American car makers really dragged their feet with the development of fully-synchronized manual transmissions. VW got its first gear synchronized in 1961, and most other Europeans did too by around this time. But Americans were still grinding gears on some new cars through 1972 and light trucks all the way through 1976 if they tried to shift down into first without coming to a complete stop, unless they had mastered the intricacies of double clutching. But even that technique didn’t always guarantee a silent shift into first.
Let’s see who the leaders and laggards of first gear synchromesh were:
Ford was the leader, at least with big cars and trucks. In 1964, their new “toploader” 3.03 three-speed was fully synchronized, a companion to the new four-speed version of the same basic unit. It was long overdue, as driving conditions and expectations had changed significantly from the 1930s and ’40s, when traffic was slower, less crowded, and stopping fully to shift down was just part of the routine. As this ad shows, Ford made a bit of hay out their new three speed box, although I don’t really get the “3½-speed” thing.
My ’66 F100 originally had a 3.03 three-speed, and it shifted quite nicely, including into first while on the move. It died a couple of years after I bought it in 1987, and since I really wanted an overdrive, I had to install a B/W T-85, as that’s what was used for those that wanted that option. It has a non-synchromesh first gear, which initially was a let-down. But I came to find out that it shifts quite easily into first when O/D is enabled, but not engaged, as the freewheeling feature separates the output shaft from the driveshaft. In fact, it’s very easy to make perfectly clash-less downshifts into first at low speed using no clutch at all. Seriously.
This video I made a few years back shows how the free-wheeling aspect of overdrive allows easy clutch-free shifting (it’s not “float-shifting”), but I failed to shoot me making some perfectly silent clutch-free shifts into first while still rolling. Another time…
But as the ad further up makes clear, the 3.03 three-speed was only used on the large Ford six and eight, and the V8 versions of the Fairlane, Falcon and Mustang.
That made the Mustang six with its standard three-speed, a quite common combination, anything but genuinely sporty. In 1967, the Mustang six finally got the fully-synchronized three speed, along with the Falcon and Fairlane sixes.
In reality, it should have been the other way around, with the sixes getting a fully synchronized box first, ideally starting right in 1960 with the Falcon and its new smaller three-speed transmission, as the little Ford sixes were always meager on torque and power. But the Big Three really pinched the pennies with their new 1960 compacts, and none of them got a synchronized first gear.
Synchronized first gears came to GM cars in 1966, and apparently completely across the board. Everything from the Corvair to Buick to Corvette. But GM light trucks had to wait until 1968, at least some of them. Like the Falcon and Mustang, the base Corvair with its non-synchro three-speed was far from genuinely sporty. But there was an optional fully-synchronized four speed available starting in late 1960. Very recommendable; I had one in my ’63 Monza.
Now we come to the laggard. As progressive as Chrysler often was in their engineering, there was no first gear synchromesh on their all-new 1960 Valiant and its new A903 three speed manual, also used on the big six cylinder cars. And not only that, but the shifter was on the floor, from where it had migrated on essentially all American cars since the 1930s. Why? Since the optional push-button automatic didn’t require a column shifter, Chrysler saved money by not having a column with any shift capability.
This was also the case with the big C-Body Chrysler Corp. cars form 1961-1964, as in this ’61 Newport. The big cars with V8s used the New Process A745 from 1961 through 1970, also with a non-synchronized first gear.
Of course, the 1960 Corvair had a floor shifter too, but that was a bit more obvious with its rear engine and more overt sportiness. Keep in mind that the Corvair was originally intended to come standard with Powerglide, but that was going to be too expensive. So a three-speed manual was added late in its development. A Road and Track test showed that the Powerglide equipped ’60 Corvair was actually slightly quicker 0-60 than the three-speed version. That’s actually not surprising, as the two-speed PG had better torque multiplication and was very efficient.
The Corvair’s three-speed was essentially the same “Synchro-Mesh” (non first gear syncro) as used in other Chevys. But the Chevy engineers were able to cobble up a fully-synchronized four speed out of the three-speed for 1961. Its gear ratios weren’t perfect, but it was a big improvement.
