1962 Rambler Classic with 3-speed and overdrive / Bring a Trailer
Most people know that by the late 1950s, most U.S. cars offered automatic transmissions, and most American buyers preferred them, although the compacts and sporty car boom of the ’60s kept stick shift from going the way of the crank starter. But how common was manual transmission in the 1960s? How rare were those “rare 4-speed” cars we’ve all seen at classic car auctions? Let’s run some numbers and find out.
Before the rise of the Internet, several major automotive publications would publish annual statistical digests full of data like production figures, new car and truck registrations, market share, global motor vehicle production, and production specifications. The Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA) also published its own annual digest, Automobile Facts and Figures. When you see production figures in old car magazine articles (or more modern books and magazines like the Krause Standard Catalog series), those statistical publications are usually where that data came from.
For its annual statistical issue, Automotive Industries used to survey domestic automakers to ask what percentage of their production was equipped with certain optional features, like air conditioning and automatic transmission.
1958 Rambler 6 Super with 3-speed manual / Gr Auto Gallery
From that data, it’s clear that by the late ’50s, manual transmission was on its way out on U.S. cars except for the cheapest makes. In the 1957 model year, nearly 80 percent of all domestic cars had automatic transmission. The economic downturn of the late ’50s temporarily arrested this decline: By 1960, the percentage of domestic cars with automatic had dipped to 71.6 percent.
1958 Rambler 6 Super with manual transmission and overdrive / Gr Auto Gallery
In the late ’50s and early ’60s, automatic transmission take rates remained a pretty reliable cheapskate detector. There was nothing very sporty or fun to drive about a typical domestic “three-on-the-tree,” so except for aspiring hot-rodders or drag racers, the presence of a stick shift usually just indicated that the original buyer had balked at paying $200-ish for automatic. As for overdrive, it was mostly for dedicated cheapskates: Only the low-price makes offered it at all, and only AMC and Studebaker found much success with it, since spending extra to save a little on fuel later didn’t compute for many people.
Automatic, Manual, and OD Take Rates, Domestic Cars, 1958
| Make/Model | Automatic | Manual | Overdrive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet Corvette | 22.4 | 77.6 | N.O. |
| Studebaker | 41.1 | 33.4 | 25.5 |
| AMC/Rambler | 49.3 | 29.6 | 21.1 |
| Chevrolet (all) | 68.7 | 29.1 | 2.2 |
| Ford (all) | 69.1 | 25.8 | 5.1 |
| Plymouth | 78.6 | 19.7 | 1.7 |
| Edsel | 91.9 | 6.1 | 2.0 |
| Mercury | 94.2 | 4.8 | 1.0 |
| Dodge | 96.8 | 3.2 | N.O. |
| Pontiac | 97.0 | 3.0 | N.O. |
| Buick | 98.5 | 1.5 | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile | 98.9 | 1.1 | N.O. |
| De Soto | 99.5 | 0.5 | N.O. |
| Chrysler | 99.9 | 0.1 | N.O. |
| Cadillac | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Imperial | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
With the exception of the Corvette (which Automotive Industries lumped in with Chevrolet until 1964 — I calculated the percentages myself based on Corvette production), automatic transmission take rate in 1958 increased more or less much in lockstep with ascending price. Automatic was only actually standard on Cadillac, Imperial, and Lincoln, but buyers of mid-price brands like Buick or De Soto had minimal interest in shifting for themselves.
1958 Studebaker Scotsman was perhaps the ultimate cheapskate’s car / Classic Vehicles List
As for overdrive, the high percentage of 1958 Studebakers ordered with it has to be weighed against Studebaker’s grim total production; different sources cite conflicting totals, but Automotive Industries reported total 1958 Studebaker-Packard production as just 56,869 units. To put it another way, almost as many 1958 buyers (almost 46,000) paid $112.50 for overdrive on a new Rambler as bought new 1958 Studebakers or Packards of any kind!
Studebaker was the 1958 make mostly likely to have stick shift and overdrive — this cheap and cheery Scotsman has both / Classic Vehicles List
Automatic, Manual, and OD Take Rates, Domestic Cars, 1960
| Make/Model | Automatic | Manual | Overdrive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet Corvette | 17.2 | 82.8 | N.O. |
| Studebaker | 40.2 | 39.4 | 20.4 |
| Ford Falcon | 45.0 | 55.0 | N.O. |
| AMC/Rambler | 49.4 | 36.0 | 14.6 |
| Valiant | 54.5 | 45.5 | N.O. |
| Comet | 62.0 | 38.0 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet Corvair | 63.0 | 37.0 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet (exc. Corvair) | 67.0 | 31.0 | 2.0 |
| Ford (full-size) | 67.0 | 29.0 | 4.0 |
| Plymouth | 73.7 | 26.3 | N.O. |
| Dodge | 78.2 | 21.8 | N.O. |
| Mercury | 92.8 | 8.0 | N.O. |
| Pontiac | 97.3 | 2.7 | N.O. |
| Ford Thunderbird | 98.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Oldsmobile | 98.8 | 1.2 | N.O. |
| Buick | 98.9 | 1.1 | N.O. |
| De Soto | 99.1 | 0.1 | N.O. |
| Cadillac | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Chrysler | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Imperial | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
While the new Big Three compacts introduced in 1960 were set to absorb a lot of the cheapskate market, there were still a surprising number of Chevrolet, Ford, and Plymouth buyers who ordered three-on-the-tree on full-size cars. (The Automotive Industries Chevrolet total still lumps in the Corvette with the full-size cars, which skews the average a little bit, but the ‘Vette was such a small fraction of total Chevrolet sales that its statistical impact was minuscule.)
1960 Studebaker Lark Regal VIII with 3-speed manual / Mecum Auctions
This 1960 Lark has a V-8 engine, 3-speed/overdrive, and dealer-installed Climatic Air A/C / Mecum Auctions
Given the popularity of overdrive on the Rambler and Studebaker Lark, it’s a bit surprising that none of the Big Three compacts offered it. Total factory overdrive sales were always very modest, but there was obviously some market for it in this cheap-wheels league, and overdrive was off-the-shelf technology.
Up to this point, four-speed manual transmission was extremely rare on domestic cars other than Corvettes, even where it was theoretically available. It was rare enough that it took Automotive Industries until the 1964 model year to track it separately in their manufacturer surveys, although it had started to catch on a few years before that.
