I Think Barton Just Won

[MGW]

Is there load on the linkage arm? If not I retract my critique.

Have a nice day.

There is zero load on the linkage rod. If there was it would actually cause binding.


George

 

[eighty6gt]

i wish there was a race spec for the 05-10

*crickets*

 

[MGW]

we have looked into the 2005-2010 but the issue is placement of the linkage rod output shaft and the driveshaft location. they put in BEHIND the driveshaft so that funky offset arm is required. There just isnt enough room to make it work.

On top of that our newest 2014 revision of the 2005-2010 is so much more rigid AND you get the bonus of an adjustable patented throw feature no other shifter has.


George

 

[ZmanM3]

we have looked into the 2005-2010 but the issue is placement of the linkage rod output shaft and the driveshaft location. they put in BEHIND the driveshaft so that funky offset arm is required. There just isnt enough room to make it work.

On top of that our newest 2014 revision of the 2005-2010 is so much more rigid AND you get the bonus of an adjustable patented throw feature no other shifter has.


George

LOL too bad you don't make one for the 05 mustang with a viper spec T56 in it. I can't complain though, the Swarr shifter has done well for me.

 

[07TGGT]

I wonder how much NVH will be increased with this. I can see it being used for a weekend car or a purpose built car, but for a DD or moderately driven car I think it would be too much.

 

[Scott_0]

this variation of the Barton is an improvement for them, but the MGW is still the better unit imo

sent from my S6 using tapatalk

 

[GallopingFord]

These "improved" shifters that have this and that all linked together are beginning to look like Erector play sets.

 

[Victor E.]

The only thing I have to point out is that having a DS Loop mounted to the trans like that, is not a very good idea, IMO.

We have, and friends of mine have, experienced transmission tailshaft / housing failures....and it is not pretty if you do not have a properly mounted DS Loop. (according to NHRA, it must mount to the chassis via 1/4" thick crossmember)

Open drivelines passing any part of the driver’s body must be completely enclosed in 1/8-inch minimum thickness steel plate, securely mounted to the frame or frame structure. Driveshaft loop required on all cars running 13.99 (*8.59) or quicker and utilizing slicks; except vehicles running11.49 (*7.35) seconds or slower equipped with street tires.

I can envision how ugly a failure at speed would be with respect to the loop mounting to the rear of the transmission as opposed to the requisite thickness, and width being spread out on a plane perpendicular to the driveline and mounted securely to the frame. Has anyone at Barton ever tested this configuration to verify that it works as implied?

 

[Norm Peterson]

I wonder how much NVH will be increased with this. I can see it being used for a weekend car or a purpose built car, but for a DD or moderately driven car I think it would be too much.

I can't imagine it being "too much" in anything much short of an upper-level Lexus.

Seriously, ALL floor shifters used to bolt directly to the tailshaft, with no rubber or other insulating material involved, and the shift lever was hard-bolted to it. Tremec's newer TR3550 and TKOs ran their shifters straight out of the transmission itself, also with hard-bolted shift levers. I've never heard anybody complain about NVH with either of those arrangements.

Maybe if you left the shifter boot off or it tore you'd have enough to complain about. And even then, I'm guessing that gear rattle idling in neutral with the clutch engaged might be the worst situation with as much of that noise not coming through the shifter as coming through it.


Norm

 

[Victor E.]

Norm, I had a 1967 Cougar with a top loader 4 speed and a "hard bolted" Hurst Competition Plus shifter. Even new, the NVH was MUCH worse than anything anyone would deem acceptable today as well as a terribly long throw and clutch effort being rather high. No comparison to most any modern drieline.

As far as the Tremec 3550, the only OEM application I can think of was when it was tapped for use in the 1995 Cobra R, of which only 250 were made. It was a direct mount shifter, isolated in a couple of spots (just like all the T5's). The first break was the polymer pivot cup and the second was the horribly mushy rubber isolater affixed between the base of the stick and the top of the stub. All of these transmissions utilized a somewhat traditional tailshaft housing that extended rearward, past the shifter.

The transmissions used in the S197/S550 all use a semi-remote shifter with aborted tailshaft housings. They lack the mass of the earlier transissions in a critical area and are rather sensitive to modifications which reduce or eliminate the damped joints. The one nice thing about the rear bushing that so many are eager to eliminate was its potential to absorb/dissipate a wave path that traveled from the engine/transmission/shifter into the floorpan or driveshaft tunnel. You now (by eliminating the rear bushing) have two points (or a direct loop from the top of the transmission back and then down to the bottom of the transmission) which converge at the shifter base that are transmitting unattenuated frequencies right up the shifter stick and into your hand. Fine for the 1960's but not so much in today's era. Not saying you can't have a quiet, tight shifting semi-remote, as you can. A properly damped semi-remote can coexist with a firm shifting mechanism withought resorting to caveman-like jungle gym aesthetics.

 

[TGR96]

I had no idea that a short throw shifter put excessive stress on the syncros.

I swear this forum never ceases to educate me.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Victor

Had to dig back in the receipts to see for sure, but I also ran a Comp+ shifter (in a '79 Malibu), with my point being that neither I nor my wife ever noticed it to be noisy. Nor did anybody else who ever rode in the car, and it wasn't because of any loud exhaust system covering it up.

