiac%20Full%20Line/slides/1971_Pontiac_Full_Line-24.html
Everything I’ve read (online and in magazines) says that GM abruptly dropped manual transmissions in their full-size cars halfway through the 1971 model year, except for six-cylinder Chevrolets. I also read (in Collectible Automobile IIRC) the breakdown of manual transmissions fitted in big 1971 Pontiac wagons: 4 Catalina Safaris, and 2 Grand Safaris.
It also seems in Canada the Pontiac Laurentian hardtop coupe or post sedan still offered three-on-the-tree through 1972 as long as you stuck with the standard Chevy 250 six (a two-speed Powerglide was the other choice with this engine). Ordering any V8 got you a three-speed THM automatic.
“… GM abruptly dropped manual transmissions in their full-size cars halfway through the 1971 model year, except for six-cylinder Chevrolets…”
Somone here on CC posted that this running change occurred after the UAW Fall 1970 strike.
Heard BOP brands dropped clutches from big cars, after the UAW 1970 strike.
Great read! I have never had the opportunity to drive a three on the tree, but I remember watching my Dad do it on his cars.
How did that Buick Wildcat buyer think they would ever stop that car without power assist brakes?
I always thought the 1973 Chev full size was a nice style.
Six bangers in full size cars would have to be pretty underpowered.
Drum brakes are “self-energizing”; they do not need power assist, which made them too grabby, over-boosted. Many buyers preferred non-assisted drum brakes even on higher end cars.
I believe that drum brakes are only “self-engerizing” if both shoes have leading brake cylinders. If you only had one wheel cylinder only the leading shoe would self-engerize, the following one would self-unegerize? Maybe I have that wrong (again), but that’s how I was taught.
Rather than write it out, I’ll let Wikipedia say it:
Drum brakes have a natural “self-applying” characteristic, better known as “self-energizing.”[5] The rotation of the drum can drag either one or both of the shoes into the friction surface, causing the brakes to bite harder, which increases the force holding them together. This increases the stopping power without any additional effort being expended by the driver, but it does make it harder for the driver to modulate the brake’s sensitivity. It also makes the brake more sensitive to brake fade, as a decrease in brake friction also reduces the amount of brake assist.
Disc brakes exhibit no self-applying effect because the hydraulic pressure acting on the pads is perpendicular to the direction of rotation of the disc.[5] Disc brake systems usually have servo assistance (“Brake Booster”) to lessen the driver’s pedal effort, but some disc braked cars (notably race cars) and smaller brakes for motorcycles, etc., do not need to use servos.[5]
Since I edit Wikipedia I never use it as a source itself. I’m not impressed with the source “The AA Book of the car, 1976”. I would never have used it alone myself, and I’m not very good.
I have a memory of some mechanic/teacher explaining it, but I don’t know if he was correct. I’m certainly not argue with you over memories of an old man, especially since you know more than I do.
Brag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_Granite
I better back off. Enjoy your stuff a lot.
Here’s another source: (Akebono, manufacturer of drum brakes):
The duo servo type features a structure where two brake shoes, called the primary shoe and secondary shoe, are linked via an adjuster.Strong pressure from the servo effect (self-boosting effect) of the primary shoe is transmitted to the linked secondary shoe, thus generated a very large braking force.
If you have a source of info that contradicts this, please find it and share it. We’re always looking to learn more here.
Sigh. I’m not hooking up. I asked you and explained my reasoning. You answered with Wikipedia, which I don’t think is a good source itself. I believe your source is better than “The AA Book of the car, 1976”, even though it’s not good enough to use in Wikipedia. It comes from people who do it, not just write about it. That’s why I don’t think Wikipedia is a good source itself, you need to go down to the references. Or Google a good source, like you just did. Sorry.
Here y’go. Petersen’s Automotive Troubleshooting and Repair Manual, 6th edition (1975). Relevant parts highlighted.
Daniel, that’s it. I have a Motor’s.
Do you think I’m still talking brakes? I’ve been talking about sources since my second post.
Oy vey.
This site is about cars, Sammy. Conversations about source veracity pop up here from time to time; typically they might last an hour or two, maybe a day. Months- and years-long squabbles and handwringing and bickering and trials and convictions and screeds about source veracity are best kept to Wikipedia talk pages.
Friendly advice from someone who’s been there: editing Wikipedia is much like smoking cigarettes—it creates the illusion of pleasure, consumes inordinate amounts of one’s time in exchange for no real benefit; worms its way into every aspect of life, and becomes one’s only lens even for the overwhelming majority of the world where it’s the wrong one. And you really can’t just up and quit, because that dopamine hit is highly addictive. Quitting is really hard; will likely take multiple tries, and is well worth the effort and pain.
