test 100 remote changes, and 100 rod changes for quality of gearchange, I'd say remote changes would beat the rods 2-1... but leave rovers out of that, they haven't had 30 years of abuse... it's like anything, look after it and it'll do good for you.. remotes take more of a beating cos they're housed



I'm up for that debate - I'm tossing up between hardie spicers and pot joints for my conversion... pot joints are cheaper, but are they as reliable.... ?

On a normal mini - hardie spicers - stronger than rubber unis, and easier to put the motor in and out than pot joints

_________________
did I tell you that I won a trophy?

i would also call the remote change sloppy compared to a modern car.
i believe alot of the reason the rod change is considered sloppier is because the rod change has a longer gearstick and therefore a longer throw. (and therefore easier engagement.)

rattles,
a hell of a lot more than a little less, i guarantee that.. i have never seen a rod change rattle, wheras i have spent hours trying to make my remote changes rattle free.

less wear,
absolutely, the remote vibrates more which does cause more wear, the pin that holds the gearsticks rotation wears, plus the unijoints wear wheras the balljoints dont.

the rod change is more flexible and therefore more resistant to breakage.

easier to service..
i can have a rod change equipped motor out a hell of a lot quicker than a remote equipped motor. i save time by not having to undo unijoints and the remote housing not to mention the remote housing sticks out meaning you have to tilt the engine to get it out.
in addition the gearstick comes out much quicker.
And i can remove a motor with the rod change still attached, which i cant say for the remote.

"with the cost of tooling up for a new gearbox I would say they would never have made their money back."

if they didnt improve and modernise the car, people would have stopped buying it. I'd say 30 years of production would be enough to make their money back.


40 years later i dont care what transmission its got, i'll fix the rattle and spend the extra time when it comes time for the motor to come out.

a mini is a mini and i'd get just as much enjoyment out of driving a magic wand 850 as a cooper S

All i can say is after 3 yrs of sloppy rod change (and don't say l haven't spent time/money/effort to fix the sloppness ), oil leaking (onto my 3rd seal in 3 yrs ) I am definately looking forward to running a remote...

Same as the drum/disc debate. Sure good drums are fine but I'll take a set of bad discs any day

_________________
Lillee - 1969 Morris Mini K

Can I ask you Spaceboy how many remote cars have you driven? I've driven 4 (that i can remember) and all 4 are tight and precise, much more so than my car with a rod.

I've driven 6 or 7 rod changes (mine included) and nearly all are vague, sloppy like a chopstick in a cup, owner complains of leaks one time or another, list goes on.

Minimad's is loose and vague, Betty's is as bad as mine, even JAM's new rod was pretty slack.

haha and Barney are notchy and tight. Reverse has to be hit to be found it's that tight. Even Pop's remote (noone touched it since 1984) was tight and precise.

All i am saying is that don't judge based on the one remote that you drove that was worn and rattly. My rod rattles like a snake, I had to dampen it by using 2 rubber boots

Can you send me all your unwanted remotes?

_________________
Lillee - 1969 Morris Mini K

Chong, you need to drive my Rover.
You'll change your mind about how you belittle the great gear changing system that is the MIGHTY ROD CHANGE

haha remote change is sloppy too, try going from a swift GTi back to a remote change mini, and you'll see what i mean.

i would think power assisted drums with minisport shoes would be the ultimate setup, and i'll race anyone anyday on discs with drums

I would say that the remote shift was way in front.[/quote]

all the well respected people on here are saying remote is better and has less rattles etc... why do u persist?

remote is better, you only use rods on a race car when you bring them inside the car, otherwise id use a remote, rods are way to easy to break, meeni has a rod change, because it has an 1100 engine no other reason.. ive gone through 2 and i dont drive it on the road!!!

_________________
Potato

You should try Kev's car... THE reason I built a remote

No way will i ever spend $1000 rebuilding a rod change, ever... ever...

Can you all send me your remote boxes?

_________________
Lillee - 1969 Morris Mini K

Never have I EVER seen a rod break.
What the hell are you doing young boy?

i've had two cars with remote changes, i do prefer the tightness (dont we all)
but yea, spent many hours trying to remove rattles.

i've had 5 rod change cars, and it took awhile to get used to it after coming from a remote but theres never been any rattles or any reason to fiddle with them.

heres the thing though, i did find myself missing 3rd gear on the swift and on some of my rod change minis, where the remote felt like its legs were spread open and i couldnt miss.

lol willy i manage, i snapped the holding pin on the first one, then bent the rod inside the casing on the second, just by shifting normally, maybe ive got crap ones both times, the one now seems fine... was ok at hay and i spose thats the toughest hack ittle get..

_________________
Potato

Yes but try to fix the sloppiness. 2 things: bushes in the diff housing, new nylon bush in the arm.

Fix the rod change: buy a new rod change

Trust me, been there, replaced everything. The sloppiness is in the mechanism under your feet. Maintenance, there is none once they wear...

OK that's all I am going to bed. Send me your remotes!!!

_________________
Lillee - 1969 Morris Mini K

all the well respected people on here are saying remote is better and has less rattles etc... why do u persist?

remote is better, you only use rods on a race car when you bring them inside the car, otherwise id use a remote, rods are way to easy to break, meeni has a rod change, because it has an 1100 engine no other reason.. ive gone through 2 and i dont drive it on the road!!![/quote]


i refuse to concede that a design that was discontinued and 10 years older is better than a design that was used for the majority of the minis production.

many people like the feel of the remote change better, but that doesnt make it a superior design.

i prefer to drive a 30 year old car, but it is inferior to a modern car.

So .... back to the original question...

(in true Ausmini style, a good thread has gone to the shitter!)

Leyland did a lot of stupid things in the first few years after they took over BMC (Actually did Leyland do anything right?) Just look at the Morris Marina! The Marina was a great selling car in England but it was not a good car.

BTW, I just looked through my archives (my box of crap) the rod change box was not developed for the Mini or the Metro, it was developed for the Austin Allegro.
The first minis with the rod change had rubber unis! The CVs came later.