Back in the days when a manual transmission was referred to as a “standard transmission,” it really did come standard in a lot of cars. But in a lot of cases, the manual version only really existed in brochures; hardly anyone actually bought a car so equipped. They were rare enough in the wild when they were new, but seeing one now is like catching a prehistoric fish.
Yesterday’s cars are pretty rare these days as well. I confess that the final tally surprised me; I would never have guessed that a glacially-slow Volkswagen could beat a 20R-equipped Toyota. I suspect that if the Corona had been a manual, it would have easily beaten the little diesel Rabbit. Of course, if the Corona were a manual, it would have been turned into a crappy half-assed “drift car” ten years ago.
I’m on Team Rabbit with the majority of you. I cut my teeth on Volkswagens of this era, and I still really like them. Such a slow 0-60 time would require some careful planning ahead, but it’s really not all that much slower than my Chevy pickup, and I get around fine in that. This Rabbit uses about a fourth as much fuel doing it, too.
I’m not one of those people who think every car can be improved by a manual transmission. I see photos of manual-swapped Crown Vics and think, “Why?” But I do enjoy seeing rare manual-equipped versions of common cars. And I can definitely see the appeal of them, especially if the automatic transmission offered in them has a bad reputation. Let’s take a look at two such rarities for sale today.
1987 GMC Safari – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 4.3-liter OHV V6, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Lowell, MI
Odometer reading: 146,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Yes, that’s right – for the first few years, you could get a Chevy Astro or GMC Safari van with a stickshift. I remember seeing exactly one in my time working at the garage in St. Paul, owned by a courier service. I had to (or got to, depending on your perspective) drive it a couple of times. I actually kind of liked the novelty of it, but the Astro/Safari’s notoriously tight footwell gets even more crowded with a clutch pedal, and the shifter is awkward to reach. I can understand why they didn’t sell well.
You could also get one with an Iron Duke four-cylinder, but I’ve never seen one of those. The 4.3-liter V6 was the de facto standard engine in these vans, even before it became the actual standard engine in 1990. It’s a good engine that punches well above its weight, though it is a little thirsty. This one runs and drives well, according to the seller, but they don’t give many details beyond that.
This van is also rare in that it lacks windows in the rearmost positions. It is a passenger van, though, not a cargo model. Someone added wood paneling to the rear walls, ceiling, and floor, which if nothing else probably makes it feel less tin-canny than a cargo van. All the seats are in good condition except for the driver’s seat, which is badly worn. It looks like this seven-passenger van spent a lot of time with only one passenger. The seller says neither the air conditioning nor the radio work at the moment, so you’ve got a little work to do.
It’s pretty clean outside, especially for a Michigan van. I see a few minor rust spots, but nothing serious. The paint isn’t in bad shape, and the Oldsmobile hubcaps actually look pretty good on it.
1992 Ford Explorer Sport – $4,999
Engine/drivetrain: 4.0-liter OHV V6, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: El Paso, TX
Odometer reading: 70,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Overnight successes are rare, especially in the car world, but I think the Ford Explorer qualifies. The Explorer’s predecessor, the Bronco II, sold pretty well, but its appeal was limited by the fact that it only had two doors. The four-door version of the Explorer sold like hotcakes from day one, but for those who missed the old Bronco II, Ford also offered a two-door Explorer, called the Explorer Sport.
Regardless of door count, Ford only offered the Explorer with one engine: a 4.0-liter version of the Cologne V6. A five-speed manual was standard, but rare; you see more two-door Explorers with manuals than four-doors, but still not many. Most Explorers were also four-wheel-drive, but not this one. I wasn’t sure at first, until I saw the dashboard: it’s missing the push-button controls for the transfer case above the radio.
The seller says this car only has 70,000 miles on it, but if so, it was a hard 70,000. There’s a lot of wear on the armrest and steering wheel, and the driver’s seat looks pretty mashed-down. It’s also missing the pull handle on the passenger door, and that’s just what I can see in this one photo. It’s not in bad shape; it just doesn’t look as low-mileage as they claim. I’d run a Carfax report on this one if I were you.
Outside, it looks pretty good at first glance, but there’s a little wrinkle below the left taillight, and the paint is pretty faded. But there’s no rust on it, at least.
I’m not sure having a manual transmission improves the driving experience of either of these, but it definitely improves their durability. GM’s TH700R4 automatic is more durable than Ford’s 4R55E, but you can expect to rebuild either one at least once during the life of a vehicle. The manual gearboxes in these should outlast the rest of the trucks with nothing more than an occasional fluid change and maybe a new clutch. As long as you’re willing to shift gears for yourself, you should be able to keep doing so indefinitely. Which one would you pick?
I’ll take the van + $1k set aside to fix the AC.
Ford. The foot well in the GMC is atrocious!
Both of these are miserable vehicles, neither suited to the manual transmission. My left knee hurts just thinking about the clutch placement in the Astro.
That said, I went Astro because it’s kind of an ironic clown car with the blocked off rear windows, and I could store a couple of bicycles in it no problem. It would be funny with a fake business marque, or ‘Undercover Surveillance’ painted on the side. The manual might actually save some fuel vs. the typical 4 speed slush box.
The Exploder is no doubt a much comfier driver, but a RWD-only SUV is always incredibly disappointing and defeats the whole purpose up here in hilly snow country.