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Monza Spyder was originally offered only 4-speed manual transmission / Audrain Automobile Museum
Like the general trend in American mass-market sporty cars, we can lay some of that at the feet of the Chevrolet Corvair Monza. While the Corvair Powerglide (which Chevrolet originally hoped to make standard) didn’t impose any performance penalty compared to the standard three-speed, the Corvair found its greatest success as a compact sporty car rather than an econobox. Like the Corvette, it emerged as a car people might buy with stick shift for fun rather than just to get the lowest possible price, especially after a four-speed manual became optional for 1961. It helped that it was cheap: Ordering a four-speed on a Corvair was only $64.60, whereas it cost about $185 on full-size cars, if it was available at all.
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Monza Spyder with 4-speed / Audrain Automobile Museum
Automatic, Manual, and OD Take Rates, Domestic Cars, 1962
| Make/Model | Automatic | Manual | Overdrive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet Corvette | 10.5 | 89.5 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet Corvair | 48.0 | 52.0 | N.O. |
| Ford Falcon | 51.6 | 48.4 | N.O. |
| Studebaker | 52.4 | 29.9 | 12.1 |
| AMC/Rambler | 53.9 | 34.8 | 11.3 |
| Ford Fairlane | 58.4 | 39.7 | 1.9 |
| Chevy II/Nova | 59.9 | 40.1 | N.O. |
| Plymouth Valiant | 61.1 | 38.9 | N.O. |
| Mercury Comet | 64.7 | 35.3 | N.O. |
| Dodge Lancer (compact) | 65.5 | 34.5 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet (exc. Corvair) | 72.6 | 27.4 | N/A |
| Mercury Meteor | 74.0 | 23.9 | 2.1 |
| Plymouth | 74.4 | 25.6 | N.O. |
| Ford (full-size) | 78.0 | 19.9 | 3.1 |
| Pontiac Tempest/Le Mans | 79.8 | 20.2 | N.O. |
| Dodge | 82.3 | 17.7 | N.O. |
| Buick Special/Skylark | 86.5 | 13.5 | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile F-85/Cutlass | 89.2 | 10.8 | N.O. |
| Pontiac | 95.0 | 5.0 | N.O. |
| Mercury | 95.4 | 4.6 | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile | 99.5 | 0.5 | N.O. |
| Buick | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Cadillac | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Chrysler | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Ford Thunderbird | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Imperial | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
The Automotive Industries data for 1962 claims that overdrive was not available on full-size Chevrolets, which is wrong. (Their statistical issues do have some errors and totals that don’t always add up, and I’m not always sure if the mistakes were in the data they got or cropped up in putting the issues together, which I assume was a massive job.) In any case, the Chevrolet specifications indicate that overdrive was still optional with a six or the base V-8 in 1962, so I changed the “N.O.” to “N/A” (for “Not Available”).
By 1962, buyers several new intermediate-size choices (Fairlane, Meteor) as well as the existing compacts and the Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac Y-body “senior compacts,” which straddled the gap. Quite a few of them were ordered with manual transmission — particularly the new intermediate Ford Fairlane — which to me suggests that a lot of buyers (even of the plusher trim levels) still saw them as inexpensive economy models.
1962 Ford Fairlane 500 Town Sedan with 3-speed manual / Bring a Trailer
Deluxe interior, but three-on-the-tree / Bring a Trailer
While four-speeds became more broadly available by 1963–1964, the popularity of automatic transmission for full-size cars was again climbing. Automatic was still technically optional until you got quite far up the price ladder, but that was mostly a dodge (no pun intended) to keep list prices down, since automatic was nearly universal on bigger, pricier models.
This wasn’t only because Americans, especially older Americans, hated shifting gears: By this time, outside of a very narrow range of specialty cars, manual transmission — even an extra-cost close-ratio four-speed — carried a significant penalty in resale or trade-in value. For economy car buyers who were expecting to drive their new cars until they were worn out, it probably didn’t matter, but for an owner who traded every two or three years, stick shift was an expensive indulgence.
1963 Pontiac Catalina Sport Coupe with 4-speed / Mecum Auctions
Manual 4-speed, buckets and console, Hurst shifter / Mecum Auctions
Automatic, Manual, and OD Take Rates, Domestic Cars, 1963
| Make/Model | Automatic | Manual | Overdrive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet Corvette | 12.2 | 87.8 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet Corvair | 43.0 | 57.0 | N.O. |
| Ford Falcon | 50.5 | 49.5 | N.O. |
| AMC/Rambler | 57.4 | 30.2 | 12.4 |
| Studebaker | 57.4 | 30.1 | 12.5 |
| Ford Fairlane | 62.6 | 34.2 | 3.2 |
| Plymouth Valiant | 64.0 | 36.0 | N.O. |
| Mercury Comet | 64.3 | 35.7 | N.O. |
| Chevy II/Nova | 64.8 | 35.2 | N.O. |
| Dodge Dart | 70.0 | 30.0 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet (incl. Corvette) | 73.6 | 26.4 | N/A |
| Pontiac Tempest/Le Mans | 73.6 | 26.4 | N.O. |
| Plymouth (exc. Valiant) | 76.1 | 23.9 | N.O. |
| Ford (full-size) | 78.0 | 19.5 | 2.5 |
| Dodge | 82.8 | 17.2 | N.O. |
| Buick Special/Skylark | 88.1 | 11.9 | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile F-85/Cutlass | 88.6 | 11.4 | N.O. |
| Pontiac (full-size) | 95.0 | 5.0 | N.O. |
| Chrysler | 96.1 | 3.9 | N.O. |
| Mercury (full-size) | 96.6 | 3.4 | N.O. |
| Buick (full-size) | 99.0 | 1.0 | N.O. |
| Dodge 880 | 99.0 | 1.0 | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile (full-size) | 99.5 | 0.5 | N.O. |
| Cadillac | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Ford Thunderbird | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Imperial | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln Continental | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
By 1964, the popularity of overdrive had fallen so much that Automotive Industries no longer reliably tracked it. (They had no data for 1965 or 1966, although several makes still offered it, and reported that only 0.21 percent of 1967 domestics had factory overdrive.) However, their survey now separated manual three-speed and four-speed transmissions.