The Dart and Valiant did get column shifters for 1962, but unfortunately no synchromesh on first. And that went on for way too long, all the way through 1972. No wonder Dodge was offering a free automatic by then, as part of a package of other high-margin options.
I’m all too familiar with this transmission, as my father’s ’68 stripper Dart had that balky column-shifted A903 behind the little 170 inch slant six. I plumbed the very depths of what was possible from it on the back roads of Baltimore County. The transmission was that car’s weakest link: the 170 six was quite willing to rev, and the handling was essentially neutral, but that car really cried for a four speed. Well, that’s the case for all of the smaller sixes, at a bare minimum. The gap between second and third was way too large, something we covered here in more depth.
1973 finally brought a fully-synchronized three-speed to the passenger cars, but the Dodge pickups and vans extended the misery through 1976, no less, with the A250. Grinding gears in your cruising van was not at all groovy.
Not surprisingly, AMC was a bit late to the fully-synchronized ball too. The Borg Warner T15 and T16 were fully-synchronized three speeds, and adopted starting in 1968. But the old non-synchro first gear T96 was still used in the Gremlin and Hornet with the sixes. It would make a VW driver pretty unhappy to have to deal with that, but then I doubt there were many (any?) that switched to Gremlins. More likely a Toyota, with a slick-shifting 4 or 5 speed.
PS: If I’ve made a mistake or missed a shift or ground some gears or something, please do let me know. These kind of articles are inevitably works in progress, as were Detroit’s three-speed transmissions.
The Ford Top Loader 3 and 4 speed transmissions with synchronized synchromesh first speed gear sets were considered virtually indestructible. GM purchased and installed those transmissions in its 1960’s vehicles instead of developing its own sychronized synchromesh first gear three speed transmission.
Transmission cross-sharing has been common and something similar exits today with both GM and Ford utilizing a common 10 speed automatic transmission design developed by FoMoCo.
Per Wikipedia:
Renowned for high-performance indestructibility, the Toploader, particularly the four speed, was equipped in such sought after “A-list” cars as the Mustang, Talladega, AC Cobra, AC Frua and Sunbeam Tiger as well as the Ford Fairlane, Falcon, Galaxie, Ranchero, Torino, Bronco and the Mercury Comet, Caliente, Cyclone, (Mercury Cougar 1967 1973) and Marauder. Overall the Toploader was used in 133 different models and was used extensively in racing as well. The 3 speed 3.03 was also the heavy duty transmission in 60’s Olds, Buick and Pontiac cars, with FOMOCO cast into the right side, but this was common in those days-remember Lincoln used GM’s Hydra-Matic for years in the early 50’s . It is the Jeep T150 with a cast top cover with a cane (floor) shifter.
GM purchased and installed those transmissions in its 1960’s vehicles instead of developing its own sychronized synchromesh first gear three speed transmission.
Actually GM did have its own fully-synchronized Saginaw three speed starting in 1966. But it was not a heavy duty unit, designed for sixes and small block V8s. GM bought the Ford 3.03 as a “heavy-duty” option, or to install behind big block or high-output V8s. Of course, the number of three-speeds installed behind big block/HO engines was by then quite small.
Hi Paul. I am reseaching the use of the Ford 3 speed toploader in GM vehicles in the mid to late 60’s. I am an Oldsmobile guy and have owned a couple of 66 442’s that had the Ford HD Toploader. Where can I find more info on these unusual rare transmissions?
Hi Richard, They’re only relatively rare in GM cars, as it was very widely used across the Ford brands for years.
So are you trying to pin down exactly which GM cars it was available in? If so, I don’t have that info readily at hand. You’d have to go through brochures or GM Heritage Center kits or other specs and look for the use of an optional HD fully-synchronized three speed transmission. To the best of my knowledge, it was fairly widely available on quite a lot of GM cars with larger V8s. As in quite likely all/most the Pontiac, Olds and Buick full size models with the larger V8s, and the intermediate models with larger V8s, like the 442, GTO, GS. I assume the same with Chevys too.
