I disagree with the 4+3 bashing and am surprised at the source of some of it. Using that logic, the '90 ZR-1 is inferior to the C6 version. Does that make the '90 less of a car?
In any design there are compromises and often refinements. We all have our preferences and certainly, opinions. I've long appreciated the kick-down of the 4+3 which is nothing like an 'early Chevy 4-speed'. It has the quickness of an automatic with the control of a manual; down shifting much faster than any manual. The O/D allows for better acceleration from starts, and darn good fuel economy on the highway., also unlike and old 4-speed.
As too-often stated, much of the denigration of the Doug Nash O/D was due to misunderstanding of its operation and/or inferior maintenance. The O/D portion of mine was fine when I chose to rebuild it at 100k+. The gears in the T-10 were surprisingly worn, however, particularly 2nd. When I researched changing to the 6-speed, I found it could not handle the power of my re-engined monster. My "inferior" 4+3 still works fine behind that engine.
I'd also considered the Ritchie 6-er versus the overhaul of my stock units. One installer told me that he had removed more than one from a customers' cars due to the noise of the straight-cut gears.
In the end, I am quite satisfied with the unique 4+3.
![Wave :w :w](/data/assets/smilies/savewave.gif)