Clutch / Torque Converter: to double clutch or not to double clutch?

[tedtaylor]

Still quite the newbie here, but question whether double clutching is required or not?
I had a Model A Ford that definitely needed to be double clutched to avoid grinding gears. I just started driving my '46 M5 pickup and at low revs and also when I shift slowly, its seems fine, but when shifting faster or higher revs, it grinds. Double clutching seems to eliminate the problem and I am OK with that, so long as that is to be expected and the way the truck was original designed. Only you good knowledgeable folks would know.
Please advise.
thanks

[kfnut]

I have a 47 M16 that acts the same way . Double clutching is the way to go . I sort of like double clutching . Makes me feel like i'm really driving the thing .

[TWChamp]

Since I almost never shift into 1st gear while moving, there is no need to double clutch that gear. 2nd and 3rd have synchronizers, so no need there either. I also have Model A's, so double clutching is no problem. I also have a 1946 M16, but haven't driven it yet. I do double clutch 2nd gear in my 49 Chevy 1 1/2 ton truck.

[t walgamuth]

Double clutching is a lost skill for most people. Cars with no synchro are generally fine without double clutching when upshifting if you give the gears time to reach the same rpm. Downshifting can be done also without double clutching if you simply wait until the car is moving its slowest or stopped.

[Skip Lackie]

My 1954 3R6 does not require double-clutching while upshifting in normal traffic, but the trans appreciates it if I double-clutch when downshifting. Because over the years I have driven a number of older vehicles with ancient transmissions, I have become accustomed to double-clutching when downshifting, no matter what I'm driving. I even do it on my 95 Camaro Z-28. It may even prevent a few micrometers of wear on the synchronizers. And like kfnut said, it makes me feel like I'm actually driving the car.