Sammy: the only reason I lifted those quotes from Wikipedia and the other one was to avoid having to write it out myself. I’ve known about drum brakes having a self-energizing aspect since forever. Obviousyl I’m not the only one.
As to Wikipedia: I have very sensitive BS radar. I can almost invariably tell if the info there is good or bad. If it jives with my knowledge, or it makes gobs of sense to me, I will use it as a reference. But I’ve even done whole posts pointing out false info there.
I used it for convenience. I hate keyboarding. Can we be all done now? You’re making me do a whole lot of keyboarding. 🙂
Chuckle. Daniel, thanks for talking. I’m not sure if you noticed that I have been bad-mouthing Wikipedia. I agree with much of what you say, but you missed pompous old-timers appointing themselves as gods and installing themselves in the Ivory Tower (I’m low-education). Plus that most Wikipedians think they are smarter than average. But it can also be rehab and sort of therapy. And you really missed the international POV, which is why my friend in NZ showed me this site.
I will take a good blog (like this one) over Wikipedia any day. Which is why I’m here. To me Paul quoting Wikipedia is like him reading Dr. Seuss. He does better than that. But I’ll read here and write there (occasionally, I pretty much stopped a while ago). Have a nice day/night/whatever where you are.
Paul, my post should have been right above you but I was too slow. Sorry, no more keyboards.
Sammy, have you ever driven a car with front drum brakes? The self-energising feature is very pronounced. The initial brake application doesn’t do much and then it starts stopping more-without more effort from your brake foot.
Sammy, being “low education” is nothing to be proud of. If living in a world of knowledge is an “Ivory Tower,” well, I will take it over any other alternative.
The power booster failed on my Superminx recently unboosted disc brakes are hard work in city traffic, with a new brake booster fitted it stops like it ran into a wall again.
The unboosted twin leading shoe drum brakes on my previous Hillman stopped it just fine but were fade prone on steep mountain passes so I fitted discs up front
Northern biker? I said I wouldn’t post here, but I think I deserve a follow-up.
I don’t think I’ve driven any US car without vacuum assist. I asked once and have never disagreed after that. The rest has been if Paul is better than crap.
If you think that college makes you more intelligent or provides you with more knowledge than anyone else can learn somewhere else, well, I guess you’re home. I think almost anyone can learn something somewhere. Maybe we still mis-understand each other?
Yup, I’d say so. Probably best we [[WP:DROP|drop the sticks]] and [[WP:TEA|have a nice cup of tea]].
My Dad had a ’65 Impala 4 door hardtop with the 283 V-8 and 3 speed manual.
It had originally been a display car in the dealer showroom.
It had two tone paint (crocus yellow with ermine white roof) power steering and brakes and power windows.
I read somewhere that only around 7 or 8% of ’65 full size Chevies were equipped with the 3 speed manual.
8% would still be a sizeable number due to the large number of ’65 full size Chevies produced.
So, did a 3 speed manual in a big 1971 GM car with a V8 offer any advantage in acceleration or fuel economy? Usually a stick shift offered these pluses, but that was in part because the manuals often had one or two more gears than the optional automatic.
Chevy started offering a 3 speed automatic in the mid to late 60’s. The common automatic up until the late 60’s was the 2 speed powerglide.
My Dad said that he got close to 20 mpg on the highway with his ’65 Impala with 283 V8 and 3 speed manual
Wow. Just proves how sapping those early automatics were dipping 5-7 mpg lower than your dads 3 n the tree. Wonder how smooth shifting the column shift was compared to floor?. Mercedes manuals were so clunky you wished you optioned for the automatic.
Yes, in terms of economy. Marginal, in terms of acceleration, as one cannot compare a torque converter automatic’s number of gears to a manual. A two-speed automatic (like PG) is effectively a three-speed, and a three-speed automatic is effectively a four speed.
A PG Corvair had better 0-60 time than a three-speed manual.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-two-speed-automatics-vs-three-speed-manuals-when-2-3/
I seem to recall reading that the PG was preferred by many competitive drag racers, even being used in newer cars well after the PG was discontinued. Have you ever heard of that?
It was (and is) used in drag racers, but not stock car drag racers. In a very lightweight drag racer,its two speeds are optimal, and it is very rugged and efficient (low hydraulic losses). They can be built to take massive power.
But they were not suitable for stock cars, as stock cars had a much worse power-to-weight ratio, where the 2-speeds would be an impediment against a 3-speed automatic. Of course that required very low (high numerical) rear axle ratios, as without them, automatics wouldn’t shift into top gear until very late in the race, or not at all.
