1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass - Three On a Tree On a 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass??

The new mid-sized Oldsmobile's were not in early for 1973 as a labor strike delayed them long enough that models slated for 1972 came as 1973's. All GM intermediates were new for '73 and were referred to as "Colonnades" denoting their center-posts, columns or pillars; there were no hard tops. What makes this '73 Oldsmobile Cutlass unique and different enough that it deserves a minute or two of our time is that it has a manual transmission. Please accept my apologies, the poster of the Facebook Marketplace ad for this only put up four pictures. 

 

What we have here is a column mounted, three speed manual shifter. I know, it looks like an automatic in PARK, but that's what was known as a column-mounted manual shifter that's locked up in in REVERSE. First gear is down and out, second up and away towards the dash, third below that. There are three pedals down there too - I know they're hard to make out but they're there: clutch on the left, brake in the middle and the gas on the right. 

I was perplexed by it too then I checked a brochure for 1973 Cutlass' and, sure enough, the standard transmission on the 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass is a fully synchronized, 3-speed manual with column shift. A synchronized manual means that the gears are spinning at the same speed so when you shift, you won't grind the gears.  

Manual transmissions are one thing, a three-on-three is something else altogether. These things were an anomaly even when I was a kid growing up in the '70's. My only "experience" with one was seeing my friend Andy's mom rowing one in their 1967 Buick Special station wagon. I was slack-jawed at the amount of work the poor woman had to do to keep the car moving. It seemed quaint and old-timey at the time, and we are talking, gulp, fifty-years ago. Good grief. 

Chrysler is given credit for pioneering the steering-column mounted three-speed shifter when they introduced it on their 1939 Plymouth's; shifters were always floor-mounted up until then. GM, Ford and other manufacturers quickly followed suit with their own "three-on-a-tree".  Incidentally, automatic transmissions wouldn't appear en masse in cars until 1948 with, ironically enough, Oldsmobile and their "Hydra-Matic" two-speed that was also available on Cadillac's. I know, just like the internet, you thought automatic transmissions were always around but that's simply not the case. Even Cadillac owners had to row-their-own. 

It's open for debate what the actual benefits of a column mounted shifter were. Their linkage was more complicated than a floor-mounted shifter that connected directly to the transmission and with the driver constantly rowing the "tree", if there was a middle passenger, they'd have to sit far enough away from the driver to enable them to swing their arm wide enough to make the shifts. Not unlike with a floor mounted shifter. Again, what was the benefit aside from, perhaps, in theory, the middle front seat passenger having more leg room. 

Seems odd now but steering column mounted manual shifters were quite common in the 1940's, '50's and '60's, they began to wane, though, in the '70's. Fun facts, kids, the last GM car to feature one was the 1979, rear-wheel-drive, "X-body" Chevrolet Nova (the above diagram is from a 1979 Nova owner's manual). 

Chrysler's last models to have one was the 1978 Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare, Dodge Monaco and Plymouth Fury; good luck finding one of those. Ford offered it on their all-new-for 1978, "Fox-body" Fairmont but discontinued it afterwards. 

Not only was 1973 the last year for a three-on-tree for the Cutlass, but it was also the last year a four-speed manual was available on the performance oriented 4-4-2 model. Oldsmobile would offer a three-speed manual again on the Cutlass starting in 1975, but it was floor-mounted backing either a Chevrolet built, inline-six or Oldsmobile's new 260-cubic inch V-8; both power trains were for customers looking for improved fuel economy.  

Along with these scant photos and even fewer details, the poster of the ad for this very rare '73 Cutlass is asking $8,900 for it. Along with the requisite, "will not respond to 'is this available'", they say it runs great although they don't say why they didn't back it out of this garage or storage facility to take more photos. That $8,900 ask seems like a lot, frankly I think it's insane, but, believe it or not, this is priced below market. This is screaming to be resto-modded but the cost of admission, in my opinion, is almost as absurdly high as a three-on-a-tree was in the early 1970's.