When that car eventually got a 3550, I simply redrilled the Hurst shift lever to bolt up solidly to the 3550's stub. There may or may not have been any isolation in the shifter, I really don't remember much about it beyond "mushy" clearly not being the way I'd ever describe its operation. Then again, maybe a driver with a strictly-drag-race/yank-the-shift-lever-through-the-stops mentality might be fussy enough about that sort of thing to notice where I wouldn't.


I understand what you're getting at, where an essentially integral shifter stuck out on the end of a structure cantilevered off the back of the transmission won't behave the same as the OE semi-remote configuration in terms of vibration. But I can't imagine it being any louder than driving with the driver's window open even with a 100% OE exhaust system or with the windows up and the rear seat cushion removed. Aesthetics be damned, if you can see it, it means you're either doing undercar work and it's just sitting there doing its job of holding the shifter up or you've just been run over.

The OE semi-remote isn't bad at all for street driving. But since the shifter is closer to the body it doesn't move in true concert with the shifter rod sticking out of the transmission, and in the 2010 and earlier years there seems to be a vertical offset that gets made up in the link between the shifter and the gearbox. I just can't get it out of my head that this will introduce a little undesirable shift rod rotation that either adds or subtracts from the amount you ask for at the shift knob as you go between the 1-2, 3-4, and 5-R gates. Dunno, maybe the 6060 and MT82 transmission setups are better off in this respect.


The topics of longer throws and increased clutch effort levels on your '67 and my '79 (in all of its different iterations) are really separate matters as far as shifter NVH is concerned.


Norm

 

[ford20]

I'm currently in the same location as Norm is.

 

[claudermilk]

I don't think NVH is really going to be an issue with this new Barton (or the Race Spec MGW). I have the Gen 2 MGW + Blowfish bracket which essentially does the same thing as these two without the nice CNC aluminum bits. Unless your hand is resting on the shifter, there is virtually zero difference in NVH from the stock setup. While shifting there may be a small bit more vibration. Otherwise nothing noticeable & we all know you shouldn't be driving around with your hand draped on the shift knob anyway.

 

[Victor E.]

Victor

Had to dig back in the receipts to see for sure, but I also ran a Comp+ shifter (in a '79 Malibu), with my point being that neither I nor my wife ever noticed it to be noisy. Nor did anybody else who ever rode in the car, and it wasn't because of any loud exhaust system covering it up.

I thought mine was fine too back then. Step out of one of those cars and into most any modern day performance car and you'll notice the difference, immediately.

...since the shifter is closer to the body it doesn't move in true concert with the shifter rod sticking out of the transmission, and in the 2010 and earlier years there seems to be a vertical offset that gets made up in the link between the shifter and the gearbox. I just can't get it out of my head that this will introduce a little undesirable shift rod rotation that either adds or subtracts from the amount you ask for at the shift knob as you go between the 1-2, 3-4, and 5-R gates. Dunno, maybe the 6060 and MT82 transmission setups are better off in this respect.

You're absolutely right in your head. It's been mentioned on other forums about the linkage rod offset not being optimum and that is where the TR6060 shifter designs struggle. The integral, direct mount shifters such as the ones used in the Magnum XL, TR3550, T5, etc, didn't or don't suffer from the same inherent weakness. The latest MGW TR6060 shifter looks to have successfully reintegrated the integral design into a semi-remote.

The topics of longer throws and increased clutch effort levels on your '67 and my '79 (in all of its different iterations) are really separate matters as far as shifter NVH is concerned.

My point was that you didn't really notice how bad the shifters were (in terms of NVH) as everything else in the driveline was just as raw. If you had a silky smooth clutch in your '79 along with a near silent cab you'd quickly find that the shifter/transmission stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

[Redline727]

It could just be me but, what is the big deal if you do get a little NVH from a mod like that? Or any mod that adds rigidity to your chassis. As I see it you are spending money to undo what Ford did to take away any chance of NVH in the first place. It's very difficult to have the best of both worlds. Decide what you're building and take it for what it is. Street car or Race car. Or if it's somewhere in between you may have to make some sacrifices.

 

[justinsstang]

Mgw race spec has no added NVH that I can tell. I also have a quiet exhaust with gt500 quads. There are only positives, no negatives to this race spec. If I ever get a different car, and mgw makes a shifter for it, that's my first mod. That's coming from someone that went suspension, and then straight to a supercharger without ever even having an N/A tune.

Next time mgw goes to the front of the list

 

[Norm Peterson]

I thought mine was fine too back then. Step out of one of those cars and into most any modern day performance car and you'll notice the difference, immediately.

My point was that you didn't really notice how bad the shifters were (in terms of NVH) as everything else in the driveline was just as raw. If you had a silky smooth clutch in your '79 along with a near silent cab you'd quickly find that the shifter/transmission stuck out like a sore thumb.

My take from that is if you need a near silent cab to pick up a hard-mounted/un-isolated shifter's contribution to cabin N and V, it really can't be adding much. Of course, however much it does amount to can be expected to bother some people more than others.

In a wider view, maybe today's drivers are a bit too spoiled and don't want to accept the notion of compromise - giving a little away from a relatively minor aspect (such as NVH here) in order to gain a clear improvement in another (shifter function). Never mind whether they'd actually notice or not.


Norm

 

[UltraKla$$ic]

Auto FTW!!!

 

[Rob72]

Auto FTW!!!

Just kidding