Twin-Stick overdrive was still option on 1964 AMC cars like the Rambler American / Mecum Auctions
Automatic, Manual 3-Speed, and Manual 4-Speed Take Rates, Domestic Cars, 1964
| Make/Model | Automatic | 3-Speed | 4-Speed | Overdrive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet Corvette | 11.2 | 3.2 | 85.6 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet Corvair | 47.0 | 13.5 | 39.5 | N.O. |
| Ford Falcon | 53.2 | 41.3 | 6.5 | N.O. |
| AMC/Rambler | 61.6 | 29.1 | N.O. | 9.3 |
| Chevy II/Nova | 63.3 | 34.8 | 1.9 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu | 65.1 | 25.3 | 8.2 | N.O. |
| Plymouth Valiant (incl. Barracuda) | 65.8 | 27.5 | 6.7 | N.O. |
| Ford Fairlane | 67.9 | 73.4 | 3.2 | 2.3 |
| Mercury Comet | 68.0 | 27.0 | 5.0 | N.O. |
| Dodge Dart | 70.0 | 24.9 | 5.1 | N.O. |
| Pontiac Tempest/Le Mans | 70.2 | 16.1 | 13.7 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet (incl. Corvette) | 76.9 | 28.1 | 4.2 | 0.8 |
| Ford (full-size) | 78.1 | 13.0 | 3.1 | 1.8 |
| Plymouth (exc. Valiant) | 79.3 | 16.6 | 4.1 | N.O. |
| Dodge | 84.7 | 13.1 | 2.2 | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile F-85/Cutlass | 85.0 | 10.5 | 4.5 | N.O. |
| Buick Special/Skylark | 88.6 | 9.6 | 1.8 | N.O. |
| Mercury (full-size) | 95.0 | 4.1 | 0.9 | N.O. |
| Pontiac (full-size) | 95.8 | 2.4 | 1.8 | N.O. |
| Chrysler | 98.6 | 1.2 | 0.2 | N.O. |
| Dodge 880 | 98.8 | 1.0 | 0.2 | N.O. |
| Buick (full-size) | 99.2 | 0.8 | N/A | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile (full-size) | 99.4 | 0.5 | 0.1 | N.O. |
| Cadillac | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. |
| Ford Thunderbird | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. |
| Imperial | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln Continental | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. | N.O. |
(Studebaker was omitted from the 1964 results. With production shutting down in South Bend, I assume that either Automotive Industries didn’t send them the usual survey questionnaire or nobody bothered to answer it.)
Even in 1964, four-speed manual transmissions went into less than 5 percent of domestic production, but looking at those take-up rates helps to distinguish buyers who were avoiding automatic transmissions for performance reasons from the customers who just didn’t want to pay for it. (Not all sporty car buyers who wanted stick shift paid extra for a four-speed — the better ’60s three-speeds had acceptable ratios and decent linkage, although they often still had an unsynchronized low gear.)
1965 Ford Mustang convertible with 3-speed manual / Bring a Trailer
31.9 percent of first-year Ford Mustangs had 3-speed stick shift / Bring a Trailer
1965 marked a turning point for Detroit: It saw the decade’s highest take rate for four-speed manual transmissions (5.03 percent overall), but the installation rate for automatic transmissions topped 80 percent for the first time (80.67 percent).
Automatic, Manual 3-Speed, and Manual 4-Speed Take Rates, Domestic Cars, 1965
| Make/Model | Automatic | 3-Speed | 4-Speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet Corvette | 8.6 | 1.8 | 89.6 |
| Chevrolet Corvair | 53.1 | 13.3 | 33.6 |
| Ford Mustang | 53.6 | 31.9 | 14.5 |
| Ford Falcon | 57.3 | 40.3 | 2.4 |
| Mercury Comet | 65.5 | 27.0 | 7.5 |
| Plymouth Valiant | 66.8 | 31.9 | 1.3 |
| Chevy II/Nova | 66.9 | 31.5 | 1.6 |
| Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu | 67.3 | 22.4 | 10.3 |
| Plymouth Barracuda | 68.1 | 12.5 | 19.4 |
| Pontiac Tempest/Le Mans | 68.9 | 12.3 | 18.8 |
| Rambler, all | 70.2 | 29.8 | N.O. |
| Ford Fairlane | 73.0 | 25.1 | 1.9 |
| Dodge Dart | 74.3 | 22.5 | 3.2 |
| Plymouth Belvedere | 75.0 | 21.0 | 4.0 |
| Chevrolet, full-size | 81.6 | 14.6 | 3.8 |
| Dodge Coronet | 84.7 | 13.1 | 2.2 |
| Oldsmobile F-85/Cutlass | 86.4 | 5.7 | 7.9 |
| Ford full-size | 87.8 | 11.3 | 0.9 |
| Plymouth Fury | 89.3 | 8.1 | 2.6 |
| Buick Special/Skylark | 90.7 | 6.7 | 2.6 |
| Pontiac, full-size | 96.3 | 1.9 | 1.8 |
| Mercury, full-size | 97.1 | 2.6 | 0.3 |
| Dodge Polara | 98.1 | 1.3 | 0.6 |
| Chrysler, all | 99.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
| Buick, full-size | 99.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
| Oldsmobile, full-size | 99.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| Buick Riviera | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Cadillac, all | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Ford Thunderbird | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Imperial | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln Continental | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
This was a boom time for domestic sporty cars, but even as the pony cars proliferated and muscle cars multiplied, the overall installation rate for four-speeds began to decline after 1965 (at least for domestic cars) while the take rate for automatic transmission only increased:
| Model Year | Automatic | 4-Speed Manual |
|---|---|---|
| 1964 | 77.54 | 4.63 |
| 1965 | 80.67 | 5.03 |
| 1966 | 83.63 | 4.76 |
| 1967 | 86.92 | 3.93 |
| 1968 | 89.12 | 3.80 |
| 1969 | 90.32 | 4.01 |
This was reflective of a broader general trend: Even for economy models, which at launch usually had fairly high manual transmission installation rates, the percentage with automatic tended to increase over time.
Automatic, Manual 3-Speed, and Manual 4-Speed Take Rates, Domestic Cars, 1967
| Make/Model | Automatic | 3-Speed | 4-Speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet Corvette | 10.1 | 1.9 | 88.0 |
| Chevrolet Camaro | 56.2 | 22.3 | 21.5 |
| Rambler American | 60.8 | 35.8 | 1.5 |
| Ford Mustang | 67.8 | 24.9 | 7.3 |
| Chevrolet Corvair | 67.9 | 17.3 | 14.8 |
| Chevy II/Nova | 68.6 | 25.7 | 5.7 |
| Ford Falcon | 68.6 | 30.9 | 0.5 |
| Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu | 69.5 | 14.8 | 15.2 |
| Plymouth Valiant | 76.1 | 23.6 | 0.3 |
| Pontiac Tempest/Le Mans/GTO | 76.9 | 9.5 | 13.6 |
| Plymouth Barracuda | 79.6 | 10.7 | 9.7 |
| Plymouth Belvedere | 79.6 | 10.7 | 9.7 |
| Mercury Cougar | 80.9 | 13.8 | 5.3 |
| Ford Fairlane | 81.0 | 13.8 | 4.5 |
| Dodge Dart | 81.8 | 16.6 | 1.6 |
| Mercury Comet | 82.4 | 14.2 | 3.4 |
| Rambler Rebel | 85.3 | 10.3 | 1.2 |
| Chevrolet (full-size) | 88.7 | 9.8 | 1.2 |
| Oldsmobile F-85/Cutlass | 91.4 | 3.3 | 5.3 |
| Dodge Charger | 92.0 | 1.8 | 6.2 |
| Dodge Coronet | 92.3 | 6.0 | 1.7 |
| Rambler Marlin | 93.5 | 2.0 | 3.7 |
| Ford (full-size) | 93.9 | 5.4 | 0.3 |
| Buick Special/Skylark | 94.8 | 3.7 | 1.5 |
| Plymouth Fury/VIP | 97.0 | 2.7 | 0.3 |
| Dodge Polara | 97.9 | 2.0 | 0.1 |
| Pontiac (full-size) | 98.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 |
| Mercury (full-size) | 99.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 |
| Chrysler | 99.7 | 0.3 | N.O. |
| Buick (full-size) | 99.9 | 0.1 | N.O. |
| Dodge Monaco | 99.9 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Oldsmobile (full-size) | 99.9 | 0.1 | N.O. |
| Buick Riviera | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Cadillac | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Ford Thunderbird | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Imperial | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln Continental | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile Toronado | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
(Automotive Industries omitted the Pontiac Firebird from the results for 1967, perhaps because of its late introduction. Their Plymouth Barracuda and Belvedere figures being identical makes me suspect they accidentally duplicated a line, although I don’t know in which direction.)
