drmini in aust wrote:
GT mowog wrote:
With the number of shafts, bushings, knuckles, splines and levers in this system and the remote shift, it is surprising that it is as good as it is.
That's because it is an engineered solution, not an agricultural one (rodchange)
What bits you can't buy for a remote can be hardfaced when worn.
I would have to say that the rod change makes more sense, it straight in and off to the right, no mess, no fuss....it's hardly agricultural
The remote shift is straight down, then toggle 45 deg up, then double toggle off to the left and 90 deg down, then turn to the right. With all the parts that need to move, it's almost a micicle that the shift that you are doing actually happens on the same day in the gearbox
. I almost feel exhausted thinking about it and describing loosely. Yeap you can rebuild them when they knacker out, but only the eye and roll pins in the rod shift knacker out and they are a 5 minute in car fix. No hardfacing required here !
Don't take this the wrong way, I respect the remote shift mechanism, but for what it is, it is complex and for all that complexity, it does work remarkable well.......I have a soft spot for it, but I do generally prefer the rod shift.
No modern front drive car uses a complex shift mechanism like these, they either have Cable Shift or Rod Shift....funny 'bout that