The Camaro still runs a 2 speed Power Glide auto for the drags strip as 2 gears is all you need for the 1/4 mile and you won’t suffer miss shifts of course. No VIN just a buck number insurances ” of road use only” .
That goes for the USA but the Rover 3500 5 speed SD1 got you nearly 25 mpg the 3 speed Auto well mine did.. 18mpg. In top gear the engine was only at 1700 rpm. That was with the 215 CID Ally engine with twin SU carbs. Relaxed motoring.
There were no EPA fuel economy tests in 1971, so it is impossible to say for sure. Any benefits in either were probably minuscule.
In any case, acceleration and fuel economy were not attributes that full-sized car buyers were overly concerned about, at least not to the point of shifting their own gears. (if they were hugely concerned about performance or economy, they would have bought a smaller car).
Not a full-sized car, but my dad bought a brand new ’73 Cutlass S with a 3-speed manual. Even back then, there was a distrust of the control and reliability of automatic transmissions among the older demographic, which may be why they were still available. At least that was the story my parents told me. Also, the reason this new Colonnade Cutlass didn’t have power steering, power brakes, and A/C was it was just one more thing to break. Being a Depression baby may have influenced his “frugality”.
I’m surprised GM didn’t offer a 4-speed manual on the full-sizers back then since they did on their mid-size offerings. Seems like a 4 speed would make for a better driving experience with the higher horsepower engines like the Wildcat.
Actually, cars with typical big lazy V8s (like the one in the Wildcat) really didn’t benefit much from the 4-speed manual, as they had such a wide torque band. It was the smaller engines (and peaky hi-po ones) that needed/benefited from the additional 4th gear. Just more unnecessary shifting. The main advantage was the syncro first gear, at a time when some 3-speeds still didn’t have that.
Good info. I didn’t know that since all of my families cars were mid-range full size four door sedans with automatics. Regular, boring family cars.
4 on the floor was considered ” sporty ” just like 5 speeds in Europe and 6 speeds today. Oh the power of marketing…
GM HAD offered a four-speed on many of its full-size cars, and continued to do so until the late sixties, but take-up was low. Once the intermediate Supercars arrived, performance-minded buyers gravitated there, and there just weren’t that many buyers of full-size cars who wanted to shift for themselves.
For one, four-speed was costly (around $200), and you would NOT get that back at trade-in or resale time on most American cars other than a Corvette or a handful of other sporty cars. If you bought a new car every two or three years, that was expensive, so it was not a very economical choice on a big car.
Also, the shift linkage of a lot of factory four-speeds left much to be desired, especially with a console, and with a big engine, the clutch tended to be heavy as well. So, it was a labor-intensive business, especially in traffic.
Beyond that, by the late sixties, most GM cars larger than a Nova or Camaro had Turbo Hydra-Matic (TH400 or TH350), which was a slick piece of work behind a big V-8. It shifted smoothly up and down except in the heavy-duty high-performance applications, and because it was vacuum-controlled, it was usually well-tailored to the engine’s torque characteristics. It gave up little in performance to a four-speed, and it was “smart” enough that you wouldn’t gain anything by overriding it most of the time. With lots of torque, it was usually mated with fairly tall axle ratios, so freeway cruising wasn’t too busy, and kickdown was available up to around 70 mph. It was a long way away from Powerglide or Dynaflow, or for that matter later light-duty three-speed automatics behind smaller fours and sixes with less torque.
A three-speed automatic behind a 1.5-liter four with late seventies or early eighties emissions controls was often a miserable thing; TH400 behind a big GM V-8 of more than 400 cubic inches was more like having a well-trained chauffeur.
“… just one more thing to break.”
This was also from distrust of car makers’ quality. Power windows especially were frowned upon as ‘unneeded’ by survivors of Depression.
OTOH, my grandparents loved automatics [while dissing PW], and refused to get “standards” after the 50’s. My parents got sticks, until the 70’s.
My only experience with a three-on-the-tree was in an S-10 pickup from the eighties. It was my then mother-in-law’s truck. She asked, “Can you drive a stick?” I said sure, and when I got in, I saw the three on the tree. I gave myself a brief tutorial on where 1-2-3-N-R were all located and off I went. When I got back, she asked if I had any trouble driving a car with a clutch. I said, “No, but I almost ran into a curb trying to make a left turn.” I added, “Something is SERIOUSY wrong with your power steering!” She laughed and said that the S-10 didn’t have power steering. Oops.