1967 Chevrolet Camaro RS with the base six and 3-speed / Bring a Trailer
22.3 percent of 1967 Camaros had a 3-speed manual transmission — sometimes three-on-the-tree / Bring a Trailer
By 1969, the installation rate for automatic transmission had increased a lot even for intermediates and pony cars, as well as for domestic compacts like the Ford Falcon and Plymouth Valiant. The new Ford Maverick was the exception, but only at first, and probably mostly because Ford so aggressively promoted the base-model, no-options, $1,995 three-speed Maverick, which was pitched as an alternative to cheaper imports. Automatic installation rate for the early Maverick was under 50 percent, but had risen to 71.9 percent by the end of the 1970 model year. (It’s not clear from the Automotive Industries tables how Ford counted the rare semi-automatic transmission offered on the Maverick that year, although my guess it went under the “automatic” column. The Chevrolet Torque-Drive probably did as well.)
Automatic, Manual 3-Speed, and Manual 4-Speed Take Rates, Domestic Cars, 1969
| Make/Model | Automatic | 3-Speed | 4-Speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chevrolet Corvette | 20.7 | 0.9 | 78.4 |
| AMC AMX | 38.7 | N.O. | 61.3 |
| Ford Maverick | 49.4 | 50.6 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet Camaro | 57.6 | 18.5 | 23.9 |
| Rambler American | 66.2 | 30.7 | 2.2 |
| Chevrolet Nova | 68.6 | 25.8 | 5.6 |
| AMC Javelin | 70.4 | 18.8 | 10.7 |
| Ford Mustang | 71.1 | 17.2 | 11.7 |
| Chevrolet Corvair | 72.4 | 13.7 | 13.9 |
| Ford Falcon | 74.5 | 25.5 | N.O. |
| Pontiac Firebird | 75.3 | 11.4 | 13.3 |
| Plymouth Belvedere | 75.6 | 3.6 | 20.8 |
| Pontiac Tempest/Le Mans/GTO | 76.9 | 9.5 | 13.6 |
| Checker Marathon | 77.7 | 17.0 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu | 78.4 | 9.7 | 11.9 |
| Plymouth Barracuda | 83.6 | 5.0 | 11.4 |
| Plymouth Valiant | 83.9 | 15.9 | 0.2 |
| Dodge Dart | 84.4 | 8.5 | 7.1 |
| Ford Fairlane | 86.6 | 8.8 | 4.6 |
| Dodge Coronet | 87.7 | 4.0 | 8.3 |
| Mercury Cougar | 89.4 | 7.5 | 3.1 |
| Dodge Charger | 90.1 | 1.1 | 8.8 |
| AMC Rebel | 91.4 | 6.2 | N/A |
| Mercury Montego | 92.4 | 5.8 | 1.8 |
| Oldsmobile F-85/Cutlass | 93.4 | 1.7 | 4.9 |
| AMC Ambassador | 94.4 | 5.6 | N.O. |
| Chevrolet (full-size) | 96.0 | 3.6 | 0.4 |
| Buick Special/Skylark | 97.3 | 1.7 | 1.0 |
| Ford (full-size) | 98.0 | 1.9 | 0.1 |
| Plymouth Fury/VIP | 98.7 | 1.3 | N.O. |
| Dodge Polara/Monaco | 98.8 | 0.2 | N.O. |
| Pontiac Grand Prix | 99.1 | 0.3 | 0.6 |
| Mercury Monterey/Marauder | 99.5 | 0.5 | N.O. |
| Pontiac (full-size) | 99.7 | 0.3 | N.O. |
| Chrysler Newport | 99.8 | 0.20 | N.O. |
| Buick LeSabre/Wildcat | 99.9 | 0.1 | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile (full-size) | 99.9 | 0.1 | N.O. |
| Buick Electra | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Buick Riviera | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Cadillac | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Chrysler (others) | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Ford Thunderbird | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Imperial | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln Continental | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Lincoln Mark III | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Mercury Marquis | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
| Oldsmobile Toronado | 100.0 | N.O. | N.O. |
With the muscle cars on the decline and pony cars in a slump, it again looked by the mid-’70s that manual transmission would gradually fade away. One contributing factor was that automatics were generally better than before: The remaining two-speed types were gone in the U.S. by 1973, by which time 93.32 percent of domestic cars had automatic transmission. That manual transmission didn’t die out in the U.S. sometime prior to 1980 was probably due primarily to the growing popularity of imported cars, which didn’t always offer automatic, performed much better without it, and often offered four- and five-speed manual gearboxes slick enough to persuade American buyers to forgo the convenience of automatic. (Automotive Industries unfortunately didn’t gather these equipment-installation statistics for imported cars in the ’70s.)
1973 AMC Gremlin X with 3-speed manual / Barn Finds
36.6 percent of 1973 Gremlins had 3-speed manual, by far the highest of any U.S. make that year / Barn Finds
U.S. automakers never completely stopped offering manual transmission, although they came close — for 1977, 95.24 percent of domestic cars had automatic, and the take rate for the three-speed manual had fallen so low I’m amazed anyone still bothered making them.
Considering only domestic cars, the ’60s resurgence in manual transmissions looks like a momentary aberration in the gradual but inexorable ascendancy of automatic, while the four-speed boom was largely a brief fad whose numbers never approached the hype. As much as modern collectors love hot four-speed cars — and if time travel is ever invented, there will probably have to be some special Time Police branch dedicated solely to preventing time-traveling enthusiasts from special-ordering anachronistic numbers of those models — they were always a small minority of a small minority.