The thing is that although these were the standard transmission in a lot og GM models, the great majority of buyers actually bought versions with automatics, or with four speeds. The three speed manual had an image problem by this time, and was commonly shunned for an automatic or 4-speed. But it was cheaper for GM to have a standard 3-speed, and charge more for the optional transmissions. So the actual number of the Ford toploader 3-speeds installed in GM cars was probably not all that great, but not exactly rare either. I’ve certainly coma across examples of them.
The 3 speed Ford was first used in Oldsmobiles in mid year 65 and thru the 69 model year. The HD version was used in the 442’s and big cars. Pontiac & Buick also used the Ford trans but Chevy did not. It’s hard to believe that GM would have used a Ford trans but doing this research I read wehere Ford & Gm were in partners on a 10 speed automatic trans recently. If now why not back in the 60’s? Thanks for your input.
Very informative.
This is a little before my time, as I started driving in the 1980s. I learned on the family cars; one auto, one manual, but both had power steering and brakes.
A few summers ago, I finally got to drive a car with the trifecta that my father and his generation had to drive: manual steering, manual brakes, and non-synchro first.
The car was actually my favorite childhood car, a 66 Mustang. I had expected it would be hard to steer.
Nope. I was actually surprised how (relatively) quick the steering was, and the effort was not bad. About the same as a Rabbit GTI.
But I did NOT know first was not synchronized. I found out the hard way, twice.
Absent synchros and power steering and brakes, driving well requires skill and concentration.
The Citroën 2CV (1948-1990) never had a synchronized 1st gear. Fourth gear on a 2CV is basically an overdrive.
True, despite Citroen’s insistence that it had which I always found puzzling. There’s definitely no 1st gear synchro on mine, and that was made in 1988!
Thanks Paul. I’ve often wondered what “syncho” or “synchromesh” meant when it came to manual transmissions. The non-synchronized manuals were definitely before my time. I learned to drive in 1976 on an automatic ’73 LTD, and did not learn how to drive a stick until 1979 or 1980 in a girlfriend’s Monza Spider, and not the cool kind like a Corvair. This car was more like a glorified Chevy Vega.
I actually learned/perfected how to drive a manual transmission on two wheels… a 1981 Honda CB-400T Hawk. After that, I felt I could drive anything. Reading this, I would probably suck at driving my Dad’s ’56 Chevy 210 if I could go back in time to do so. That car had a straight 6 and three on the tree.
And this may be an oxymoron, but that Gremlin in that last picture is actually a nice looking car. I didn’t think that was possible. Must be a top of the line version. ;o)
I was thinking about this just last night. The really odd part is that trucks got a sync’d first before cars. Trucks with grannylow had all three ‘normal driving’ gears sync’d as early as 1948. Ford pickups had all-sync’d three on the tree in 1961, but Ford cars didn’t get there until 1963.
Ford pickups had all-sync’d three on the tree in 1961, but Ford cars didn’t get there until 1963.
No. The all-syncro Ford 3.03 didn’t arrive until 1963, as the article clearly states. And I’m pretty sure it didn’t make its way into pickups until 1965, but I’d have to double check that.
But yes, granny low four speeds were normally started in second, which was synchronized.
Many granny low 4 speeds are actually marked
L 2
1 3
So you actually do start out in “1st”.
True; but I think you know what I meant. Or at least hope so. It was called a “four speed transmission” so technically, L was the first gear.
CC topics sometimes make me feel old, as in “that’s a Classic??” reaction to coverage of an ‘80’s Japanese car. But thanks for a posting that makes me feel young, as I’m pretty sure I’ve never driven an American car with an unsynchronized low gear. The only 3 speed Mustang I’ve driven was a ‘65 or ‘66 289, so I presume it was synchronized, and I certainly don’t recall any issues. Ditto with the ‘70-something Ford 3-on-the-tree work truck I drove daily for a summer job in 1975, though that was a six. and presumably a 3.03.
I have driven a few older British cars that probably had non-synchro firsts, but when you’re a teenager that’s all part of the fun, and certainly wasn’t the most memorable part of the experience. I do remember my mom, who had learned to drive without synchro low, using that to explain (justify) why she continued to roll through stop signs in second gear, with a dab of the clutch, even after we had cars with all-synchro 4 speeds.