One minor nit on the pictures of the ’73 Chevy. While the shot from movie “Blood Ties” appears to be the same Bel Air, the ’73 Chevy in the shot from “Gotham” appears to be a Caprice based on the appearance of its grill.
Rick, I have to believe that you meant to say the S-10 was a C-10. The S-10 was never sold with any sort of column-shifted transmission, nor was it ever available with a 3-speed manual.
A 1985 C-10 base model featured the 4.3 liter V-6 with a 3-speed column shift. Power steering and brakes were optional.
Lost in this thread is the ’71-’72 Biscayne also was offered with stick.
Still, even when I was a kid, wondered why Chevy stuck with Biscayne after ’70? By then, the two B’s were same ‘naked’ trim, maybe just a chrome strip on Bel Air? Could have dropped Biscayne after ’68 [or even ’66] and no one would’ve noticed.
My Grandfather’s (on my Dad’s side) last car was a ’72 Biscayne he bought new. His did have the automatic, and the 350V8, but otherwise was pretty stripped…it did have AM radio and heater, that’s pretty much it. We only briefly lived in the same state as they, and 1700 miles away when he died…and that’s why I only got to drive his car once, probably in 1988, 2 years after he passed…it was a glorious day in June, my parents and I were there on vacation, and my Grandmother (who was to pass the next year, also in June) was in the back seat with my Mother. Neither of my Grandmothers ever learned to drive a car, so I drove, with my Dad in the front seat with me, I think we were trying to visit one of her brothers (she came from a family of 12) unsuccessfully. We stopped to eat lunch at the now defunct Effort diner, the last time I ever ate there.
Our “family” car after 1961 always had an automatic, because my Mother never really liked driving manual transmission cars, despite learning to drive a 1951 Chrysler Windsor with semi-automatic. She even left my Dad’s 1959 Beetle midway up a hill on our street (not much of a hill, but we still used it for sledding) and walked the rest of the way to the supermarket, since she was frustrated driving it in the winter. My Dad only had 1 car before that, and since he didn’t know my Mother when he bought it, it was really a stripper, maybe it had a heater, but no radio, and a flathead 6. He bought a 1956 Plymouth new, and it was the only “full sized” car he bought without an automatic (not sure if the Plymouth was full sized, they only came in 1 size in 1956).
My Dad continued to buy manuals for his “2nd” car, basically his commuter which was mostly an import, up until the gas crisis in the 70’s, when he wanted my Mom to be able to also drive “his” car on occasion instead of the “family” car which consumed a lot more gas. Thereafter all his cars were bought with automatics. I did the opposite, my first car was automatic, but I’ve not owned an automatic in 42 years, but as I get older, no one in my family can drive my car so my next one will be an automatic. Of course all my cars have been small ones and I’ve managed to find manuals but my current one is 22 years old and I doubt I’d be able to replace it with one, even if I were to look for it.
My concern driving one of these would be the foot operated parking brake. I don’t use the handbrake often, but on really steep hills, where I might do some damage if my reflexes aren’t ideal, I have relied on the handbrake to keep from backsliding. Not sure how I’d handle that with one of these unless I could coordinate the parking brake release or have good heel and toe coordination with brake and accelerator. Plus these are quite a bit heavier (more momentum?) than the manuals I drive (though even small cars are no longer as light as they used to be).
I had a lot of wheel time driving a 1968 Checker Marathon with a Chevy 6 and 3 speed manual. More than full size in interior space but mid-size by length. No need for synchro 1st gear as if the car was moving at all 2nd was fine. Unassisted drum brakes required a lot of pressure to eventually stop the car. A Borg-Warner overdrive gave up to 30 mpg highway. In the same time of my life I also drove a 1961 Buick LeSabre with power drum brakes, which were very touchy. Switching between the two vehicles required mental adjustment.
Did you get folks jumping in the back when you sat at red lights, giving out address home?.
Not exactly. There was a small local cab company whose fleet of Checkers were painted in a similar blue to mine. People sometimes tried to hail me and appeared upset when I didn’t stop to pick them up.
A full-sized GM car with a manual column shifter sounds amazing. Not only would the ride be as base as possible, using the three-speed manual just seems so appropriate.
A Buick? That is amazing.
My ride for years living in Stafford county Kansas, was a Falcon with unsynchronized shift. Thank goodness no one lives out in those parts. There isn’t any traffic. So I had no issues driving it around. It easily took 20-30 seconds to get up to speed.
