Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

Decisions decisions. Any input regarding which makes driving more pleasant? I am considering one of the two options and lean toward the synchronized trans with slightly taller 1st and 2nd gears over the OD system. A separate OD shifter just seems too clunky and takes up a lot of the limited front seat floor space. Constantly having to shift back and forth between high and low and shifting gears as well seems to be a lot of work. I have had cars with OD but they were only really useful at highway speeds to reduce consumption. Anyone who has tried/owned both?

Re: Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

Mitchell has an option for an OD shifter cable attached to the stock shift lever. I have only an OD and it lets me cruise at lower revs. I have been double clutching for 60 years, so no synchros is not a big drawback. Reducing the big gap between 2nd and 3rd would be nice, but I am "thrifty", so I can overlook that.

Re: Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

Kinda depends on where you live. rural higher speed roads an Overdrive shines. If you drive mostly in town or hilly terrain the synchronized transmission is a dream. I had the transmission first but added the overdrive soon after.

Re: Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

I love my Mitchell synchronized transmission and overdrive. Great for hills and highway.

Re: Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

If I could only have one it would be the overdrive. I mainly use it for highway speeds only.

Re: Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

Depends on your driving. Tranny will make getting to third a bit more pleasant, but you don’t get any additional speed in third. Overdrive keeps the crash box tranny but you get reduction in rpm in any gear, which translates to additional speed in that gear. Like Bruce of MN, I’ve been double clutching for so long it’s not an issue with me. I do think that if I was facing a tranny rebuild I’d likely opt for a Mitchell tranny, though.

Re: Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

I think that reading stories on the internet gives people the idea that the OD has to be constantly shifted up and down.Just drive it as you would normally drive an A,and when you are in a situation where you want to drop the RPM's,clap the OD into high.I have never,ever,run into a driving situation where I felt I had to split gears with it.Now you can have fun doing that if you would like,but a stock A will take you up any hill you want to go up.I have spent thousands of hours splitting gears in B model Macks with triplexes and quadruplexes.But,that was with a 140 HP weighing 60-80,000 pounds.Not 40 HP moving 2200 pounds.

Re: Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

It appears you live in the Alsace-Lorraine region. I would go for the syncro trans in hilly areas. If you ever move to the flatlands or Germany I'd get the OD for those trips on the Autobahn.
The OD shifter is not intrusive. It sits between the shifter and brake.


PS my great grandparents also couldn't figure out where they were born on the US census. They said Germany until 1920 then France. Once I found they were born in Alsace-Lorraine it made sense.

Re: Mitchel's synchronized transmission or his OD?
 

I have had a Mitchell O/D in my Town Sedan for ~5 years now and love it. But there is still that big jump between 2nd and 3rd. Yes, I know shift from 2nd O/D to 3rd Standard... So I decided to get the Mitchell Synchro Trans with 15% over 1st and 2nd this last August.

What a difference! I should have gone with the Synchro Trans to begin with and not bought the O/D. I don't drive on the freeway so I really don't need the O/D, but it is still nice to have.

What a great combo for around town, 1st > 2nd > 2nd O/D.