I think NOT coming to a complete, dead, stop at a stop sign saves a lot of wear on the clutch, compared to launching car from a dead stop.
One of you may know (I do not) what percent of clutch wear is from starting from a dead stop, but my sense is that the vast majority of clutch wear is from that. Even 1 mph can take remove a lot of that wear.
If you shift perfectly (match the revs to axle speed as you engage clutch), in theory there should be no wear on the clutch.
The first two cars I drove – 1959 Ford Zephyr and 1968 Checker Marathon – both had 3 on the tree without synchronized 1st gear. I learned and made into a habit coming to a full stop at stop signs, shifting into 1st, then proceeding. I still do this although my current cars are fully synchronized or automatic. I rarely observe another driver doing so. Actually failing to come to a full stop is technically a violation.
Yep on six cylinder family cars from Britain GM led the charge on syncromesh the Velox Cresta cars had syncro ist in 1961 Australian GM cars lagged about 7 years 1969 was the first Holden with a full syncro 3 speed box even my mother commented when that car appeared in our driveway and she got to drive it no more double declutching into ist at the bottom of our street just like the 64 Velox we’d had 3 cars previously Holden had finally caught up.
I had a 63 Ford Falcon Futura with an unsynchronized column shifter. It was a slow ride. Fortunately I was in the middle of Kansas where slow is the speed. Consequently, I better understand what it is like to drive a pre-1970 vehicle with a manual. It is a completely different driving experience.
Back when unsynchronized trannies were common, driving was very different. Road were narrower, less straight, less standardized and signage varied. There were few expressways, freeways, four lanes, so roads were slower. Highway engineering was still new and expensive. America drove on narrow two lane streets and roads. It is reckless to drive over 45 or 50 on most of those roads.
The reason for the longevity of unsynchronized transmissions and shifters is not due to a lack of ability in the auto industry. It is because there was plenty of places in the US where you could easily keep up with traffic with that set up. America is a bigger place than Germany, which is the size of Montana, or France, which is the size of Texas, or Liechtenstein, which is the size of a Walmart Super Store. Consequently, infrastructure in these little countries was easier to update and replace. It is easier to get that Autobahn through Niedersachsen than it was to blast through Glenwood Canyon to place I-70 through the Colorado Rockies.
So don’t think that the reason the US manufacturers were still producing unsynchronized vehicles because the US is somehow less auto savvy. It is because our country is different.
Well, Dorothy, even back then there were places other than Kansas! 🙂
Freeways had been built on the East Coast and in parts of SoCal starting in the 1930s. Traffic got ugly in most big cities soon after the war. Ask a cabbie in NYC in the 40s, 50s and 60s how much he liked his non-synchro first gear.The Rockies and the Sierra Nevada have been around a long time. And when I arrived in Iowa in 1960, the speed limit on the two lane highways was 70.
My point is that what you describe in Kansas was true for other parts of the country to some extent, but by the late 50s and 60s, it was largely not so much the case.
The real reason American car makers didn’t bother to spend the money to synchronize their transmissions was because they were cheap and preferred buyers to spend the extra money on an automatic. The clearly could have done it much earlier. The B/W T-10 four speed was an excellent transmission when it came out in 1957; a three speed version would have done the trick.
Sorry Paul, but your facts completely fail to satisfy my preferred ignorance. I refuse to be rational here. I thought someone would accuse our great Detroit leaders of wanting to squeeze buyers into automatics, but I don’t want to believe that. Thanks to you and your unwelcomed facts, I will be retiring to my safe room to watch reruns of “Lassie” and drink Ovaltine.
There’s no place like home, Paul.
BTW – I completely neglected to note something far more important here – thank you Paul for this history. Auto history is good stuff.
Triumph did not put synchronized first gears in Spitfires until the Mark IV in 1971. I found that out soon after I got my 1970 Mark III running. Not that the synchros in my ’72 were all that great.
I mentioned in my comment above that I had driven some British cars with non-synchronized first, and I was pretty sure one was an older Spitfire but I didn’t want to be corrected. Thanks for confirming my memories. Another one was a Sprite.
Yes, not surprisingly, the Brits were late to this party too.
Great write up, Paul!