I once heard a story from a mechanic I knew well, about someone that had a manual installed in a new mid-70’s Cadillac. It was supposed to have been from a truck, and the dealership had to install it themselves. Now, this is all hearsay from a conversation 30 years ago when i was young, so a lot of details are severely lacking. Also, this being Pennsylvania, I’m sure that this car has long since turned to rust, so no evidence is likely to be found.
Great idea for an article and your finds were wonderful!
The 70 Bel Air is gloriously spartan. I would love to know the story of that car, which I imagine would involve a wonderful cantankerous older man who was a traditionalist in all ways and seldom ventured far from the Bel Air’s well-sheltered garage. I find it curious that the one option selected was a vinyl roof, arguably the most frivolous of them all. Could it have been a dealer-ordered car? It’s a safe bet the original owner did not live in Bel Air, California.
The Pontiac is my personal favorite, being a lover of both wagons and 60s era Ponchos. The 70 grille is a bit of a hard-edged pill, but still a cool, cool car. I really dig the dog dishes and the additional options indicating the first owner was very intentional about what he wanted in his big wagon. I have not been able to bring myself to look at the additional accident photos. Really hope it gets repaired, but it would take an owner willing to spend more than the car is probably worth.
The Wildcat pushes many of my Buick-loving buttons as well. I love everything about it, though the coupe would be my preference for a Wildcat. It seems to my eyes that this car got shortchanged on tires. They look very small in those fenders.
Tom, your articles really rack up the comments fast, understandable with off-the-beaten-track topics!
I only had time to skim this right now, but wanted to get my 2 cents in. It’s amazing IMO that the domestic automakers kept the 3-on-the-trees in large cars for so long.
As I’ve noted before, we had these cheapies growing up, the last being my mom’s 1967 Chevy Bel Air 2-door with the 250 six, manual transmission, and manual steering and brakes. The sole option on the car was an AM radio. It was the car I learned to drive in. I can confirm that first gear was synchronized, and first and third were at the 4:30 or so positions, with neutral at 3 o’clock.
Here is a photo of it some years later after my brother made a few modifications — jacking up the rear and removing the then-uncool dogdish hubcaps.
The last car I drove with such a tranny was the 1959 Chevy Bel Air used in the IIHS 50th anniversary crash test.
Thanks! Just wait until you see parts 2 and 3! Be ready to have your minds blown.
I think it’s been noted in these pages before, but Chevrolet was the last to offer 3 on the tree in any passenger car (’79 Nova) and also the last in a light truck (’86 C10).
And because of the existence of the 3-speed shifter steering column, and the transmission itself, maybe the only unique parts for a Biscayne 3-speed was the pedal assembly. And maybe not even that. It, too, could have been shared with the C10 or Chevelle pedal assemblies – somebody with a lot of parts books might know.
Regarding synchro/non synchro on first gear, I drove a 1970 Dodge Dart coupe with the 3 on the tree and an inline slant six. It was distinctly non-sychro on first. You needed to come to a full stop to engage first gear or get very lucky. I had a VW bug and was comfortable with the 4 speed all synchro manual transmission. The Dart felt archaic. I was asked to train someone’s kids to drive the Dart. That was a challenge as it also had a grabby clutch. That car met its end when one of them wandered over the centre line when tuning the radio. Driver distraction isn’t a new thing.
Bought a 3 year old 76 Granada in 79, had the 200 six and 3 on the tree. What a plug it was, kept it a few months then traded it in Dealer Demo 79 Capri Turbo RS…That is a (nightmare) story for another day.
I owned a 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass with a three speed column shift. The salesman at the car lot where I bought it said that an older lady had special ordered it because she had always driven a column shift manual transmission and wanted her new car to have one. The car had zero options, unless the air conditioning was an option. It even had Oldsmobile dog-dish hubcaps. After I drove it for many years I gave it to my teen-age son. He drove it until the shift linkage kept hanging up. I sold it to a mechanic at a gas station who said he was going to strip out the interior and drive in local circle track racing.
The funniest incident was when I took it to an oil change place and the attendant asked me how to get it out of park. He thought it was an automatic.
I’ve never seen a 60s or later full sized car with a column shift manual transmission. The only cars I’ve been in with 3 on the tree were a 66 Valiant and a mid 70s Nova and first gear was definitely around 4:00.
The only column shift manual I’ve driven was a forklift, 2 speeds on one lever, forward, neutral, reverse on the other.
My parents bought a ’71 Impala with a three on the tree in 1972. After a couple of years, my data put a turbo 350 transmission in it because someone was hard on clutches (not me). He installed a Sparkomatic floor shifter in the cars with the auto trans, it looked a little more custom sport with the chrome stick, T-handle, and accordian shifter boot!