For every desirable four-speed Grand Prix or Impala SS, there were dozens of humble six-cylinder stick-shift Studebakers, Ramblers, Mavericks, and Gremlins, little loved (even when new) and seldom preserved today.
Related Reading
Vintage Reviews: 1960 Chevrolet Corvair – Motor Life and Road & Track Test Versions With Powerglide, 3-Speed and 4-Speed Manuals (by Paul N)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1963 Rambler Ambassador 990 Twin-Stick – Only Rambler Offered A “5-Speed Manual” (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1965 Mercury Monterey – Classy Stripper With A 390 V8 And Three On The Tree (by Jon Stephenson)
Automotive History: The Toyota 5 Speed Transmission Takes Over the World (by Paul N)
Transmission History: The Last Three Speed Manuals With Non-Synchronized First Gear – Grinding Gears Until 1976 (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1977 Ford Granada Coupe With 250 Six and Four Speed Stick – One of 179 Made (by Paul N)
The turbo Spyder had no wastegate, relying on progressive back pressure “Turbo Mufflers” to control overboost.
The Powerglide shifted instantly from high RPM and boost to low RPM and….parts were removed.
The salesmen said “it only comes with the 4 speed because the PG can’t take the amazing power” 🤣
Interesting…a few years back, I saw a 1962 Buick Special, convertible no less, with a 4 speed. Talk about a unicorn. Don’t know if it was V6 or V8. Still had it’s local dealer license plate frames on it.
I always preferred the manual gearbox to the automatic, it makes the car more agile, faster and dynamic. That may be why european and japanese cars, with some exceptions, have attracted me more than american ones.
Very interesting article which demonstrates the power of data to wreck assumptions and bias. And furthermore, it reminds me of what I probably would have known if I’d only really thought about it…and that is for all of the cars I can recall riding in and driving my whole recollected life – so, from the middle 1960s? – nearly all had automatics unless they were European (or later, Asian) cars.
But I really would rather drive a manual transmission, and so I have nearly always had them on my own cars; which of course only underscores (at least until recent years) my “belief” that manuals were more common than they are or were.
I’ll underscore the part about cheapskates. I’m one. And that could be because I grew up in a household where being a cheapskate was a badge of honor. I can still recall my parents going on in outrage over having to take a car (because ORDERING a car was the ultimate act of profligate excess and generally undermined ones ability to performatively beat up the sales person as a way of getting the best deal possible) with all of these options larded upon it solely “to jack up the price”. Automatic transmissions were at the top of that list. Followed by air conditioning, radios, and so forth. Later in his life my dad fell in love with small European cars, and one of the reasons for that was that they were generally standard equipped without any of that “unnecessary stuff”.
I myself only started to let go of those attitudes when I was in my 30s (i.e., in the 1990s) and even the European/Asian cars started to come standard with things like automatics.
Aaron, thank you for this. I imagine this was not easy or quick to compile.
As the former owner of a ’63 Ford Galaxie 500 equipped with a three-speed and overdrive, my eye naturally wondered to Ford, then to compare it to Chevrolet. That was a surprise…Chevrolet had a higher take rate on three-speeds every year and sometimes by a lot (1962 and 1963). Rarely do I see a Chevrolet of this era with a manual but I do see Fords so equipped, so it makes me think the Chevrolet was driven into oblivion while the Ford was treated somewhat less harshly.
Now, if there was only a way (impossible, I know) to determine take rate of automatic versus manual transmission with each available engine option.
YouTube has been great for seeing finding oddly equipped cars. Just in the past week I saw a video of a full-size ’62 or ’63 Olds equipped with a three-speed – which was just 0.5% each year. I’ve also found a ’71 Fury and ’71 and ’76 Coronets all with a three-speed.
One point of potential discrepancy…my Standard Catalog says a floor shift three-speed was standard on the ’62 Chrysler Newport (perhaps also a year or so either way; I didn’t scour it). I’ve seen videos of Chryslers so equipped. There is also reference to manuals being standard in the brochure seen at oldcarbrochures.com. That said, I still can’t imagine the take rate for the manual to be overwhelming.
I was like you and expected higher take rates for both the 3 speed and the OD in Fords than these numbers bear out. And like you, I almost never see a manual big Chevy, while manual big Fords seem relatively common.
Chevy also had a consistently higher take rate of 6 cylinder engines which tend to logically be paired more often with the 3-speed manual. Chevy had long established itself as the economy/budget low priced brand with its six, and that reputation continued for quite a while. Unlike you both, I remember lots of big Chevys in Iowa with sixes and 3-speeds. A very common farmer’s car, to go along with the Chevy pickup.
Ford had of course long established itself as the V8 brand, and Plymouth, especially after 1955, had a bit more flair and performance oriented image. A bottom-feeder Chevy was sort of a default for the biggest cheapest sedan. And the sales numbers rather bear that out.
Yes, and my mom was one of those buyers, with a 1955 Chevy 210, ’61 Chevy Bel Air, and ’67 Chevy Bel Air, all 2-door sedans with 6 cylinder engines and 3-on-the tree. (I learned to drive on the last car.)
In 1976 I bought a ’55 210 sedan so equipped for $800. A smoker, but with a nicely done, fresh coat of Neptune Green. I loved the driving experience of the steering column 3 speed manual. I assume by now it’s got a 350 ci and a floor mounted four speed…somewhere.
Interesting read, thanks…..
Thanks for this exhaustive, deep dive on this issue. Not many surprises here, except maybe that Chevy consistently lagged Ford and Plymouth over the years. One guess is that buyers saw Plymouth’s and Ford’s 3 speed automatics as more desirable than Chevy’s 2 speed Powerglide and were more apt to go for the upgrade.
As someone who became a teenager in 1969, but whose family and friends mostly had imports, I rode in a lot of cars with 4 speed manuals. Mostly floor shifted (Volvo, VW, Datsun, Fiat, Opel, etc) and a few column (Mercedes, Peugeot). But I have no memories of riding in a manual transmission American car in the Sixties or early Seventies. After my friends and I reached driving age, that changed a bit and I recall driving a 3-on-the-tree Maverick, an abysmal experience, and 3 and 4 speed Mustangs and then of course Pinto’s and Vega’s. But most of us still drove imports, which I think really changed the auto/manual mix for several decades. I’ve read some “save the manuals” threads on social media where younger people express surprise that the ubiquity of automatics is not a new thing, although of course their complete disappearance on enthusiast cars is more recent.
