[lesmore49]

Best shifting manual transmission I've ever used...and I've driven plenty...cars, commercial trucks, motorcycles....was my '62 Volvo PV 544 with it's Koping Engineering, AB Volvo, 4 speed manual. I wasn't sure who made the transmission till I went to an old Volvo website.

The PV had a very long stick shift, which I think contributed to the effortless shifting and shifting gears was accurate and precise, I'm assuming they had an excellent shifter mechanism.

The next best shifter was in a '70 Chevy Nova SS 350. It had a 4 speed Muncie manual transmission with a Hurst Shifter mechanism installed. The Hurst Shifter was an excellent piece of engineering...provided shorter 'throws' between gear shift, also made for effortless and precise shifting.

Both my old PV544 and the '70 Nova SS were joys to shift.

[cooltouch]

You mean Fiat, I mean Fiat Chrysler, oh just Fiat. My mechanic said to avoid any Chrysler/Dodge product where the engine displacement ends in 7.

Hmm . . . well, thinking about the classic engine sizes, you have 273, 340, 383, 426, and 440. No 7s there. And the new Hemi -- a 393, right? I'm not really familiar with any of the other current Chrysler engine sizes.

Gotta agree with you about Fiat. Their reliability is worse than the older Jaguar's.

[Canada_Rockies]

An interesting manual shifter that I grew to love was the 4 on the column shifter in my 1958 Mercedes 220S. It was surprisingly precise and fast to operate. Up over the the reverse brought on the backup lights, which was very handy for really bad tailgaters, but the surprising thing was how tight the shifts were. The "gate" was almost an X rather than an H the 1/2 and 3/4 that close together. In the manual (German - I bought it over there) it suggested that city traffic was best handled by accelerating to 50 km/h in 1st and dropping into 4th. Placing my hand on top of the lever in 1st and just sliding it down dropped it into 4th with barely a twitch going through the gate. Placing my hand under the lever when bringing it down took it to 2nd. On top from 2nd up > 3rd, Underneath 2nd up > 1st. I owned it from 1965 to 1971, and never had to even adjust the shifters, a distinct difference from carrying the big screwdriver in my Chevs with column shifts to lever them out of lock up.

[SSGGeezer]

Hmm . . . well, thinking about the classic engine sizes, you have 273, 340, 383, 426, and 440. No 7s there. And the new Hemi -- a 393, right? I'm not really familiar with any of the other current Chrysler engine sizes.

Gotta agree with you about Fiat. Their reliability is worse than the older Jaguar's.

#.7 in Liters, like the V-6 that would have clogged oil channels and seize up even if you changed it every 5000 KM that Chrysler claimed was not a defect. Many lawsuits still ongoing. He even said the 5.7 Hemi had the same issue.

[cooltouch]

Best shifting manual transmission I've ever used...and I've driven plenty...cars, commercial trucks, motorcycles....was my '62 Volvo PV 544 with it's Koping Engineering, AB Volvo, 4 speed manual. I wasn't sure who made the transmission till I went to an old Volvo website.

The PV had a very long stick shift, which I think contributed to the effortless shifting and shifting gears was accurate and precise, I'm assuming they had an excellent shifter mechanism.

The next best shifter was in a '70 Chevy Nova SS 350. It had a 4 speed Muncie manual transmission with a Hurst Shifter mechanism installed. The Hurst Shifter was an excellent piece of engineering...provided shorter 'throws' between gear shift, also made for effortless and precise shifting.

Both my old PV544 and the '70 Nova SS were joys to shift.

I've owned only one Volvo with a manual shift transmission -- an 87 740 turbo wagon. Its shifter was decent -- precise, medium throw selections -- but nothing particularly remarkable. Our new-old 2007 Volvo XC90 has a six-speed auto with a manual option. You push the shifter over to the left from the Drive setting, and this puts it in a manual gear. It's kinda fun manual shifting that car. You just bump the shifter forward to go up a gear and pull on it to drop a gear. Only thing I don't like about it is it takes its sweet time actually shifting after I bump the shifter. Oh well. It's still fun.

My favorite shifting car, though, had to have been my 1976 Jensen GT (the GT looked like the Jensen Healey but with a hatchback hardtop). 1975 and later Healeys and the GT came with a Getrag 5-speed that was rather unusual -- it had a dogleg first gear. First was toward you (you had to push against a spring) and down. Because it was spring loaded, when you came up out of first, the shifter snapped over so that the throw to 2nd was just straight up (letting the spring do its thing of course, because the actual straight up gear from 1st is reverse). This made possible a very rapid shift from 1st to 2nd. And because of this arrangement, 5th ended up straight down from 4th. I really liked that layout once I got used to it -- which took all of about 5 minutes or so.

My most favorite shifting bike? My '88 BMW R100RS. Very clean and precise.

[ChrisPlatt]

You may love 'em, but a manual transmission is murder for anyone who drives daily in stop-and-go traffic.

I once had a very bad sunburn on my legs. Operating the clutch was excruciating, adding insult to injury.
I vowed then that would be my last car with a manual transmission.