Here’s just one example of why car dealers ordered cars for inventory with 3-on-the-tree:
In the 1980s I was an advisor to the local county and state Office of Consumer Affairs, back when they were introducing advertising regulations governing car dealer ads. I remember being instructed on how and why certain regulations were created. New car dealers in very competitive areas were notorious for ads [usually in newspapers] where they touted slogans like ‘Lowest prices around’. One place trademarked the saying ‘The cheapest guy in town’. These slogans were deemed acceptable, but ads claiming a make or model for $1,995.00 [as an example] were difficult to police.
The attached ad shows a Buick GS coupe, touting a low price of $2,828 with 3-speed stickshift. Note that the ad says nothing about having power steering or power brakes. They chose to feature the GS model because it had several decor items like wheel covers, carpeting, deluxe steering wheel, and vinyl top, as standard equipment.
Starting around 1970, car dealers who advertised “as low as” type ads for various brands & models of cars, were required to provide the specific vehicle’s dealer inventory stock number clearly printed in the ad, plus displayed on the car, usually on the inside of the windshield.
This caused dealers to order what were known as “loss leaders”, cars with little or no options, some even having delete options to lower the price even more. I have seen cars like a 1967 Chrysler Newport sedan, stickshift, no power steering or brakes, and delete clock & AM radio. Of course they usually ordered only one car like this, and often said to visiting customers who showed the ad to the salesman; ‘Oh, sorry, that one has already been sold, but we have a similar car you might like’ [at a higher price of course].
Requiring the stock number to be in the ads made it easier for government agencies to keep track of attempts to “Bait & switch”. As these specially ordered ‘cheap’ cars generally didn’t sell because few people wanted them, they often ended up selling at a vastly reduce price at the end of the model year. Most sales managers will tell you that even after the model year was over and the car ended up selling at a loss, those low priced cars did their job, bringing in customers looking for a deal, and it was then up to the salesman to ‘upsell’.
I get the point about loss leaders, but the GS ad is hardly a good example of that, as the GS was relatively well-equipped, and they even made a point to show the automatic version at the higher price. Power steering and brakes (especially the latter) were universally optional then (except for luxury cars), and a pretty healthy number of mid-size car buyers were still skipping that back then.
I’d like some of our librarian readers to find actual examples of these “loos leaders” in ads.
Actually, the issue with the requirement starting around 1970 to show the VIN was typically different than you state: one car, often a decently/moderately equipped car, would be heavily discounted in the ads, but then of course have already been “sold” when the customers show up to buy it. The new requirement at least forced them to sell that one at the advertised price instead of just lying about it being “sold”.
Paul, yes, you are correct, the GS was a far from perfect ad. The problem in finding a more suitable ad is because almost all those ads were in local newspapers, and few survive as photos on the internet. I’m going to continue looking for suitable ads.
As for the number ID I was referring to, the numbers are the internal vehicle stock numbers assigned by the dealer, to track their vehicle inventory. At least in the mid-Atlantic area, the states and local governments required those inventory numbers to be listed in the ad when the dealer published specific models and prices for vehicles in stock.
I grew up in a Toronto suburb in the 50s and 60s. My parent’s cars were all standards until they got a 57 Plymouth with the push button automatic when I was 8. I don’t remember seeing a column shift after that, with one exception. In high school I once got a ride home with the mother of classmate. She was driving a 64 Chev Biscayne with absolutely no options. I had never seen such a basic car. No radio, no power anything, and 3 in the tree. I did not know the family that well, but they were quite well off, so it was obviously what they chose to drive as a second car. Although I have driven lots of manual transmission vehicles, I have never had the chance to drive a column shift.
That ’70 Bel Air pictured here doesn’t have a radio, either
Around here (Amsterdam, NL) for a long time there used to be a green 1967 Impala fastback coupe driving around. It had a 250 6 cylinder, but not sure about wether it had a 3 on the tree or a Powerglide. Likely the former because thats how most US cars were equipped here.
Either way it must have been very slow but it did serve its owner for 4 decades. Rust probably killed it, I’m certain that the bulletproof 250 would have lasted longer.
Never having driven a three on the tree, I am surprised at the shift pattern. The first 1-2 shift requires a jog, which doesn’t seem optimal. Were they all the same?
Yes, in my experience with Detroit iron, they were all the same.
Yup, all the same. If we’re talking about actual column shifters with rods and links and bellcranks and stuff, the pattern doesn’t really matter that way; shifting is not going to be fast.