Today is a hard ‘Ugh’ for me. The Likely-Crumbly-Underside-But-Kind-Of-Useful-w/-Weird-Interior-Planking-Astro, or the Possible-Odometer-Fraud-Rode-Hard-And-Put-Away-Wet-What-Do-I-Need-Old-2wd-SUV-For-Explorer. Pressed to take one of these crap-boxes, I’ll go for the one that’s not horribly over priced, even if it is a crumb cake underneath.
I will go against the higher miles and probably hidden rust from a MI car and still say Safari for me. those are so easy to plop a proper v8 in and if I have to deal with RWD in both of these then the safari at least is interesting and would make for a real sleeper ride, both with a better motor and perhaps a cot in back.
I went with the Safari. I’ve never been much of a GM guy, but this is an excellently preserved example of the 80’s GM truck dash aesthetic.
But I’m wondering if you get to play like a pirate on every journey, since all that planking seems like it might creak and groan anytime the chassis flexes.
Arrrrgh Matey!
Are half of you insane?
A GM product from MICHIGAN (of course it’s rusty, has David taught you NOTHING?!?), with the clutch pedal located on top of the LF tire and the stick shift in the back seat?? With 1×4 wood paneling but lacking AC and a radio? No thanks, even with Oldsmobile wheel covers.
I’ll take the Explorer Coupe with the 4.0. It’s sunburnt but seems to lack the cancer.
I’d rather have an Astrovan than an Explorer but I’ll pick El Paso’s unrelenting sun over Michigan’s rust.
They’re both pretty dreadful if we’re being honest. Even though I’m the resident GM hater, I’d probably have to go with the Safari. The only thing that really scares me is the radio that doesn’t work. Hopefully it’s just a bad head unit (which is an easy fix), but because the vehicle runs with notoriously abysmal GM/Delco electronics, it could mean that you’re chasing shorts and opens that aren’t supposed to be there, and debugging GM electronics is pure nightmare fuel.
Then again, if its that bad, I can always flip it, recover some funds and turn it into Someone Else’s Problem®.
I’ve been eyeing manual 2 door explorers on Marketplace recently. Are you in my head? But those were much closer to today’s Safari price. THIS Explorer is too much! I’m going GMC today.
Going with the current majority on this one – Van life for me. It’s just a lot more useful than the Exploder, for a LOT less money. Terrible vehicles either way.
Since every Safari and Astro was built in Baltimore, I always vote for them
Normally van always beats SUV but not today. The Astro is from Michigan so that is an automatic no. Even if it was from somewhere else it needs the A/C fixed which will eliminate the difference in price. Having owned a Astro a clutch in an already cramped footwell is a real issue.
The wood interior makes me think it was once a DIY campervan conversion. That wood slat interior is popular way to dress out the interior after pulling the plastic interior.
Fixing A/C DIY is actually really easy. I would much rather do that than most mechanical issues. And for these, the parts are probably DIRT cheap. I have 16lbs of R12 sitting in my garage for a rainy day, or just fill it up with one of the alternate refrigerants.
But for sure I would want a look underneath before handing over any crispies. Though there is no way it can look as good as it does if it spent it’s whole life in MI. Probably a fairly recent migrant from the South. Hopefully ICE doesn’t deport it. 😉
The Astro has a very cramped engine compartment which makes pretty much all repairs fun. (I owned an Astro for 10 years.)
In 2017 a compressor and condenser was $950. In 2023 the Evaporator was $848.
Today R12 in bulk is more than $100 a pound and you can’t just fill a system designed for R12 with R134A or R1234YF. You will need a conversion kit with new components to get near original performance.
Unless you actually own cars with R12 I would sell that R12 for $$$$
For the price, that SafariAstro can’t be beat.
What’s funny is that this is a van and SUV built off the platforms their respective makers created for their compact pickups in the early 80s.
I’ve never heard a more accurate description of the Ranger and S10 than “trucks made out of car parts.” I think that gem came from Curbside Classic. The S10 is basically a G-body Malibu that got shoved into the Calvin & Hobbes Transmogrifier
The Astro is a unibody. It shares the engine, transmission, and rear axle with the S-10 but pretty much everything else is different.
TIL! I thought it was simply the GM answer to the Aerostar.
Astro/Safari were pretty great. They’re classics, in my mind. Epic production run, too.
Having owned an Astro for 10 years and growing up in full size conversion vans I don’t really get the Astro cult following. The fuel economy is basically as bad as the full size Chevy but it is smaller and less capable. It is also more cramped for both the driver and front passenger. The only thing it has going for it is the smaller size.
The AWD version was interesting but most were RWD.
The Ranger, Bronco II, and first-gen Explorer all used twin-I-beam front suspension. They had a lot more in common with their full size truck cousins in that regard.
Explorer – everyone’s favorite exec was behind that one: Bob Lutz.
It shows a deft touch for product that the entire team, not just Lutz, had. The Explorer was a parts-bin raid, for the most part. And yet, what could have been simply an aggressive mid-cycle action for the Bronco II took many of the same basics and embroidered an entirely new fashion trend.
This one doesn’t yet seem to have the saggy britches that most Explorers of its era develop. It’s also got the Cologne V6, a terrible thing in ways that differ from the same critique you could make about the Essex-based Romeo V6 (not the British Essex V6, that’s different) that I think these eventually got. So that’s a wash.
The 2-doors and debut styling are neat to see. The 96 refresh added the Windsor with the good hair…err heads and intake. And the roundy-round nose and torsion bar IFS.
Early Explorers are getting pretty rare here in rustville. Actually, they’ve already BEEN rare.
The Astro is neat but there’s too much individual creativity on display. I would be concerned about how much you wind up having to un-do. 4.3 is a much better engine than the Explorer, though!