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 had two Safari panel vans for my business back in the day – an ‘87 with the stick, and a ‘97 with the auto. Both had the V6 With multiport fuel injection the newer one was a rocket. Nonetheless I preferred the older van I could row myself. Kinda cool to have the stick back near my hip.
Give me the stubby van! $2k seems like a good price for an extra utility vehicle and this one looks neat. I would pull out the extra rows and make it a cargo van, perfect for hauling building materials and tools. Cheap enough that I wouldn’t care about leaving it street parked either.
My vote goes to the Ford Explorer because I prefer station wagons.
Hard pass on both. 2-door 2WD Explorer? What are you exploring with that? At least the van can do van stuff. But it’s certainly not better with a clutch. Just more laborious.
“What are you exploring with that? “
You can Explore lots of things! You can Explore shopping malls, you can Explore The Big Apple, you can explore The Big Nickel and you can explore various parks such as Pancake Bay where you can stay in a Yurt!
I didn’t read the descriptions because I don’t think I’m legally allowed to be near either of these. It really does show that money means nothing now… these are the class of cars you just give to someone who’s in need. 2k or 5k… sheesh. Yeah I know this isn’t an option for the majority but I’m glad to be in a place with public transit. Keep this junk off the road and keep that money in the pockets of people who need transit.
Want the Astro, Voted Explorer.
Just don’t trust that rust. The Ford is just a gussied up Ranger so even if there’s 100K or more not showing on the clock, it should last a while.
The Astro-Van calls to me. I’d replace those rear windows with solid panels and paint a radical van-mural on both sides. Take the rear seats out to make room for a bean bag chair and bolt a piece to the floor to hold an old CRT and a working NES. I bet I could squeeze out a bit more juice from that little V6 with a garbage-charger and some custom plumbing, which would pair nicely with that manual transmission and some fatter tires. Finally, finish by touching up the wood inside and doing a nice dark stain with a semi-gloss finish, make it feel a little more finished.
I came in figuring I’d go with the Explorer because I don’t really have any current use for a van and I have some fond memories of driving a girlfriend’s around in the mid-90’s. Ended up going with the Astro, though, because it would give me a wood-paneled home to live in when the world economy goes apocalypse on us and also because it’s named after the Jetsons’ dog.
Any car with a dog name is an immediate winner. Unless it is called Allegro. Or Marina. That would be animal mistreatment, though.
I had a former roommate who had a 90 Ford Explorer 4-door with a manual and he put a couple of hundred thousand miles on it without any significant repairs needed. I later had a Mazda Navajo (badge-engineered Explorer Sport for the 3 of you who didn’t already know) that I sold after buying an Expedition, but really miss now. Further factor in that since I’m already in Texas, the Explorer is only 570+ miles away. So southern-fried, but rust-free Explorer for me.
Since the automatic was the weak link in the Explorer powertrain, getting one with a manual was really the way to go.
I’ll take the van + $1k set aside to fix the AC.
+$2k to fix a bunch of nasty rusty shit because it’s in Michigan.
Don’t forget the +$115 in scrap when it gets towed away because the rust was unrepairable
And the doctor bills for having rust extracted from your eyeball(s).
Plus I like the first gen Explorer. I almost bought a teal 2WD manual 1990 2-door model similar to the one in the listing, back in 2007 or so. It was around $3k and drove very well, but I bailed the second I turned on the A/C and the owner confirmed he’d smoked in it. Ductwork don’t lie.
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®.
“always flip it”
Was that a joke about the Firestone tires?
COTD
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.
Came to say the same thing! If I could have the Exploder for the price of crApstro, I’d be a buyer. Like seriously I might go buy that thing.
People complaining about it not being 4×4 are entirely missing the point of this vehicle. Even with 4×4, this platform was fairly miserable off-road and in snow (I drove one in VT in college, I know).
If I bought this, I’d lower it, put in a crap blower and some cheap Chinese summer tires and go ruin what’s left of the clutch getting embarrassed at a strip, hahaha
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 $$$$
R12 is dirt cheap down here on Marketplace. Everybody and their uncle has cans of it sitting in their garages. No reason to buy it new, it doesn’t go bad. I have all the stuff to work on both R12 and R134 systems, and have used some of the alternate refrigerants in the past – they work just fine too.
This is a vehicle where cheap Chinesium parts are going to be just fine – they will probably outlive it. I hate Rockauto and rarely buy anything from them, but as a convenient place to look at parts prices, they show multiple compressors for ~$200, condensers and evaporators for <$100. Having A/C work done by a shop is asking to get boned on both parts and labor. They are good at making it seem mysterious and thus expensive.
Using R124A in a system designed for R12 will reduce cooling capacity 10-15%. Using R1234YF in a system designed for R134A reduces capacity 5-10%. If you have a vehicle with an AC system with excessive capacity it will work. If you have one a system that was marginal when new you will notice the difference.
My 2004 Astro was margin when stock. Large volume and a lot of windows.
I had excellent results in the Volvos and BMWs I used the alternate stuff in. Better than stock, in fact. No idea what the R number was, but it was basically a propane/butane mix, IIRC. And no, I am not worried about a pound or so of flammable gas in the HVAC system when I have 18 gallons of gasoline in the car.