I wonder if the relatively slick manual gearboxes and (typically) hydraulic clutch linkages of the ‘70s Japanese imports encouraged their sales growth, especially among younger drivers. Detroit gearboxes and shift linkages were typically much clunkier and heavy to deal with, and the mechanical clutch linkages were often much harder and less pleasant to operate. And then there is the column linkage and the typically awkward movement of the shift levers on many Detroit products of the time. The driving dynamics of Detroit manual shifting and clutch operation steered people away from manual transmissions. The light and relatively pleasing driving dynamics of Japanese manual transmissions and clutch operation made them primary choices for car buyers who preferred manual shifting.
I wonder if the relatively slick manual gearboxes and (typically) hydraulic clutch linkages of the ‘70s Japanese imports encouraged their sales growth, especially among younger drivers.
That started some 20 years earlier with the VW, which had a delightful gearbox (and clutch). There was simply a long-standing tradition of imports being all or mostly manuals going back to the pre-war era and carrying forward.
And folks buying basic Toyotas, Datsuns and such (commonly first time young new car buyers) were very price sensitive, and the automatic option was a pretty big hit on the price.
The growth of imports directly impacted the decline of low-end American cars, as the imports became the cheap cars of choice, and American car buyers moved up the price ladder buying fewer and fewer low end American cars. That trend was temporarily impacted by the Vega and Pinto, but their aromatic take rate was much higher than the imports because they were being largely bought by domestic car buyers who by then had or favored automatics.
In times where a manual transmission was mandatory (as in the only choice) clutches were incredibly easy to get along with and very progressive in their action. Once the extra cost automatic was available, corporate interest in the manual seemed to die rather quickly. No car I drove during the 1970’s had a clutch that was anywhere near as friendly and forgiving as the pre-WWII cars I drove (which ranged from a Ford Model A to a Model J Duesenberg).
Once the automatic arrived, it seems like Detroit completely lost interest in making the manual a desirable option.
That’s very interesting about the pre-WWII cars. I’ve never had the opportunity to drive one; the oldest car with a manual transmission I’ve driven was the infamous ’59 Bel Air later used in the IIHS crash test against a 2009 Malibu.
Its clutch and gearshift action reminded me of the way my mom’s 1967 Bel Air drove (with the exception that by ’67, first gear was now synchronized). When I met my wife, she had a 1975 Toyota Corolla with a 5-speed manual, and that was a revelation in ease of shifting and clutching.
I left a longer comment about this below, but in essence, those prewar cars were geared more like tractors, and yes, you could dump the clutch and very much not likely stall those tractor-like long-stroke, slow-running engines back then. That was the reason, not that the clutches were really any different.
I think the increase in popularity or at least acceptance of manuals in this period was a combination of cost, fuel economy, performance or even just availability. In 1970 if you wanted a cheap 4 or 5 year old used import, a VW or maybe Opel or Renault were almost the only choices, and that meant a manual. Upgrading a few years later to a new base Corolla or Golf was much easier if you could already manage 3 pedals. And the driving experience was a lot better with a 4 speed vs a 2 or 3 speed slushbox in a 65 hp car. It would be interesting to see the manual connect rates into the Seventies. I suspect near zero for most domestics other than Corvette, Camaro, Firebird and Corvette, and perhaps even higher with Pinto/Mustang IIand Vega/Monza. And perhaps also higher later in the decade for Chevette and then Omnirizon.
I agree with Paul about the price sensitivity on the Japanese cars, not to mention, as dman hints, it was known back then that small autos were pretty awful in the power and fuel penalties, but boy do I most of all agree with Dutch 1960 about the better driving experience of Japanese manuals!
That interior pic of the Camaro sets my teeth on edge. Seat too low, pedals too high (and misaligned one to the other), not much travel on the clutch, so you have to kind-of pivot from the hip to control it, then when you do, it’s heavy and has an unpleasant mechanical over-center action, and I’m not finished yet!
The gearchange itself is stiff and squeaky, and inconsistent in resistance, and imprecise, and anyway, by the highway speed, why the hell is this big-ish engine screaming away so hard in third? THIS combination, humanly-unaturual driving position included, was common to most Detroit column manuals across the ’60’s and ’70’s longer-lower era, (and in this country, the automatic took a lot longer to become dominant), just awful in traffic, useless on a curvy road, and every-bloody-where else in between.
The Jap ones? Slick, light, good pedal placement, and in general, something you just don’t have to concentrate on. Why the hell no-one in Detroit ever asked why, say, a column-shifted Peugeot 404 was so infinitely better is beyond me (though I suspect I do know why – they didn’t know where France was, let alone that they made cars!)
Here endeth the rant. Normal service shall resume shortly.
Fascinating stuff, Aaron. Thanks for compiling it.
There’s one point you made that caught my attention the most. You suggested that the Big 3 continued to offer 3-speeds in full-size cars (past, say, 1965 or so) mostly to keep advertised MSRP as low as possible makes perfect sense. The take rate was so low that it barely (if at all) covered the costs of engineering and building clutches and linkages and such.
But then again, the powertrains in F/S cars were very similar to the pickup trucks of the era – and I have to imagine that production figures for manual transmissions in trucks was much higher than passenger vehicles – so maybe there wasn’t much cost for the necessary parts to make a 3-speed Bel Air.
I think it would be interesting (if the data is available) to look at take rates on manual transmissions in pickup trucks vs. full-size cars in this era. I have to believe that sticks were more common in trucks during this era.
The take rate was so low that it barely (if at all) covered the costs of engineering and building clutches and linkages and such.
There were essentially zero extra costs involved; they just kept using the same parts. All that was amortized long ago. And these were of course just cheaper than automatics.
And I don’t actually agree that having a low MSRP was the primary reason for offering the manual. Obviously some buyers still wanted them. In 1965, 14.6% of full size Chevy buyers bought a 3-speed manual and 3.8% bought the 4-speed. That’s 18.4%. Given that 17M big Chevys were built in 1965, that equals some 315k cars. You’d have to be utterly nuts to give up that much of your production by not offering manual transmissions. Which is why they didn’t; there was still a considerable demand. And money to be made from them.
In the ’50s and early ’60s, yes, but by the mid-70s, they had become quite rare. For 1975, the overall domestic take rate for the 3-speed was down to 2.5 percent — 173,077 units across all four U.S. automakers, with a big chunk of those going into the Gremlin, Hornet, and Pacer.
Interesting read, though I suspect we here in the great white north were a few years behind in declining numbers of manual transmissions. There were lots of low line full size cars with column shift 3 speeds at least until the mid ’60s. We were a frugal bunch, at least then, and weather and road conditions would eat most cars in 4-5 years.