Like many people who started driving before automatic transmissions, Pop latched on to the automatic the moment they became available (in low-priced cars). The first brand new car he bought was a 53 Chevy with Powerglide, and he never looked back. In part, it was probably because he was driving in New York City, a town famous for stop-and-go driving!
Based on little beyond personal conjecture, in the post-war era the Big 3 were mostly focused on profits, not cars. R&D money was put into profitable options like automatic transmissions. Three-speed manuals were for skinflints, and that’s not the customers they wanted, although they’d reluctantly sell you a straight-six, 3-speed Biscayne, if that’s what you *really* wanted – and those cars allowed them to advertise low prices.
In fact, it was in the manufacturers best interest to NOT offer synchronized 3-speeds, effectively forcing customers to pay the upgrade price for something better. But if you want a hair shirt, they’d sell you one.
Personally as someone who drives non syncromesh truck transmissions I quite like them double declutching or shifting clutchless is not difficult, neither was it difficult to double declutch non syncro car gear boxes when they were common, my old Hillman came equipped with one and was only changed because the later quieter syncro box was available cheaper than rebuilding the original, they were a granny low design from the 1930s and you begin in 2nd unless on a hill.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Undermanager. I had a great big laugh reading your post. Because I learned to drive over 60 years ago in a ’29 model A. No synchromesh in any gear, mechanical brakes and steering. Also no roads because the training was done over the field of a cattle ranch. Double clutching up and down, braking on Monday to stop on Wendnesday and so forth. At the time, it was usual for many people to start in 2nd gear and stay there for small trips. Well, that was not in the USA.
AGB: changing the subject a little, but I have always wondered how bad the brakes really were on the old cars. I believe your Model A had four wheel brakes, but the Model T only had rear. When I re-do my brakes, I test the rear drums by just using the emergency brake, and it seems to take forever, often with the rears locking up and skidding to a halt. I know the e-brake only engages one of the drum shoes, and that my cars have front wheel drive, which means little weight is on the rear, but was that the most you could hope for back then? How could people possibly drive in traffic?
Speeds were much lower at the time of those cars. The A had 4-wheel brakes and one used a lot of engine braking. But you had to be on the alert and start pumping the pedal in advance. In my early years there were many model T on the road. Seems to me most of them had been converted to 4-wheel brakes, many with hidraulic systems. And traffic in small towns was rather scanty.
I owned a Model A in the early 90s. More than once I had to brake quickly in traffic and the drill was to stand on the pedal (butt off of seat) and yank on the parking brake lever – because the parking brake operated on a second set of shoes in the rear drum. Even then I could never lock up any wheel.
Perhaps you could lock them up in a hard stop when they were new, but I am sure that state of things didn’t last long. And boy were there a lot of grease fittings on those brake linkages.
Probably a fair bit of wear too JP which would have prevented you getting full pressure to the brake shoes, Model As with good well adjusted linkages will lock up wheels but with the skinny 21 inch tyres on my mates old one it still wouldnt actually stop.
As one who still has a car with a three-speed and overdrive, it takes about two blocks with the o/d turned off to figure out why synchromesh first gears were long overdue. It’s a real pain in the butt to drive in stop-and-go traffic. And, for whatever reason, mine will grumble at me when downshifting to first while still moving when the o/d is engaged. It’s doable but it’s not initially willing.
Yet on the highway that transmission is a delight. 70 mph at 2,000 rpm? Yep. Not many ’60s era cars could do that.
I would love to drive a car or pickup with the 3.03 just to compare the differences.
There is no mention of Japanese car makers. I owned a 1992 Intrega with 5 speed manual transmission. While it shifts very well in most cases being it is a Honda product, its first gear is non synchronized. This could be problematic when I needed to shift from 2nd to 1st when the car was too slow to move again from 2nd. For long time, I thought this was the one thing I had to deal with. I found out get out situation i tap the brake to slow down the car further matching the speed of car and engine. Belive me it is very tricky when you drive in heavy traffic in midtown Manhattan.Then I got an Audi brooklet one day, it claimed its 5 speed was all synchronized even the reverse. One day, my friend let me drive his 1997 Audi A4 with 5 speed manual. The experience was close to enlightenment, the Audi shifted with smoothness and precision, my Intrega shifter was agriculture machine like. It should be note that Car and Driver claimed Aufi manual transmission was rough, if I recall correctly.