Fortunately today's automatics are very much improved and just as efficient.

Chris

[timb64]

You may love 'em, but a manual transmission is murder for anyone who drives daily in stop-and-go traffic.

I once had a very bad sunburn on my legs. Operating the clutch was excruciating, adding insult to injury.
I vowed then that would be my last car with a manual transmission.

Fortunately today's automatics are very much improved and just as efficient.

Chris

In the UK the vast majority (over 80%) of cars are manual transmission,I guess it's something which we've just learned to deal with.The number of automatics is,however,increasing, so long term we are probably going the same way.

[cooltouch]

Yes, but today's autos are a far cry from the slush boxes that predominated even as recently as 20 years ago -- as Chris points out. So I could see why the UK might begin to trend toward autos. Here in the US, I just chalk it up to a general laziness, which most drivers have traditionally exhibited. I have always felt out of place here, preferring cars that respond to the road, rather than having a car that behaves like a boat, and I've always preferred being able to select the gear instead of having the slush box choose one for me. Thus my preferences have always been toward performance cars or at least imports.

Having lived in the LA area for years, and now having lived in Houston for the past 20 years, I can honestly say that LA doesn't have anything over Houston when it comes to awful traffic. So I've had to deal with more than my fair share of bumper-to-bumper stop and go traffic, both with manual and auto transmissions. There's no question that an auto makes for an easier time of it, but there are things one can do with a manual that can reduce the annoyance. For instance, I'll let a little room open up between me and the car in front of me and then just let the car idle with the trans in 1st to slowly close the gap -- with the hopes that it will open up again before I have to push in the clutch. Of course, the problem with that sort of tactic is invariably there will be some yayhoo in the lane next to me who will see the gap as an opportunity to change lanes, no doubt hoping that mine might be moving a few tenths of a mph faster than the one he's in. Grass is always greener fallacy and all.

But what really becomes an ordeal for me is getting stuck in this sort of traffic on one of my motorcycles. The one I ride most often has a moderately stiff clutch and extended sessions of stop-and-go traffic will sometimes lead to my left hand cramping up. Not a whole lot I can do about it besides just grinning and bearing it. Usually by the time this happens though my bike's air-cooled engine is starting to overheat, so sometimes I'll just exit the freeway and find a place to park it until the motor cools off. This gives my hand a rest too. Wish lane-splitting was legal in Texas like it is in California.

[Ratmagiclady]

The next best shifter was in a '70 Chevy Nova SS 350. It had a 4 speed Muncie manual transmission with a Hurst Shifter mechanism installed. The Hurst Shifter was an excellent piece of engineering...provided shorter 'throws' between gear shift, also made for effortless and precise shifting.

Both my old PV544 and the '70 Nova SS were joys to shift.

Hee, yeah, I put a Hurst shifter in my Duster. Very nice, though it didn't seem like such a short throw, really. Possibly cause I'd put in an interesting sort of lever to clear the bench seat, which by a stroke of luck came along with my donor car, which actually had buckets.

[Just1MoreDave]

You may love 'em, but a manual transmission is murder for anyone who drives daily in stop-and-go traffic...

I am probably a minority of one, but I don't mind it. Two if you count my wife. I don't usually notice the extra work. I haven't talked anyone else into the idea.

The Versa that I just gave back to Alamo had the two main issues that bother me about automatics. I want them to stay in top gear more. I'd start up a hill and want to maintain 45mph by pressing the gas pedal. It quickly unlocks the torque converter, then drops to say 3rd. Now the engine is at 3500rpm and pretty noisy, without seeming to make more power. With a manual, I don't downshift until much later. The second problem is going downhill, where it's steep enough to want engine braking. This shifter had just one position for lower gears, which would shift into the lowest possible gear for that speed. It was either no engine braking or way too much. Again, with a manual, I can manage this better.

I want to drive a CVT because they can be designed so they maintain a fairly low RPM. I'm not sure they do any better downhill. Electric cars might be best.

[ThorSanchez]

Yes, but today's autos are a far cry from the slush boxes that predominated even as recently as 20 years ago -- as Chris points out. So I could see why the UK might begin to trend toward autos. Here in the US, I just chalk it up to a general laziness, which most drivers have traditionally exhibited. I have always felt out of place here, preferring cars that respond to the road, rather than having a car that behaves like a boat, and I've always preferred being able to select the gear instead of having the slush box choose one for me. Thus my preferences have always been toward performance cars or at least imports.

I'm loathe to admit this, but while 20 years ago you'd almost always get better gas mileage and performance from a manual transmission that's no longer the case. My Audi S4 with the manual is spec'd at several tenths of a second slower from 0-60 than with the dual clutch automatic. Even with a slushbox auto you'll often see slightly better fuel efficiency and acceleration times than with a manual. So I think we're doomed. Americans only buy manuals on maybe 5% of vehicles now, so with high-performance electrics and hybrids coming up my children will have to go out of their way to find a manual.


