A tale of two shifters...

[Gabe9195]

...

...

That looks really good, but I'm thinking some of those voids could be eliminated, or maybe all of them?

That could be a way to offer different stiffness levels?

 

[rdanzy]

Using a high durometer bushing connecting the shifter to the body structure might increase movement of the shifter in relation to the transmission due to the displacement of the engine-transmission from the torque of the engine. This may cause difficulty in shifting at high revs and power. Would a better option be to provide a third solid link from the shifter to the transmission eliminating the connection of the shifter to the body structure? I have installed the aluminum bushings on my stock shifter and I am very satisfied with the improved shifting. IMO the shifter should be isolated from the body structure to somewhat simulate the shifting mechanism of a T56.

 

[Catmonkey]

While there is a bit of NVH associated the poly bushed motor mounts, it pretty much eliminates shifter movement when the engine torques over.

 

[Tob]

...would this new bushing your are making TOB be stiffer than the KR style? which I what I have no on mine.

I'm not looking to make them as that has a profound effect on my savings account balance. Just facilitate something that nobody else has taken on to date. Initially, yes, the durometer would be that of the KR/FRPP bushing.

That looks really good, but I'm thinking some of those voids could be eliminated, or maybe all of them?

That could be a way to offer different stiffness levels?

You're on to something with respect to the voids having an effect on the overall "stiffness" that the bushing can provide. With a higher (than stock) durometer though, I can't foresee this specific bushing with the voids necessary to allow movement when it is necessary. They may be altered for ease of mold design however.

Using a high durometer bushing connecting the shifter to the body structure might increase movement of the shifter in relation to the transmission due to the displacement of the engine-transmission from the torque of the engine. This may cause difficulty in shifting at high revs and power. Would a better option be to provide a third solid link from the shifter to the transmission eliminating the connection of the shifter to the body structure? I have installed the aluminum bushings on my stock shifter and I am very satisfied with the improved shifting. IMO the shifter should be isolated from the body structure to somewhat simulate the shifting mechanism of a T56.

I agree with you regarding isolating the shifter from the body ala the T56 would be the ultimate solution. Short of that, I've looked into a supporting the existing shifter by the transmission only. However, there isn't much available room and things quickly become convoluted and a bit messy so I dropped that thought and am trying to live within the limitations of the original design but to refine it in terms of precision as much as possible. I've been running the KR/FRPP polyurethane bushings in concert with Van's solid fork bushings with nary an issue. The stiffer rear bushing is still compliant enough to allow engine torque movement yet far stiffer than the buttery-soft OEM rear bushing. Again, this is the exact combination that FRPP engineered for the TR6060 shifted Boss 302S and I've yet to hear any of those owners complain of a binding mechanism at high rpm (or at any rpm for that matter). It just plain works.

While there is a bit of NVH associated the poly bushed motor mounts, it pretty much eliminates shifter movement when the engine torques over.

With the car up in the air and the engine torqued over there really isn't that much movement at the rear bushing interface, and that's with the stock bushing.

 

[Tob]

I don't normally speak about PM's via the public forum but I received a somewhat technical PM that I think deems merit and further discussion here.

Tob,

Don't want to hijack your thread but couldn't the stiffness of the transmission bushing be increased by filling the voids with a hard adhesive. I believe that I am correct in that only the horizontal void that slips over the shifter extension is used.

Regards,

xxxx

As much as Whiteline employed a somewhat similar method via their MT82 transmission bushing insert I'm not a fan of this type of solution in an effort to increase overall durometer. First, I do believe that factory designed and cast-in voids serve a purpose, generally. They allow articulation (however slight) in specific planes where movement is deemed necessary or preferable. This can help to minimize unwanted NVH as well as minimize added heat induced into the bushing by increased friction.

A year or so ago I spent some time searching for an aftermarket bushing for the rear of the factory GT500 shifter, all years '07-'14. The only listing I could find was for one made by Energy Suspension, # 4.1131G "shifter bushing set." The listing showed fitment across not only the GT500 but for the GT as well. I knew that couldn't be but ordered a set anyway just to see what would show up at my door. What finally showed up will definitely not work on a GT500.