I can absolutely assure you that your Integra left the factory with a synchronized first gear, as did all Japanese cars after maybe 1968 or so. If not earlier.
Your first gear synchro is shot.
My 83? Civic had full syncro 5 speed they would not have gone backwards from that no way not Honda.
1966 Toyota Corona had 3-speed column shift with synchro 1st.
I’m kind of glad I missed this, since I learned to drive in a 1977 Honda Accord and had several years of experience with Japanese 5 speeds before facing my first one ton truck. I do have a lot of experience with non-syncromesh in motorcycles including some clutchless shifting so I’m sure I could work it out if needed.
I had a 1977 Honda Civic 5-speed with no synchromesh in 2nd gear, but that was my fault.
I’ll take your word for it that my ’76 Dodge van had a non-synchronized first gear, I don’t remember. I do remember that first gear was so low that dropping into it at anything above a slow walk was a jarring experience. I preferred to use second if the wheels were turning and just slip the clutch a bit.
I learned to drive in, and took my license road test with, a 1966 Mustang coupe with a straight six and floor shifted three speed manual.
The experience served me well. Two years later I competently drove a 1959 Ford four door sedan with a straight six and three speed manual on the column.
I remember both of these as being non-synchro in first.
I dont know what transmissions IH bought, but a friend’s ’72 half ton V-8 International pickup has a non-sychro first. My ’71 C10 with a six had the “seven bolt” Saginaw unit, quiet and smooth shifting, in spite of the horrible column linkage that was constantly needing attention.
The “3-1/2 speed” ad is interesting.
Maybe the reference is two-fold?
Of course the extra usable “1/2 gear” because now any driver was able to on-the-fly rake back into 1st, from 2nd.
And possibly a bit of tongue-in-cheek reference to the recent “1/2” Super Ford?
As in: “Hey skinflint, you missed your chance for a real car, a 63-1/2, but here, at least you can quit with your irritating gear grinding.” LoL
As to GM’s use of the Ford box…
Most, (probably all) of GM’s bellhousings of the relevant era and lines were machined with the Ford pattern, along with the ol’ standby GM pattern. The pattern that wasn’t used was “corked” to exclude dirt.
In the ’70s (early ’80s even?) the box moved on to duty in GM light trucks, but at that time the front of the case casting was changed so that it could be machined with GM pattern, eliminating the previous double-drilled housing.
I timed out for an edit…
Taken in the context of the rest of the “3-1/2 speed” ad copy, the writers were definitely being tongue-in-cheek.
My second car was a ’66 Falcon without so much as a heater fitted. Certainly no seat belts either.
Ford also thought 9-inch drums were a sensible thing in a 3,200 lb car that could top 90mph (which, as I was 19, it did often enough). Ford thought 5.5 turns lock-to-lock on steering heavied-up by radials – I at least fitted those – was a precision instrument.
And Ford thought a sychronized first was an unnecessary indulgence. (As the car was 22 years old, it thought such a thing was largely a luxury on 2nd too, at least if any sort of rush was on).
Traffic had got modern-fast by the late ’80’s, and without cameras and their friends, speeding was utterly normal. Accelerating and braking and turning through such traffic was not a joy. Re-starting on a steep hill, in a hurry, with a handbrake of no particular effectiveness, and no synchro and no allowance by others for one’s predicament often resulted in sweaty-palmed over-revs or stalls, and certainly a crunch like someone eating a steel biscuit.
It’s got to be possible the US makers didn’t bother with synchro 1sts’s because they assumed no-one would be driving a manual within a few years. They were pretty correct there.
Justy…
I’m surprised your survival instincts didn’t subliminally push you to develop some heel-toe hill start technique.
Anyway, sounds like you had a good one, because you didn’t mention while also occasionally pumping the brake pedal to keep up with master cylinder bypass and “kittying” the throttle to keep it running. LoL
The heel n’ toe wasn’t possible with each pedal separated by a small mountain-range of height variation, that and the fact that even a monster toe couldn’t ever bring enough pressure to bear on that piece-of-rock pedal to achieve stoppage.
