aeropaul
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2014
- Threads
- 5
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 25
- Location
- Wichita, KS
- Vehicle(s)
- 2015 Mustang GT/PP
There have been a number of posts here about this "issue" and frankly I feel like there is a lot of unproductive drama surrounding this, mostly coming from a lack of understanding of how manual transmissions work, and the engineering tradeoff between stiffness/compliance and NVH, and I'd like to steer this into a positive contribution to the discussion.
I feel like I've fleshed out the "how synchros work" and there are a multitude of videos and gifs that explain it, so I'm going to let that one lie.
With the remote mounted shifter, if the mounting scheme has compliant enough bushings installed, very little NVH is transmitted back to the body. Obviously that produced a lot of issues with differential movement between the body and transmission on the 11-14 cars, causing missed shifts. Yes, that shift linkage was way too compliant, and looking at it with my engineering glasses, the reasons were obvious.
However, the shifter assembly is much improved in the S550. It is much more rigid, there is less compliance in the mounts, and the shifter box-to-transmission link (the cast aluminum truss thing) is much more rigid than the previous design and is cast directly to the shifter box (one less joint), meaning less compliance. There is the large rubber isolator at the back of the shifter box mounting the shifter to the body (look at the MGW video about the shift knob). A bushing with that large will require some stiff rubber to not be mushy. Also, its proximity to the shift box is fairly close, meaning easy motion transmission fwd-aft.
I do think that the MGW design will reduce NVH transmission because it has two close-tolerance slider rails at the back of the shifter box to mount it to the body, which should allow for better decoupling of any fwd-aft motion without relying on the compliance/NVH balance of a single rubber biscuit. They also employ a single linkage between the box and transmission. They can do this because they have inserted another joint in the tie-rod between the box and transmission (the stationary one). Personally, I think it's a great design (however I feel like their product is able to stand on its own merits without slamming the OEM design unnecessarily).
You also need to realize that in order to keep cost and weight down, the OEM wants to keep part count low. The all-machined MGW unit has a lot of individual parts, and they're all machined. Yes, its a stiffer assembly, but it's also heaver, more labor intensive to install, and machined parts are more expensive to make than cast parts at a high production rate.
The 370Z, fox body mustangs, and the 1970 have transmission-mounted shifters, which means any NVH in the transmission stops at the shifter assembly. I drove a 2012 GT500, and was not impressed with the shifter (subjective evaluation, I know). It's a different assembly as well (two tie rods instead of one). Go shift any RWD manual transmission, and you'll feel a good amount of feedback in the shifter. If the shifter is also mounted to the body, and the mounts are stiff enough, all that feedback you feel from the synchros will go straight into the body structure and resonate thoughout the transmission tunnel.
It comes down to a tradeoff. Do you want the customer to have a solid feeling shifter, which clearly communicates all its motions though to the users hands? This requires little compliance which produces a lot of feedback. I feel like they achieved this adequately in an OEM solution. Or do you want it quiet? That requires a careful balance of compliance/NVH which may produce inconsistencies at the ends of the spectrum of use. I personally (as an engineer and a user) like the former approach.
If you want to go talk to your dealer/service dept about it, go right ahead. Just be armed with the logic behind the design. If I'm proven wrong and all the MT82s in S550 mustangs lunch themselves, I'll publicly eat my words, I'm not above that.
I feel like I've fleshed out the "how synchros work" and there are a multitude of videos and gifs that explain it, so I'm going to let that one lie.
With the remote mounted shifter, if the mounting scheme has compliant enough bushings installed, very little NVH is transmitted back to the body. Obviously that produced a lot of issues with differential movement between the body and transmission on the 11-14 cars, causing missed shifts. Yes, that shift linkage was way too compliant, and looking at it with my engineering glasses, the reasons were obvious.
However, the shifter assembly is much improved in the S550. It is much more rigid, there is less compliance in the mounts, and the shifter box-to-transmission link (the cast aluminum truss thing) is much more rigid than the previous design and is cast directly to the shifter box (one less joint), meaning less compliance. There is the large rubber isolator at the back of the shifter box mounting the shifter to the body (look at the MGW video about the shift knob). A bushing with that large will require some stiff rubber to not be mushy. Also, its proximity to the shift box is fairly close, meaning easy motion transmission fwd-aft.
I do think that the MGW design will reduce NVH transmission because it has two close-tolerance slider rails at the back of the shifter box to mount it to the body, which should allow for better decoupling of any fwd-aft motion without relying on the compliance/NVH balance of a single rubber biscuit. They also employ a single linkage between the box and transmission. They can do this because they have inserted another joint in the tie-rod between the box and transmission (the stationary one). Personally, I think it's a great design (however I feel like their product is able to stand on its own merits without slamming the OEM design unnecessarily).
You also need to realize that in order to keep cost and weight down, the OEM wants to keep part count low. The all-machined MGW unit has a lot of individual parts, and they're all machined. Yes, its a stiffer assembly, but it's also heaver, more labor intensive to install, and machined parts are more expensive to make than cast parts at a high production rate.
The 370Z, fox body mustangs, and the 1970 have transmission-mounted shifters, which means any NVH in the transmission stops at the shifter assembly. I drove a 2012 GT500, and was not impressed with the shifter (subjective evaluation, I know). It's a different assembly as well (two tie rods instead of one). Go shift any RWD manual transmission, and you'll feel a good amount of feedback in the shifter. If the shifter is also mounted to the body, and the mounts are stiff enough, all that feedback you feel from the synchros will go straight into the body structure and resonate thoughout the transmission tunnel.
It comes down to a tradeoff. Do you want the customer to have a solid feeling shifter, which clearly communicates all its motions though to the users hands? This requires little compliance which produces a lot of feedback. I feel like they achieved this adequately in an OEM solution. Or do you want it quiet? That requires a careful balance of compliance/NVH which may produce inconsistencies at the ends of the spectrum of use. I personally (as an engineer and a user) like the former approach.
If you want to go talk to your dealer/service dept about it, go right ahead. Just be armed with the logic behind the design. If I'm proven wrong and all the MT82s in S550 mustangs lunch themselves, I'll publicly eat my words, I'm not above that.
Sponsored