Probably the best winter beater I ever had was a ’65 Laurentian (Cheviac) with a 230 six, 3 speed and no power nothin’. Everything happened so slowly it was hard to get into trouble even on an icy road. There were lots of such cars around, though for some reason I almost never saw a Plymouth with a 3 speed.
These days even most trucks don’t offer you the choice, when I bought my 2016 Canyon the salesman said I could only get one with a 4 cylinder, 2wd, extended cab.
“You’d have to pay for that in advance before we’ll order one” I passed.
I’m glad I have my ’65 Corsa for a little 4 speed nostalgia!
The Studebaker numbers don’t surprise me – except for a lower OD take rate than my experience would suggest.
The last American manual I remember seeing in an American sedan was in a 1980 Volare in a dealer showroom. By then the lever was on the floor and there was a 4th/OD gear, but I am not sure I’ve seen another since.
One other factor driving down manuals on US cars of yore was how torquey American 6 and 8 cylinder engines worked so seamlessly with autos. This was not the case with many European and Japanese 4 cylinder cars that really felt sluggish unless you shifted your own gears.
My mother-in-law had a 1984 Aires wagon with a 4-speed floor shift. I never actually drove it, but did think it was rather cool (it was the car she had when I first met her).
She claims not to remember it when I ask her about it today. (She’s 92, go figure)
But I’m sure that she got a great deal on it as it was probably about impossible to move off of the lot. And “great deal”, well that would have been the main motivator.
Thanks for a very informative article. My Dad always disliked manual transmissions, he thought that people who drove them were just cheap. Though interestingly enough, he bought several as used cars in the ’70’s. I had been riding motorcycles since I got my license, so I was used to shifting my own gears. My first experience driving a three on the tree was his ’60 Dodge Seneca slant six stripper with radio delete. I enjoyed driving it, though there was a big jump in gearing between second and third. Which makes sense since there are only three speeds to choose from, and first is needed to get the car moving under any circumstance or with a load of passengers. Third is the cruising gear, so it had to be higher for lower rpm. That leaves second to try to split the difference. Luckily most cars back then were tuned for low end torque, and that somewhat compensated for the transmission’s limitations. Then, you had to deal with a non synchronized first gear, which meant that it was best to engage first only after coming to a complete stop. I have old car magazines with early ’60’s Ford ads that boast of the new all synchro three speed, they referred to it as the “three and a half speed transmission.” Because now, first gear was “a driving gear” that you could actually use.
My first car was a ’66 Mustang with a 289 and a four speed, it shifted fine with the manual. My Brother bought a ’76 Camaro with a V8 and four speed and it was awful to drive. I had many Hondas, Datsuns, Nissans, and Acuras with manual transmissions and they were all a joy to drive.
Now I’m being reintroduced to the joys of driving a non sychro first gear, three on the tree transmission with my “new” ’46 Plymouth Club Coupe. It’s like riding a bike, you never really forget. Though it’s mostly the novelty of driving of driving a vintage car, it actually is pretty easy to drive, since the engine is so flexible with plenty of low end torque.
“My Dad always disliked manual transmissions, he thought that people who drove them were just cheap.” Ha, that reminds me when our next-door neighbor, Mr. Cirbus, came over to look at my mom’s brand new 1961 Chevy Bel Air. Peering inside, he said something to this effect, “You’re still doing THAT?” (meaning shifting manually).
Jose, you need to tell us more about your ’46 Plymouth! Postwar cars like yours are the oldest I can remember still in regular use in the Pittsburgh of my youth.
I just got the car last week, I will put together a COAL on it after a few months.
A neighbor of ours bought (2) new 1966 Pontiacs: one was a Grand Prix automatic, and the other was a Catalina convertible which surprisingly had the three speed column shift, one of the < 1% odd choices.
I was always an outlier regarding manual transmissions, no doubt helped by my first car being a 1937 Buck Special, three speed on the floor. What people of my age or younger don’t realize is how forgiving clutches were in the pre-WWII era. Something about the way they were built, it was very difficult to stall a car back then as long as you were being more subtle that “dump the clutch”. My father was so disappointed, having looked forward to teaching his son how to drive a stick, only to discover his kid had figured it out for himself the afternoon before we were supposed to have class. I’d understood the mechanics of how to drive a manual back around the age of twelve, it was just a matter of understanding the actuation of a clutch and gaining the feel, which the Buick made easy.
With a couple of exceptions, during the years 1973-2022 every car I’ve owned was a manual, the exceptions being primarily 1982 (Dodge Omni, married, one car, and a wife who considered driving an unfortunate necessity in life – within a year we were back to a second car, a 79 Ford Fiesta S) and 1987-90 (a Buick Century wagon forcibly inherited from my late mother – it took me three years to financially justify dumping that car). My main ride was always a manual, although the second minivan or pickup truck would most likely be an automatic.
This finally ended in 2022 when I bought my first EV, and as I’m at the point where I have very little desire to own a gasoline car anymore, my days of dealing with three pedals anymore is probably over. For that matter, I don’t deal with two pedals anymore thanks to regenerative braking.
Having driven both prewar and postwar manual shift cars and trucks, I do not think that there was some magic in the older clutches that made stalling less likely. They were fundamentally the same. The big differences that made stalling much less likely in pre-war cars were two-fold: they had much lower (higher numerical) rear axle gear ratios and they were invariably long-stroke, low-revving engines that made maximum torque at very little more than idle speed. It was quite common for folks to start in 2nd gear on level ground; it was even taught that way at times. For that matter, in some of these vintage reviews from the ’50s and ’60s we’ve done here, there have been several references about a given car being easier or harder to start off in 2nd gear.
Those prewar cars were geared more like tractors, and yes, you could dump the clutch and very much not likely stall those tractor-like engines back then.
Completely anecdotal, but my ancient father always swears his ’38 Olds had a far nicer clutch action than anything from later Detroit stuff, as in, light, and smooth despite feeding from a quite-large engine. By comparison, a 2.7 engined Valiant from the late ’60’s he drove (and I drove) was heavy as hell, and unpleasant in action.
Mind you, it also had a carbon clutch-release bearing, which apparently had to be replaced pretty often in daily use (not to mention some sort of cable arrangement as part of its apparently-sweet column change that needed adjustment a bit) so perhaps there’s just some old-tech stuff in the old clutch/gearchanges that’s unsuitable to the more durable mechanicals required of more modern cars.
And perhaps his knee was in better condition in the ’40s than in the late ’60s?
Certainly the clutches used behind the really powerful V8s had heavy springs, and maybe there were other factors. I don’t remember my dad’s 2.7 engine Dart having a heavy clutch. Maybe a HD unit in Australia? In any case, the change in effective gearing and torque curves made it a lot harder to stall in the old timers.
I forgot to also mention earlier that engines had heavier flywheels back in the day too.
