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?
Late to the discussion here, but that Safari is perilously close to me…
I’m super tempted to grab it, have some summer fun, then let someone else have a turn.
Safari for me. I’ve seen this bodystyle with rear seats and no rear windows, but it’s been a good while.
I liked the Explorer too, the 5 spd / 4.0 is not fast but can be fun. RWD lets it down, though.
The van feels more honest to me. The Explorer has either odometer fraud or salvage written all over it. Otherwise, though, it’s a cool spec.
My first car was an inherited 86 Astro. Not manual though. Ended up good for 250k miles. Easy choice for me.
I had an Astro of this era, also with a manual. You could have found one of these for less than a grand ten years ago, but $2k is still not a terrible deal today. I’d take the Astro, but try to talk the seller down and get ready to replace all the 40-year old latches, door handles and whatnot as they fail (if they haven’t failed already).
I went safari for the price, if both were $2000 I would have picked the Explorer but 5 grand is too much for that.
Neither. If the Safari was AWD I’d be all over it, tight footwell notwithstanding. My aunt has had a couple of Exploders, which she says are not misnamed under that moniker at all. Why does she keep getting them, she says, “I don’t. [My husband] does, and then he goes back to driving his Golfs.”
The Safari is almost a winner despite the absence of the AWD, but I already have too much seat time behind the 4.3 and I don’t want any more. Has anyone swapped in a L32 from a ’94 base Camaro? Comparable output, smaller, thriftier.
I’ve seen an astrovan swapped to a crate V8. Looked fast.
I really wanted to give that lovable van a chance, but in real life, the Exploder would be so much more livable, and capable of doing all the hauling I’d ever really need.
But those wood floors. I would miss the wood floors.
Also, airbag > no airbag.
That explorer still has a steering wheel without an airbag, no?
that’s correct. No airbags until 95MY
You must admit you would have had a smile on your face with this one: https://youtu.be/GXUqY8iAzhs?si=Pd1Txldh8bEwMSIA
I want the Exploder.
If I couldn’t find a chrome badge that says “‘Splodey” maybe I’d have one made.
Not an “exploder” without the auto trans, I know this from first hand experience. The manual sport is more of roll-overer” when fitted with Firestones.
Exproller
Safari just because it’s a safari. I had forgotten 2 doors existed in first gen explorer. I always thought the 2nd gen was better looking.
I just don’t think being a stick shift enhances either of these vehicles in any meaningful way
Manual minivan? Just say no!
Honestly, the only Explorer I ever interacted with is my now wife’s 1992, which was a manual and 4wd. She had this when I met her back then. Like many Explorers from this era, the head(s) cracked. It was pretty gutless. On a ski trip up the 395 from LA to Mammoth, a headwind of about +40 mph would slow it down in 4th gear. Of course 3rd gear was too low, sending the RPMs soaring, and making the inside uncomfortable from the noise.
Sport was a trim level, not the model name. You could get a 2-door Explorer in XL, Sport, or Eddie Bauer trim. A few years ago I was tempted by a 2-door Explorer Eddie Bauer 4×4 with an automatic transmission but a manual transfer case for sale in Cheyenne, mainly because it had to be the only Explorer ordered in that spec.
I actually need to buy something along the lines of that Grabowsky Motor Company for my materials hauling Safaris. Is that Ford even a van? I think the only piano that would fit would be a Fender.
I really like the Astro but voted for the Explorer.
I prefer three pedal vehicles to the point I usually choose a bad manual over a good automatic. However, I think I might have trouble driving a manual Astro due to the lack of room around the pedals. I would choose an automatic Astro over a manual Explorer, though, just because I really like the Astro. I’m not interested in minivans, but mini vans are cool.
I actually like the Explorer, though, independent of the number of pedals. I wasn’t fond of it when new, but the styling has grown on me over time. I think it looks particularly good as a two-door as well.
Easy…Safari! I’ll live in a VAN down by the RIVER! It will be a lot of fun shifting and cruising in this. I have no interest in a Fix Or Repair Daily/Found On Road Dead ugly Exploder
First On Race Day
As the resident Explorer apologist, I was set to vote for the Explorer but am actually going to go with the Astro. I can speak from experience that the footwells in the Astro are painfully tight with a clutch pedal down there, but the former-van-life Astro here is the better buy at the price. I love the Explorers, and we’re this one four wheel drive it would come close to being my ideal spec, but it has all of the common failings of the first-gen Explorer but not a low price to match the rough condition.
Van. I’m not excited about it, but at least it’s more useful. I’d have been more into the Ex if it was 4wd; I have zero need/desire for a 2wd SUV.
Both bring back some nostalgia for me- spent a lot of time in a Mazda Navajo (2 door Explorer clone) with a stick shift that a friend’s parents had in high school, and a lot of friends had an Astro/Safari in the family. Going with the Explorer here as I love a 2 door SUV.