Hi all,

Been doing plenty of reading and am wondering what the difference is between a rod type and a remote type 'box. And what makes one "better" than the other (if that's the case)?

Cheers,

Damo.

_________________
Metal to burn, sparks to fly...

mate i hope this works im about to post a link to a recent topic on ausmini about the remote box that should help you...
http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6260

if that doesnt work there is a good search feature on the site so you can find any previous discussions on any topic if any... its a bit tricky to get the wording right but perhaps thats just me, some peeps on here are good at finding stuff..
good luck

_________________
No longer Ms Westwoods mini outside her original kings road shop

Have a read here.

http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic ... rod+remote

Cheers Dat

A lot of people on this forum will tell you remote is better as it adds an extra engine stabiliser through the extension housing. Rod boxes are chronic oil leakers through the rod mounting hole, but this can be fixed relatively easily. If you run a rod box then you will need the radiator side engine stabiliser as a minimum (rod box Clubmans came with them standard).

Couldn't tell you either way which one is 'better', I quite like my rod box, my remote box had a very sloppy feel and didn't handle gear changes as well as the rod, but it probably just needed a reco more than anything else.

A few other points:

1) To convert a car that is a remote change to a rod change requires some amount of hacking of the floor. I am not sure how much hacking is required but let me just say that Lillee's floor is stuffed from the last owner trying to get the rod change into her

2) The oil leak on the rod mounting hole is chronic! I have inserted 2 oil seals and a rubber bellows that is supposed to prevent this from happenning... 3 months later there are droplets on the driveway again...

3) I beg to differ on that last comment, once a rod change box has worn out it's hard to replace the parts needed to make it "stiff" again. The remote change, if build correctly first time (I am doing mine now as we speak) it is notchy as! tight, short and notchy!

But again I am biased, my rod change box is probably the worste condition ever so my opinions are tainted. However that said I have not come acrros a tight and notchy rod change box yet!

_________________
Lillee - 1969 Morris Mini K

Try one with a KAD quick shift.

Should be no dramas putting a rod box into a remote car. I have done it, one hole drilled in the passengers side floorpan, and an L-bracket made up for the mount 'in' the gearshift hole in the floor.

I don't quite get you on point 3, why is it hard to get parts for a rod box? Usually it is worn selector forks? I believe these are still available, surely rod box parts are easier than remote, they were in production in various forms for a lot longer.

My remote change was a POS, would have needed a lot of work to make it tight and notchy like they are supposed to be. The rod box is fine, except that first can be a pain sometimes (probably due to the linkages) and fourth is slightly to the left of third, which is bad when you have no gate lock on reverse All I know is my gear changes are much quicker on the rod box than the remote. That all said, if I were rebuilding a box I'd go the remote, for originality more than anything else.

Is a remote change any heavier??

_________________
Bob Slattery
Duffman Says A Lot of Things - OH YEAH!!

It's not hard to get parts, it's just more parts to change to get get it back to good condition.

Dude, when I am done with Lillee I'll bring her to Canberra and you can try out her remote. It's a revelation! Made me want to change my whole engine just for the remote!

_________________
Lillee - 1969 Morris Mini K

Don't worry I have felt good remote boxes too, but it doesn't make me rush out to convert back is all. I have a rod box out of necessity at the moment, and I have no problems with it.

Anto.

Thanks for the replies!

Firstly, I did do a search but next time I will try digging a little deeper. I'm usually pretty good with the search function (I frequent a few different forums) and I think it's usually just the terms you plug in.

From what you guys are saying the remote change is the early type enclosed in the alloy housing (like was on my brother's 998 delux), and the rod type has the 2 shift rods to the shift box thing (like was on my clubman). I hope I have that right.

As for differences there seems to be a few opinions flying around so i'll just sit on the fence til I start pulling gearboxes apart myself

I do have another question though. I have seen in a few mags some faily modified minis which have the rod type shift BUT instead of having the shifter box mounted under the vehicle in the trasmission tunnel it's mounted inside the cabin on top of the trasmission tunnell. Why do they do that???

_________________
Metal to burn, sparks to fly...

They mount them that way coz it looks cool (well I reckon anyway). I think there is probably a reason for making it more accessible, maybe for servicing, maybe so it doesn't get damaged as easily. Interesting question.

And yes you are right about the boxes, the reason the remote is generally preferred is because of the solid extension - rod boxes can get annoying getting the two rods lined up right. The fixed rod has an expensive bush on the back of the box, which can wear out and cause it to pop out of gear. If the mounts on the gearshift end wear out it can cause gear selection to become difficult. These problems aren't generally experienced on the remote boxes as the gear selection is permanently fixed.

hey
my 2c on our rod gearbox
i dont like it!
its basically just a gearlever coming out of the gearbox, anyway thats wot i kno of it!
i personally don't like it, as i find it hard to change gears.
were goin to change to the other type, but we already have two holes in the floor of the mini. which is really dodge..but it saves us the hassle of hacking thru the mini..

anyway, hope all goes well
KAZ

_________________
kaz
hey mate, looks like your cars only running on three cylinders!
haha..funny that..

'89 toyota cressida
'71 morris mini k
66 morris van

for a high performance motor you cant go past the remote better stabillity
on the motor also rod and remotes basicly have the same internals the only difference is the way they shift i prefer remotes as the dont flog out as quick
makka

_________________
Anonymous moderation means the agro that is built up towards the mods isn't aimed at an individual (fewer "Makk" attacks). Less stress for mods means less moderator "retirements".

Problem with the rodchange is, when all the external linkage gets sloppy you really need to change the lot for a better one.
The gearlever/socket/shift box design can best be described as `agricultural'.
With the remote box, I've had success hardfacing worn ball levers and remachining them to fit. With new shift bushes in the diff housing it's then like a new one.

re the `expensive bush' on the back of a rodchange, if it rots/wears out, a steel bush can easily be made and fitted, the shift is then a bit more `precise'.

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

Better tell Christoph about that one - his pops out of first and we think that bush is to blame. Fitting lower engine stabilisers may also help, planning to do that to my car, just got to get the bits in from the UK.

I guess my linkages aren't too bad then coz the shift seems quite nice. Does the actual remote extension wear out on the remote boxes? Both the remote boxes I have had were incredibly sloppy, and I'm wondering if both boxes were crap, or if my actual remote extension (which I didn't change) was worn.