The box included a rear mount bushing as well as two halves for a front fork bushing, clearly for the MT82 (fork bushings are the wrong diameter and width for the GT500 shifter as well). The ES pieces are in the center and the right. Factory GT500 bushing is on the left.

In addition to the rear bushing being the wrong width and height, the cast in slot where it would slide onto the shifter is inverted in comparison to the GT500 bushing.

But back on topic, note that ES is casting this bushing without any voids in a higher durometer than the factory GT bushing, in essence, only allowing the shifter to slide in one plane while severley limiting twist. In my view, there was very little engineering done and the voids were eliminated to lower the cost of manufacturing (which I don't see being passed off to the consumer). In addition, close examination of the ES bushing shows open pore casting bubbles as well as "peel." A much better solution to the ultra soft OEM bushing would be a properly engineered high durometer polyurethane bushing, ala the KR/FRPP bushing. The problem with the KR/FRPP bushing has been availability. The only way to get it is to either buy a complete KR or Ford Racing shifter assembly or to by a '08/'09 GT500KR. I have dug as deep as you can go with respect to obtaining these and it looks as if it may happen. If the stars line up it looks as though Van at Revan Racing may have these available soon, that being the high durometer KR/FRPP rear shifter bushing. It will fit all year factory GT500 shifter assemblies, '07-'14. It is the perfect complement to the solid front bushings Van currently carries. I've been running this combination since last year. It has served to change the shift quality from that of churning butter to a much more precise actuation device. I also use a direct mount stick as well with no isolation bushing.

For you guys that are looking to do the same, I hope Van pulls this one off.

 

[rdanzy]

Tob,

It was my PM that you posted and I agree that the voids were designed for a purpose and I am certain the final was thought to be the best compromise for articulation and NVH and possible for the molding process. Picking up on one comment of yours above, can you share some pics of the direct mount stick. I have looked through this post when you were discussing the shifter handles but I did not note the direct mount stick. I have googled searched without any success. I am assuming that all of the rubber parts are removed and the shifter handle is bushed to fit the two bolts and then the handle is bolted to the shifter.

 

[Tob]

I am assuming that all of the rubber parts are removed and the shifter handle is bushed to fit the two bolts and then the handle is bolted to the shifter.

That is correct. The simplistic approach (for '07-'09 owners) is to simply use a stick that is designed to not use the rubber isolator bushings, such as FRPP's polished or black stick (interesting that the black has now been discontinued). The through holes on these utilize a smaller diameter hole that only allows the bolts to pass through and no isolator. I've had the black on my car almost since new. Ford Racing does not sell a stick that fits the '10-'14 shifter (remember that Ford rotated the shifter stub 90* for '10-'14). But you can use some solid spacers in the place of the rubber and direct mount your factory stick. Here's an example...

 

[rdanzy]

Thanks for the example. Another project on my list.

 

[Van@RevanRacing]

The KR Shifter Bushings are here!

$40 Shipped

http://www.revanracing.com/products/rear-shifter-bushing.html

Or

$99 with the Billet Shifter Bushings for the Shifter Arms

http://www.revanracing.com/products/gt500-shifter-bushing-upgrade.html

 

[SCGallo2]

Sweet! Just placed my order for the front and rear set. Thanks Tob and Van for making this a reality! I wasn't ready to make the jump to a short throw shifter just yet... this should be the perfect upgrade to tighten things up.

 

[Van@RevanRacing]

Sweet! Just placed my order for the front and rear set. Thanks Tob and Van for making this a reality! I wasn't ready to make the jump to a short throw shifter just yet... this should be the perfect upgrade to tighten things up.

You got it! Thanks for the order. It will ship out tomorrow and you'll be updated with tracking info shortly.

 

[Norton]

Sweet! Thanks Tob and Van for making this a reality!

+1. If I hadn't already gone the MGW path, I'd be all over both of these.

 

[Im1livewire]

Thanks for all your work on this thread Tob!! Also, thanks to Van for listening and assisting. I put in my order yesterday with Van and will follow Tob's directions for my new set up. This is the right route for my needs--certainly for now.

