Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've got a Nismo one in my R33 GTSt, but i wouldn't really say it's a "heaps" shorter throw. It did make it notchier but feels more solid...

The throw was only shortened slightly but I like the way it feels now - still makes you feel you're doing something when slamming into the next gear :) So I'm sorta agreeing with Ash's comment/opinion...

I think the Nismo GTR short shift reduces the throw by a lot more compared to the GTSt model...

Comparison of a short shifter gear lever and a standard R33GTST gear lever.

1903Shifter_Comparison_Small.jpg

As you can see in the above comparison, all a short shifter really is just a gearstick with the pivot point moved upwards. This means that you get the same movement of the shift linkage (in the gearbox) for a shorter movement of the gear knob. That has 3 effects;

1. The gear knob moves less (back & forward and side to side) for the gear change. This is not a bad thing as your hand moves a shorter distance from the steering wheel, so you spend less time one hand steering.

2. A higher level of force is required on the gear knob (by your hand) as there is less leverage. This higher level of force can manifest itself in more feeling through your hand/fingers for the gear change. Provided you are not a weakling, there is no real down side to this.

3. If you move the gear knob at the same speed, the gear linkage moves faster, hence tries to change gear faster. This can be a problem, because the synchronisers may not be able to move at this faster speed. Hence you can get crunching as the gear tries to engage before the synchroniser has had time to align the meshing. This is an often quoted problem with short shifters, one that is easily overcome by slightly reducing the speed of movement of the gear knob.

The trick with a short shifter is to know what it does and use it to your advantage. Don’t fall for the fallacy that you can change gear faster with a short shifter, because the truth is you can only ever change gear as fast as the gearbox (synchronisers) will allow.

:D cheers :wub:

Edited by Sydneykid
Ive heard these can damage GTR gearboxes due to the mesh being different to GTST boxes? is that right?.....any first hand experience?

100% BS

Internally an R32/33GTR gearbox is the same as an R33GTST gearbox, other than the take off on the output shaft for the transfer case of course.

:D cheers :wub:

im running a r33 gearbox in my r32. It actually has a std gearshift lever that has been cut and welded.

i cant remember where it had been cut/rewelded, but i dont know if its a shorter shift or not. The gearknob height is shorter though.

If it's been chopped down, then it will seem like a shorter shift. I'd liken that to chopping springs in a car though, bit of a hack job. =-[

If you imagine your gearstick three times as long, the top of it would travel much further... if you reduce it, then you are moving the top a shorter distance, but i'd imagine that it's uncomfortable to have to grab lower down to get it.

And to the above guy with the Nismo shifter... there are two.. one is a "solid shifter", which as you felt, makes shifting feel more direct. It has a 10% shorter throw. Nismo make a "quick shifter" which apparently is 25% less throw.

Thanks, SK, for the background on the mechanics of it!

  • 5 years later...

I really would like to find a proper shorter shifting leaver... It becomes a short shifter in that the length is shorter... I dont want to do a hack cut job... and installing a short shifter stick will reduce the throw, but not the length of the damn leaver....

Bought one off ebay about 4 years ago, to much noise through it from gearbox, so cut the shifter below the solid section and same place below the rubber mounting on the standard one and tig welded to rubber mounted top half onto the short shifter bottom. The noise disappeared and due to the rubber mount I got a bit of give in the shifter which made it feel great.

Only thing I noticed is after a few years of driving with it, 3rd and 5th gear started to get a bit crunchy if changing to fast.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...