I don't know if it's laziness, but we Americans have always gravitated towards buying cars by the pound. If your buddy had a 20' long Caddy in the 1970s, you'd one-up him with a 25' long version. If your neighbor has a Ford Expedition, you go get the Excursion. F250? Ha! I have a F350 dually! "Corners" are for weird little Italian guys in their broken-down Fiats. 0-60 times and fuel efficiency don't have anything on tons per dollar.

[Canada_Rockies]

I am probably a minority of one, but I don't mind it. Two if you count my wife. I don't usually notice the extra work. I haven't talked anyone else into the idea.

The Versa that I just gave back to Alamo had the two main issues that bother me about automatics. I want them to stay in top gear more. I'd start up a hill and want to maintain 45mph by pressing the gas pedal. It quickly unlocks the torque converter, then drops to say 3rd. Now the engine is at 3500rpm and pretty noisy, without seeming to make more power. With a manual, I don't downshift until much later. The second problem is going downhill, where it's steep enough to want engine braking. This shifter had just one position for lower gears, which would shift into the lowest possible gear for that speed. It was either no engine braking or way too much. Again, with a manual, I can manage this better.

I want to drive a CVT because they can be designed so they maintain a fairly low RPM. I'm not sure they do any better downhill. Electric cars might be best.

I guess it depends on the design by the manufacturer. My Tundra auto (might be truck specific) is not as good as manual, but pretty close. O/D off and the lockup pattern changes to something similar to tow/haul and 3rd stays locked up until 80 km/h (50 mph) no matter the throttle position. With the O/D enabled, it gets sloppy around 70 km/h (40 mph) and taking the foot off the throttle works much like slipping into neutral for all the hold back help it gives. 2nd is very good for the trailer tow downhill and will hold 80 km/h (50 mph) on 6% without using the brakes. The trailer weighs about 1,400 Kg (3,000 lb) and gives a nice "push" downhill.

[cooltouch]

I don't know if it's laziness, but we Americans have always gravitated towards buying cars by the pound. If your buddy had a 20' long Caddy in the 1970s, you'd one-up him with a 25' long version. If your neighbor has a Ford Expedition, you go get the Excursion. F250? Ha! I have a F350 dually! "Corners" are for weird little Italian guys in their broken-down Fiats. 0-60 times and fuel efficiency don't have anything on tons per dollar.

I suspect I'm from a different era. When I was young, my friends were into pony cars or mid-size like Malibus and Chargers and GTOs. Me? I drove a 40hp Volkswagen that topped out at about 65mph. Full size cars were not very cool, although station wagons were considered useful, especially if you were a drummer.

My parents and some of my contemporaries were into full-size boats -- Impalas and Galaxies and Furies. But I hated the damn things. 47 turns of the wheel from lock to lock, no sensation of the road at all, and often the manufacturer would do unfathomable things like installing a 455 ci engine in a car (like a '71 Pontiac Bonneville I briefly owned) and then set a two-barrel carburetor on top! Why? So people could brag about the size of the engine in their car, yet still get marginally good gas mileage? Idiocy. It was because of Detroit's mentality that I almost always bought imports. Still do, come to think of it.

[monochrome]

Yes, CVTs are slightly more fuel efficient than a regular slushbox, and probably even a manual. But they're dramatically less fun. I know, I know, most people don't have fun on their list of requirements.

I used to say that. And I know that many coupes look better than their 4-door equivalents. Then I had kids and I spent seven or eight years getting them in and out of the back seat of a Mini Cooper S. I now understand the joy of four doors.


Americans regularly say "I can't fold my 265-lb, 5' 10", 66-year-old frame into car. I need an SUV don't have to bend down to get into." Tell that person to get into the backseat of a two-door coupe and they'll die laughing. You'd need some kind of vacuum extraction device for when you get to your destination.

My wife started with a Volvo 240 Wagon with the rear-facing 3rd row seat. Next was a 3.0 Outback. She celebrated our last child pemanently moving out by trading her Outback for a Mini Hardtop. Two doors, a hatch and she can park anywhere.

Our son has twins. He drives a Raptor. She drives an Acadia. Rear seats are for Car Seats aren’t they?

.:

[ThorSanchez]

An interesting manual shifter that I grew to love was the 4 on the column shifter in my 1958 Mercedes 220S. It was surprisingly precise and fast to operate. Up over the the reverse brought on the backup lights, which was very handy for really bad tailgaters, but the surprising thing was how tight the shifts were. The "gate" was almost an X rather than an H the 1/2 and 3/4 that close together. In the manual (German - I bought it over there) it suggested that city traffic was best handled by accelerating to 50 km/h in 1st and dropping into 4th. Placing my hand on top of the lever in 1st and just sliding it down dropped it into 4th with barely a twitch going through the gate. Placing my hand under the lever when bringing it down took it to 2nd. On top from 2nd up > 3rd, Underneath 2nd up > 1st. I owned it from 1965 to 1971, and never had to even adjust the shifters, a distinct difference from carrying the big screwdriver in my Chevs with column shifts to lever them out of lock up.

I've wondered how long it'll be until one of these reimagined retro cars has a column shifter. I've certainly seen much lusting after gated manuals on car shows and magazines, so three on the tree can't be far behind, right?