 

[Van@RevanRacing]

Thanks for all your work on this thread Tob!! Also, thanks to Van for listening and assisting. I put in my order yesterday with Van and will follow Tob's directions for my new set up. This is the right route for my needs--certainly for now.

Right on! Your order has already shipped and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Thanks again for the business.

 

[Tob]

Thanks for all your work on this thread Tob!! Also, thanks to Van for listening and assisting. I put in my order yesterday with Van and will follow Tob's directions for my new set up. This is the right route for my needs--certainly for now.

Thank you. I sure enjoyed muddling through it.

 

[crucianpilot]

Just placed my order

 

[Van@RevanRacing]

Just placed my order

Already boxed up and tracking information updated on your order. Going out tomorrow.

Thanks for the order.

 

[Tob]

I have wanted to verify shifter stub lengths for some time now and today was the day for me to do it. I disassembled one of each iteration of factory GT500 shifter (07/08/09, KR/SVT, 10/11/12, 13/14). These are the numbers my vernier showed. Note that the dimension from the center of the fulcrum to the top of the stub is always the same. In essence, Ford played with the ratios but never raised or lowered the top of the shift knob. Dimensional changes were always from the center of the fulcrum to the center of the bolt for the actuation rod. Overall length of each stub is from top to bottom, not top to bolt center.

The 10/11/12 shifter stub is indeed a perfect match in terms of mechanical advantage to that of the KR/SVT (Ford Racing) shifter. Physically, the two differ in that the stick mounting faces are 90* apart from one another. Other than that they are identical. Makes you wonder why you don't hear the same proportion of KR owners (or those that added the FRPP shifter) complaining about second gear grind as the 10/11/12 owners.


The mechanical advantage of a lever is the ratio of the length of the lever on the applied force side of the fulcrum to the length of the lever on the resistance force side of the fulcrum. Here are the dimensions needed to check each respective shifter...

If my math is right this is what I get:

07/08/09 = 4.613 to 1
KR/SVT = 3.494 to 1
10/11/12 = 3.494 to 1
13/14 = 4.196 to 1

The above numbers were obtained by dividing the applied force side (8.35") of the fulcrum by the resistance side of the fulcrum (dependent on year).

 

[masterman]

The 10/11/12 shifter stub is indeed a perfect match in terms of mechanical advantage to that of the KR/SVT (Ford Racing) shifter. Physically, the two differ in that the stick mounting faces are 90* apart from one another. Other than that they are identical. Makes you wonder why you don't hear the same proportion of KR owners (or those that added the FRPP shifter) complaining about second gear grind as the 10/11/12 owners.

The only noticable differences in relation to why there are less complaints with the KR/SVT shifter vs the 10/11/12 are the rear bushing which should be considered part of the entire picture since you mentioned shifting and not simply action. Besides that I was wondering if the 90* rotation could affect the shift by inducing some twist especially with the stock lever which deflects quite a bit. You definitely notice it on the 07-09's having to "force" the lever into gear the last bit and if the 90* rotation does indeed add a twisting motion, it could cause even more havoc than forcing in the last bit.

Also Tob, have you noticed that on buyfordracing.com that the KR and SVT shifter have different shipping weights? I've wondered about that for quite some time... They are the same shifter so why the difference in weight?

Just my thoughts.

 

[Tob]

...I was wondering if the 90* rotation could affect the shift by inducing some twist especially with the stock lever which deflects quite a bit. You definitely notice it on the 07-09's having to "force" the lever into gear the last bit and if the 90* rotation does indeed add a twisting motion, it could cause even more havoc than forcing in the last bit.

Also Tob, have you noticed that on buyfordracing.com that the KR and SVT shifter have different shipping weights? I've wondered about that for quite some time... They are the same shifter so why the difference in weight?

Just my thoughts.

That is an excellent thought regarding the side mounting change. I'll take a closer look at the two mounting methods and see if there is any measurable or perceived rotation with respect to the side mounting. Again, I'd love to know what Ford's reasoning was for the change.

Regarding the KR vs the SVT (FRPP) shifter weight listing differences, I can only say that I have one of each from Mike at BFR. Same shifter in each box so I don't know why. The KR shifter is a heck of a deal though and when those are gone the price goes up as you'll only be able to get the unit originally offered by FRPP.