Yep, all the same. Same pattern for a floor-shift 3-speed. Ex-roommate had a beater 66 Mustang 289, bench seat, 3 on the floor. Weird combo I’d never seen before, nor again.
My late father told me that when he was in high school in the late 50’s, the no-cost way to speed up 1-2 shifts on their beater cars was to rotate the shifter around to be on the left side of the steering wheel!
That way the 1-2 shift is a left-hand “down and forward” motion, with a little gravity assist.
No idea if it was actually any faster. Those junkers were long gone by the time I was born in the late 60’s.
The last sled I saw with three on the tree was a 1965 Chevrolet BelAir. Then they seemed to vanish.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Ford made the first fully synchronized 3 speeds for their full-size cars and pick-ups, standard equipment starting about 1965. (The Falcon and Fairlane 3 speeds were still non-syncro in first gear.) These were tough, easy shifting gearboxes. I believe that GM used them in their full size cars, starting a little later than Ford, but continuing until standards were dropped as described in the article. I think I read that the Ford transmission was good enough, and GM’s demand for 3 speed all synchronized transmissions was low enough, that a deal was struck for Ford to become a GM supplier! I had one of these gearboxes in a Ford F250 pickup years ago. For on-road use it was great, but I eventually swapped in an NP435 4 speed for the low-geared first and reverse gears because my off-road farm use was much more practical with a slower speed option with a diminished need for engine racing combined with clutch-slipping, especially starting a loaded truck moving on soft ground. For on road/ city driving, the all synchro 3 speed was a gem! We test-drove a ’65 full size Ford with that transmission and the 240 cubic inch straight 6 and I found it to be a wonderful combination. In retrospect, we shouldn’t have passed on it in favor of a Falcon!
Your memory is correct, although the Ford all-synchro three-speed was introduced for 1963, not 1965.
My understanding is that it was introduced for the 1964 MY, which would have been in the fall of 1963.
The June 1963 issue of Car Life, reviewing a 1963 Galaxie 500/XL, included a photo of the new three-speed and described it as new for ’63, although they were unable to obtain one to test. (The 500/XL came with Cruise-O-Matic.)
https://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990392123102/1963-06_CL_1963_Ford_Galaxie_500_Road_Test_1-6.pdf
One further explanation is that such cars were built for certain export markets. I remember such things as full-size Chevs with 6 cylinder engines and manual boxes from when I was growing up in Israel. People ordered them because (i) the dealer charged more for an auto and (ii) there were fuel savings with a manual box, and even back then gasoline was far more expensive in Israel than in the US. In Europe the auto box did not generally gain acceptance even for expensive cars until the 70s and I have seen some things which would have been unheard of in the US (4 door cars ordered with performance V8 and a manual). An American car back then was a luxury item, competing with the local usual suspects and buyers had the choice of “Europeanizing” their cars, so…
My Dad had a ’64 Chevy Impala wagon with 3 on the tree.
He never killed the engine….felt like he was driving an automatic.
I seem to remember driving a friend’s old Mercedes with a 4 speed on the tree.
I drove a MBz 220D a few times with a four on the tree. Possibly slower than the diesel Vanagon, but both shifters felt about the same: rubbery and sloppy, which makes sense as the linkage for both was lengthly.
What amazes me is that GM felt it necessary to illustrate the shift pattern as late as this. Column shifts had been around some thirty-odd years by the time of that opening photo.
VW’s got first gear synchro in August of 1960 for the 1961 model year .
Sammy and Daniel bring up good points ~ drum brakes are indeed self energizing, the picture Daniel posted shows a _DUAL_ leading shoe drum brake, these were the shiznit ~ MoPars had them in the late 1940’s IRC .
Many English cars had tiny 5″ dual leading shoe front brakes, they stopped the cars very well for a few times before overheating .
Millions of Austins had dual leading front shoe brakes .
My old 1965 Lincoln had power front disc brakes, if you even _looked_ too hard at the brake pedal it slammed to a halt .
I remember a right hand drive 1979 Chevy Nova with 250 CID i6 and three on the tree, it was a rural postal delivery car, I wish I’da had the $1,500 to buy it .
-Nate
Hillmans had 9 inch twin leading shoe drum brakes from when they first went hydraulic 49/50. Morris Minors had tiny little drum brakes that were next to useless, Vauxhalls had terrible brakes UK Fords the same,
Interesting article and comments and anecdotes as always. I never drove a three-on-tree, but did drive a 1968 GMC pickup equipped with a wide-ratio four-on-the-floor manual transmission with a very low first gear that essentially operated as a three-speed starting out in second-gear and rowing most of the time between third and fourth. 1st gear was seldom used.