And yeah, the master was more of a servant – obeying the pulsing from the drums as much as governing them – and for the throttle kitty, I grew a third leg.
Fascinating post.
I only tried driving a non-synchro car once — a Traction Avant 11CV. Brutal for the uninitiated.
I had no idea that Chrysler bothered to develop a new manual trans without a synch on 1st in 1960. That’s quite unforgivably backwards of them.
This got me into the rabbit hole of synchros on 1st. Here’s what I found:
– 1st production car with 3-speed all-synch: 1935 Hillman Minx
– 1st production car with 4-speed all-synch: 1939 BMW 335
– 1st production car with 4-speed all-synch transaxle: 1950 Lancia Aurelia
Various maker’s first all-synchromesh box (4-speed, unless otherwise indicated):
Alfa Romeo 6C 2500: 1947
BMC Mini: 1968
Citroen ID: 1962
Citroen DS: 1965 (hydro 4-speed)
Jaguar: 1965
Mercedes-Benz 170: 1940
MG B: 1968
Moskvich 408: 1966
Opel Kadett A: 1962
Panhard 24: 1963
Peugeot 203: 1954
Porsche 356: 1951
Renault 4: 1963 (3-speed, FWD)
Renault Frégate: 1957 (3-speed, RWD)
Renault Dauphine: 1961 (3-speed, rear engine)
Simca 1000: 1961
Simca 1300: 1963
Tatra 603: 1956
Triumph TR4: 1961
Vauxhall 14-6: 1938 (3-speed)
Vauxhall Victor: 1957 (3-speed)
Volvo Amazon: 1961 (3-speed)
What is the top picture, btw?
I had the top picture figured as ’57 Suburban/Carryall, not sure it could be nailed down more specifically.
But the ignition key is still in the off position, so I’m not sure what’s the hurry to slam second gear?
I wholly agree with one of the commenters that double-clutching (or double declutching in his probably British parlance) was a perfectly usable alternative to clutch slipping in 2nd gear or crunching in to unsynchronized 1st at a crawl, or worse yet stopping when it wasn’t absolutely to do so just to get into first gear. Any of us old timers got used to double clutching on cars, trucks, and even farm equipment when synchronizers weren’t present. With deft use of the (probably hand) throttle, a farm tractor can be shifted into what we called “road gear” from the lower gears by double clutching; this was far easier on the tractor than trying to start from a dead stop in road gear by slipping the clutch with the engine running at a relatively high RPM, especially if you were starting upgrade, or pulling an attachment. So learning to double clutch an older car or pickup was an easily acquired and very useful skill for many of us. It still serves a purpose today if you find a fully synchronized transmission which has been repeatedly “speed shifted” or otherwise maltreated, and has developed tender synchronizers. You can help the synchronizers and avoid crunchiness by speed-matching and double clutching on either up or down shifts, remembering that syncros work both on upshifts and downshifts Archaic skills still come in pretty handy, even nowadays!
thanks for the comments about synchro in first gear……looking at buying a 65 chevy malibu with a three on the tree and drove it….but i was not sure if 1 st gear was synchro or not……thought maybe that 1st gear was bad…..thanks again for all the posts on this subject
Err…what ad?
Also, what’s the pic at the top of this article from, d’you know?
From a Google Image search. I forgot the movie or tv show.
Are you not seeing the ad for the ’64 Ford “Three and a half speed box”?
I’ve been driving 3 pedal cars for a long, long time, rather dislike autos, and am well acquainted with double clutching. But I swear on some 50’s-60’s pickups with three on the tree, it was not possible to downshift to first without coming to a stop. I can and have driven without a working clutch pedal a number of times, upshifting is easier of course, but even downshifting to first. My beloved Simca 1204 had weak synchros at 100K or so and I drove it to 165K so I was used to a bit of rev matching and double clutching while doing so, got some odd looks from passengers, but I’d gotten so used to it I didn’t even think about it. But much like a BMW 320i I had which supposedly had a broken first gear synchro which could not be shifted into first while moving, any which way, some of those old pickups couldn’t either.