Great research and writeup. As some have noted above, it really can’t have been profitable to offer the 3 speed manual with take rates that low. I suspect it would have been only a few cents extra to make the 4 speed standard instead – especially on sporty models where floor shift was preferred such as Corvettes, Corvairs, GTOs, Mustangs, etc. You’d have to be the world’s nuttiest cheapskate to buy a relatively expensive Corvette or Monza Corvair and then specify the cheapy (and performance robbing) 3 speed manual, and yet GM had to build the transmission and related hardware, stock the 3 speed parts in factories/warehouses/dealerships, train workers to install/repair 3 speed manuals, and print literature showing their availability – all to please the 6 people who wanted one to save a few pennies.
Until the Big Three started building their own 4-speeds in the mid-late ’60s, they all had to buy them from Borg Warner, and yes, that was considerably more expensive than the 3-speeds they had mostly been building for decades. And even when they built their own, the 4-speeds were more expensive.
It was very profitable to keep selling a pretty substantial number of cars that buyers wanted a 3-speed in. Those transmissions and clutches were used in lots of models and light trucks, and had been amortized long ago. They wouldn’t have sold them if it wasn’t profitable; that’s not how Detroit worked back then.
But yes, that’s why they eventually dropped them, when the numbers got too small to bother with.
1969 is the only year with data for Checker. I’m surprised the manual take rate was as low as 17%. I figure that a lot of Checker buyers were like my parents, who prioritized utility and efficiency over style and comfort. They bought a Checker in 1968 with 3-speed and overdrive.
For some reason I thought the 3 speed manual was still available on the early fuselage Chrysler Newport’s.
I guess a lot of those folks who bought 3-speeds were cheapskates who never drove on freeways. Otherwise why wasn’t the take-rate on OD higher, and otherwise – why didn’t the big-3 offer OD, and why wasn’t the take rate higher? Well, Ford offered it, but not on the Falcon? I always wanted to drive a 3-speed with OD, the 4-speed Volvos I have driven with the button-engaged overdrive were always kinda fun.
Probably because it cost a not-insignificant amount extra (it was $108 on a full-size Ford), you still had to shift, low was still usually not synchronized, overall ratios were often not ideal, and I don’t think there was any allowance for it on resale or trade-in value.
In 1960, a small number of Chrysler 300Fs were sold with the Pont a Mousson 4-speed manual from the Facel Vega. I don’t know how many Chryslers were sold in total, so I guess they could have amounted to less than a tenth of a percent.
Before I looked at the rest of the article, and it does vary by year, somewhat, I picked
Corvette
Corvair
Falcon
Chevy II
Mustang
As the M/T domestic car leader. Not exactly a scientist here, but Corvette? Easy call. Corvair, easy call, they were competing with VW, which was a 4 speed. Falcon/Chevy II? Not a tough call at all. Mustang, well, they were domestic “Sporty Car” leaders, and started cheap, so it’s good fodder for the masses.
As a lifelong M/T fan, I wonder how long they’ll be around. Much as I dislike them, slushboxes have gotten profoundly better, especially behind less than a 400 cubic inch engine.
Also as a BMW fan, I remember back in the early 70s, BMW E3/2800 cars were very quick with a 4 speed, low 16’s in the quarter and by the decline of domestic performance in the early 80’s, they were practically muscle cars. With a 4 speed. With an auto, they might have still had a top speed of 115-120, but might also lose a stoplight GP to a Pinto or Vega, they were totally emasculated with an autobox.
Those days are gone, auto ratios have gotten better, number of speeds have gone up, smaller engines have a completely different torque curve thanks among other things to variable valve timing. You don’t need 6 liters plus anymore for decent performance out of an A/T. On the third hand, how much better could M/T’s have gotten if they’d put a fraction of the engineering into them that they have A/T’s.
That’s very true of Beemers, right through to the coming of electronic 4-spd o/d automatics in the mid-’80’s. With a high-winding engine – and I’ve driven a manual E30 323i, glorious, but NO torque or power below 3K – they were really emasculated by the old automatics. That low 16’s 2800 was closer to 18 as an auto, and felt it.
Fascinating, and doubtless a lot of work.
I notice the Valiant and Dart had consistently higher take-up of auto than the Falcon. I wonder if that’s because the Falc felt so weak-chested, let alone with with that misery-guts 2-spd auto, or whether it was just widely-known how damn good the Torqueflite was?
I like data!
Great data, great comments, great CC!
I look forward to the 70s/80s sequel!
My Dad’s first car was a new ’56 Plymouth Plaza with no options (well, maybe a heater?) but he bought it before he met my Mother. My Mother learned to drive on a ’51 Chrysler Windsor semi automatic, but she never did care for anything but a full automatic, so subsequent cars (starting with a ’61 Rambler Classic wagon) had automatic so she could also drive them. But in 1966, my Dad bought his first “second” car, a ’59 Beetle which of course was manual, and ‘mostly” until 1986 the second car had a manual, since my Mother could drive the “primary” car which always was automatic. Strangely, my Dad stopped buying imports in 1980 (though he did have a Dodge Omni with a manual) and also stopped buying manual transmission “second” cars. Since all of our American cars were automatic in the 60’s, only my Dad’s “leftover” ’56 Plymouth that he drove during the early 60’s would match that combination.
About the time my Dad was abandoning manuals, my two younger sisters were shopping for cars, in their case they were still poor college students but also needed to buy automatic (they’d never learned to drive manual) and looking for small cars. But fourty years ago although there were more automatics than in the 70’s, small cars still seemed to mostly have manuals (by “small’ I’m referring to subcompact cars), and we had a fair amount of difficulty finding small cars with automatic and air conditioning that didn’t also have tons of miles on them.
I’ve owned only manual transmission cars since 1981, but my next car will be automatic (partly because no one in my family drives manual, and as I get older having a car only I drive has become an issue a couple of times and may be more so as I get even older). I may be a control freak, and want to shift my own gears, but really I think I prefer a clutch to a torque converter, I like to use engine braking, even though most of my driving now is urban where shifting can be no fun in stop and go traffic. Countering that, though, it seems like there are several fragile automatics I’ve heard of, such as the Nissan CVT problems, Ford Focus powershift, and my brother-in-law’s Chevrolet Silverado (which he’s on his 3rd transmission)….if I could find a model even available in a manual I might reconsider going automatic, it seems in the pursuit of greater corporate average fuel economy some of the automatics have had less than stellar reliability and it seems that outside of sports cars (and maybe some trucks?) manual transmissions have gone away completely (and I’m not in the market for either of those types of vehicles). Sadly, it seems you have to try to avoid certain cars if you don’t want to deal with reliability issues….seems they’re not ready for prime time quite yet in that regard.