I’ve seen 1980s Chevy trucks with the four-speed manual having a gear-shift knob labeled L-1-2-3 instead of 1-2-3-4.
Getting back to full-size cars with manual transmissions: Did those late-model Chevy and Ford 3-speeds have that notorious wide gap between 2nd and 3rd? it’s too bad the 3-speed with overdrive (B-W type where pushing in a knob under the dash engaged the overdrive) wasn’t offered. When was the last time such a unit was offered on the Ford and Chevy full size cars? Why was it discontinued?
Reading Paul’s experience with his Ford F-100 retrofitted with a 3-speed B-W OD and learning how to properly take advantage of the OD intrigued me into believing a big lazy V-8 with a 3-speed OD would be versatile all-around performer around town and comfortable high-speed cruiser at highway speeds compared to the standard three-speed.
“a big lazy V-8 with a 3-speed OD would be versatile all-around performer around town and comfortable high-speed cruiser at highway speeds compared to the standard three-speed.”
It is. Take a look at some of the articles here about the ’63 Galaxie I used to own with a 352 and 3 speed / overdrive. Here’s a review of it by JPC:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cc-driving-impression-1963-ford-galaxie-500/
@ Halwick ;
Your ’68 Chevy had a Muncie SM465 tranny, the first gear was compound low and almost never used apart from moving the rig at a walking pace (when loading hay bales for example) or from starting out fully loaded or on a steep slope like an old timey loading dock ~ instead of burning the crap out of the clutch you’d just let it out with the engine at 1,200 RPM’s and away she’d go smooth as silk .
Those Borg Warner overdrives were IMO, the shiznit, if you disconnected the governor you could climb steel hills at speed in second gear without over revving the engine .
Indeed, a V8 and any of the myriad Muncie, Clark or NP trannies made for effortless high speed / long distance travel but Americans are a lazy lot so over drives and manual trannies went the way of magnetos and priming cups .
-Nate
Overdrive wasn’t very popular in the sixties and early seventies for a couple of reasons. The learning curve was probably part of it, but the bigger reason was that if you got a V-8, you could just order a tall axle ratio with automatic and get the same effect without the hassle. An economy axle (2.56, 2.69, 2.73, etc.) would give around 30 mph/1,000 rpm in high, and bigger V-8s had no problem pulling that kind of gearing, especially with a decent three-speed torque converter automatic.
The Oldsmobile Turnpike Cruiser package is the obvious example — Oldsmobile announced it with a 2.41:1 axle that had the engine loafing at about 1,800 rpm at 60 mph, changed in production to 2.56:1, which was still 29.7 mph/1,000 rpm — but most of the full-size models offered something similar. An early ’70s B-body generally had standard axle ratios of around 2.73:1, and after the OPEC embargo, some went to 2.56:1. There’s not much need for overdrive with final drive ratios like that.
As for how long overdrive hung on, it looks like Ford offered it as an option on full-size cars through 1967, Chevrolet on the B-bodies through 1968, and AMC on the Rambler and Rebel through 1969.
My first car was a 1969 BelAir 4-door with a 327 V-8 and 3-on-the-tree. Bought it in 1972 for $1300 with 42,000 miles on it.
Paul Niedermeyer – you might be interested to know that I bought it at Marsden Chevrolet – more or less across the street from Towson Ford.
Not full size, but i owned a 1977 Nova Concours with a three-on-the-tree and a 1974 Camaro with a three speed and floor shifter. Both line 6 cars. Probably the slowest Camaro ever made.
I realize I’m talking about the previous decade but this post made me think of my high school driver training car. A local Chevy dealer loaned the school a new car every two or three years. At the time, it was always a stripper full-size 4-door. I took my training (already had license but it helped with insurance) in a brand-new 1963 Chevy 6 3-speed. I’ve always thought that might have been one of the last manuals used in an official training course.
Not really dual controls, but rods extended the clutch and brake pedals to the passenger side so the instructor could do a panic stop. The car was used for other school tasks and it was always fun to try to smash your buddy’s foot when it was under that right side pedal and he wasn’t paying attention.
The first illustration from the Chevy owner’s manual reminded me that in the 1959 Chevy Bel Air that I drove (IIHS 50th anniversary crash test car), the neutral gate was much narrower fore and aft than shown. In other words, the “H” was very narrow, with the planes between the R-1 and 2-3 positions quite close together.
This surprised me, because my vague recollection was that the “H” was more like the illustration. Perhaps the shift linkage was adjusted incorrectly in the ’59?
Either that or someone found N.O.S. shifter gates and installed them……
-Nate