Just curious...
It seems many people think a 4-speed (or just a manual trans) is more "fun" than an automatic...
I tend to disagree, but we all have our own perspective...
To me, sure a stock Powerglide-equipped car seems boring and slow, and when "stock", it seems a less muscular "Musclecar" than a 4-speed-equipped version... TH400 cars, not so much of a difference...
But if you are really into driving your car, what makes the manual trans more fun?
For me, the parts breakage (racing and trying to shift as fast as an automatic, or Ronnie Sox), the left-leg workout (especially in traffic), Missing shifts (tell me you've never missed a shift, but still shift really fast), the imprecise launch (often up in smoke), the chore of shifting/clutch when cruising or in traffic... It all took alot of the fun out of the manual trans, and the final straw was that performance was usually reduced with the manual trans...
Where's the fun?
With the automatic in my much-modified car, I have yet to break any driveline parts, yet the car shifts faster than a manual. Haven't missed a shift since I moved the shifter to the floor (column-shift autos suck, IMO)... My left calf is no longer larger than my right, at the drag strip or on the street it much easier to get a good launch, and when I am tired I can just leave it in drive...
Now when I auto-crossed my Chevelle with the automatic, there was the issue of not being able to modulate the clutch on downshifting (so the rear tires locked momentarily, at one turn), but that was one issue that may or may not have affected my times...
But in general, my Chevelle is still a really fun car to drive, despite the automatic.
My non-OD TH400 is another issue, as another gear would be nice on the highway, but I really only travel 250-300 miles per year on highways...
Now my '66 on the other hand, will have its Muncie, but that is as much about the image ('66 L78 4-speed, looking relative "stock")... In stock form, a manual trans seems more performance oriented...
As for parts breakage, over the years I have disintegrated several sets of ring-and-pinion gears (12-bolts), broke the rearend yoke (NOT at the same time as the ring gear issues), snapped numerous U-joints, cracked the tail housing on a Muncie, broke shift rods on a Hurst shifter, amazingly never dropped a valve from over reving, broke the clutch bell crank on several occasions, had issues with the ball-stud (fork), broke a clutch fork or two, fried a few clutches and destroyed at least one Muncie 4-speed... I used to shift without letting off the gas (when I was much younger)...
Automatics, I only recall one breakage where the case cracked on my old Powerglide... Had a TH350 lose 3rd and reverse in a Daily Driver... And one TH400 that never shifted as hard once I lost a tranny cooler hose (worked okay after, but never shifted quite as hard)...
It seems many people think a 4-speed (or just a manual trans) is more "fun" than an automatic...
I tend to disagree, but we all have our own perspective...
To me, sure a stock Powerglide-equipped car seems boring and slow, and when "stock", it seems a less muscular "Musclecar" than a 4-speed-equipped version... TH400 cars, not so much of a difference...
But if you are really into driving your car, what makes the manual trans more fun?
For me, the parts breakage (racing and trying to shift as fast as an automatic, or Ronnie Sox), the left-leg workout (especially in traffic), Missing shifts (tell me you've never missed a shift, but still shift really fast), the imprecise launch (often up in smoke), the chore of shifting/clutch when cruising or in traffic... It all took alot of the fun out of the manual trans, and the final straw was that performance was usually reduced with the manual trans...
Where's the fun?
With the automatic in my much-modified car, I have yet to break any driveline parts, yet the car shifts faster than a manual. Haven't missed a shift since I moved the shifter to the floor (column-shift autos suck, IMO)... My left calf is no longer larger than my right, at the drag strip or on the street it much easier to get a good launch, and when I am tired I can just leave it in drive...
Now when I auto-crossed my Chevelle with the automatic, there was the issue of not being able to modulate the clutch on downshifting (so the rear tires locked momentarily, at one turn), but that was one issue that may or may not have affected my times...
But in general, my Chevelle is still a really fun car to drive, despite the automatic.
My non-OD TH400 is another issue, as another gear would be nice on the highway, but I really only travel 250-300 miles per year on highways...
Now my '66 on the other hand, will have its Muncie, but that is as much about the image ('66 L78 4-speed, looking relative "stock")... In stock form, a manual trans seems more performance oriented...
As for parts breakage, over the years I have disintegrated several sets of ring-and-pinion gears (12-bolts), broke the rearend yoke (NOT at the same time as the ring gear issues), snapped numerous U-joints, cracked the tail housing on a Muncie, broke shift rods on a Hurst shifter, amazingly never dropped a valve from over reving, broke the clutch bell crank on several occasions, had issues with the ball-stud (fork), broke a clutch fork or two, fried a few clutches and destroyed at least one Muncie 4-speed... I used to shift without letting off the gas (when I was much younger)...
Automatics, I only recall one breakage where the case cracked on my old Powerglide... Had a TH350 lose 3rd and reverse in a Daily Driver... And one TH400 that never shifted as hard once I lost a tranny cooler hose (worked okay after, but never shifted quite as hard)...