It’s a moot point, I would never buy one of these anyway. But at this point, I don’t need to screw around, I have enough R12 in my garage to last the rest of my life. I intended to buy a couple cans to recharge a Volvo I fixed, but the seller let me have all they had for a price too good to say no – $50 for the lot. I did not have it back in the day when I was working on those cars. The most likely car I will need it for is my next Alfa Spider.
Propane is R290. Isobutane is R600a. If you are buying environmentally safe “R12” replacement is is a mix of the two. The both have greater cooling efficiently vs R12 or R134A so one would expect them to cool better.
Neither are allowed for automotive use in the USA but I guess if you are doing your own brew you can do what you want.
When the switch was made from R134A to R1234YF the industry looked at Propane but it was rejected due to the flammability issue. Automakers actual have to care about thing like crash tests.
As I said, not worried about it in the slightest. And it worked great in systems that were actually marginal when new.
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 smaller size is kind of the whole point. I’m the cheap git who had I needed such a thing would have bought it with the Iron Duke and a stick. How fast do you need to go in a *van*?
What is the advantage of a small van unless you are street parking?
I am fine with a slow van if it saves money on fuel. That said the Duke also had a significant drop in towing 2,000 lbs down from 6,000 lbs with the 4.3L. Higher tow rating and cargo capacity was kind the point of the Astro and the reason to put up with the crude handling vs a Caravan.
Fits in the garage while still hauling a pile of crap around. Handier to deal with in traffic. All the benefits of a modestly-sized box on wheels. As far as I am concerned, the real tow rating is whatever it can move and stop, and I doubt very much there is any real difference here in table-top flat SW FL. So you go slower with the 4 – BFD.
Fuel is irrelevant when you drive the thing only when absolutely necessary – same reason I could not care less that my Disco gets 16mpg. I don’t tow enough weight to need more capacity than my BMW convertible can tow. But if the vehicle and insurance were cheap enough, something like this that is effectively a self-propelled utility trailer would be useful – and this takes up no more space in the yard. But in the real world it’s not worth the bother. But to me, that’s what a cheap truck or van is for – going to Home Depot or the county dump and back once in a while. Where I live inspection isn’t a thing so it could be pretty damned decrepit n that use case, as long as it is basically safe. In Maine I don’t even insure my Disco unless I am going to use it, but that won’t fly in FL where your insurance is tied electronically to your registration. Can’t casually add and remove it like I can up north.
If you haven’t driven an Astro – it has a horrible turning circle. Way larger than a Caravan of the same vintage.
I have actually. I don’t disagree they are terrible and I would never pay real money for one. Like I said, you’d have to have a good reason to prefer one over a minivan, but for what they are capable of doing, I would prefer one over a full-size van that is even worse to drive and harder to fit places.
I’ll agree to disagree on the worse to drive than a full size van part but I learned to drive in a full size conversion van and also drove a UPS truck for awhile.
I bought mine over a full size because the Astro is a lot easier to lift. In hindsight that was a bad move but still enjoyed the vehicle for 10 years and lots of adventures.
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!
IIRC, the early Exploders were the most traded in vehicles in the cash for clunkers scheme, which is part of the reason they are so rare. Plus the rust and general Fordness of them.
But they absolutely were a bases loaded home run for Ford.
Not surprised by that at all. The thing about owning an SUV is that you’re going to eventually be faced with twice the amount of transmissions and spinny bits all wearing out at once.
TANSTAAFL always applies.
As I have long said – AWD/4wd bites you three ways, upfront, in maintenance and repairs, and in extra fuel usage. Don’t go there unless you have to.
As you know, and the thing that drives the RWD Volvo people a little nuts: My Jeeps (WK2 and WL 4xe) have so far been far less trouble over hundreds of thousands of miles compared to my Volvos. Mostly the pair of S60s, but the 740s, as good as they were, still had more regular needs and were louder, less comfortable, and about as efficient.
But yeah – every 150K, I plan on having to sink a couple grand into any vehicle. That’s just wear.
Volvos were durable cars, they were never particularly reliable cars, despite being as complicated as a hammer, and age doesn’t improve that in any way. A difference lost on much of the Volvo crowd who think they are the ultimate evolution of the automobile. More reliable than other cars in their class isn’t really saying much at this point. The good old days pretty much sucked.
Modern cars (to a point, I think that shark has been jumped) across the board are simply better as a general rule, until they aren’t. But simpler is still better – what isn’t there will never break, and you don’t have to pay for it in the first place or pay to haul it around. AWD is a very expensive convenience.
We have a newer Explorer with the 3.5 EcoBoost engine. Unfortunately, every 11-19 3.5 EB-equipped Explorer also has AWD, and the dreaded PTU.
I would have given anything for our Explorer to be FWD only, but that was simply unavailable. We have to live with a PTU that grenaded at 61k and 15mpg all the time.
…and another reason to vote for this Explorer today – it’s 2WD.
So is the Astro, but it can haul more crap, and it’s lots cheaper. The only reason I would want something like this is to haul crap around in. I could ALMOST justify a cheap van of some sort if insurance weren’t so expensive here. That makes it not worth it – for less than one year’s insurance cost for anything I bought a utility trailer.
If the Explorer were the 4dr version, it would have been a closer choice for me, but the 2drs give up a lot of utility and are worse to drive.