Author Topic: CRG Shifter Report (Read 16311 times)

KurtS · « **on:** April 02, 2016, 06:40:18 AM »

This one has been a **long** time coming, but here's a report on Floor Shifters for Manual Transmissions by Martin Foltz and myself. With a lot of help from a lot of people.
http://www.camaros.org/shifters.shtml

ZLP955 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 02, 2016, 09:36:02 AM »

Great job and a big thank you to all involved.

ban617 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 02, 2016, 11:53:25 AM »

Kurt , Martin nice job just read through the report ...

KevinW · « **Reply #3 on:** April 02, 2016, 12:33:09 PM »

Great report! Its just my shifters are older than I thought

Oh well

BTW, black phosphate as a finish? That's what it looks like mostly.

ss jim · « **Reply #4 on:** April 02, 2016, 02:05:25 PM »

Excellent job. Thank you Martin!

william · « **Reply #5 on:** April 02, 2016, 03:13:17 PM »

Great job guys!

PURESS · « **Reply #6 on:** April 02, 2016, 03:42:53 PM »

as always....Very Professional Job. Thank You for your work Martin and Kurt.

bertfam · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2016, 04:20:44 PM »

EXCELLENT report Martin and Kurt. Looks great!

Ed

1968 Z28 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 02, 2016, 06:32:12 PM »

As Ed said.....X2. I have been accumulating 67 & 68 Muncie shifter parts and information for about ten years now and this data certainly verifies my findings. There is one item that I noticed wasn't mentioned or included on the photos.....on the 68 AIM there is a spacer (#3941824) on the shifter rods. Has the authors ever discovered the reason for this spacer?

ko-lek-tor · « **Reply #9 on:** April 02, 2016, 09:05:19 PM »

Wow! Hard to imagine how much work went into this helpful report. Huge thank you Martin & Kurt.
Now, a question:
Is it possible that a Firebird Shifter (Hurst 69) could have been put on a Camaro on the assembly line?
2 thoughts:
Before F-bird came to N-wood, shipped batch wrong or shortage?
After F-bird made at N-wood, mix up on the line?

If the moderators feel this reply should be in it's own post, Please move it. I thought it was relevant here.

x77-69z28 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 02, 2016, 10:30:44 PM »

Would this be considered a Marti report?😀 I couldn't help it! Great job guys

bcmiller · « **Reply #11 on:** April 02, 2016, 10:41:03 PM »

Quote from: 1968 Z28 on April 02, 2016, 06:32:12 PM

As Ed said.....X2. I have been accumulating 67 & 68 Muncie shifter parts and information for about ten years now and this data certainly verifies my findings. There is one item that I noticed wasn't mentioned or included on the photos.....on the 68 AIM there is a spacer (#3941824) on the shifter rods. Has the authors ever discovered the reason for this spacer?

I posted in that thread and made a speculation. No definitive answer has been found.

bcmiller · « **Reply #12 on:** April 02, 2016, 10:44:48 PM »

Quote from: ko-lek-tor on April 02, 2016, 09:05:19 PM

Now, a question:
Is it possible that a Firebird Shifter (Hurst 69) could have been put on a Camaro on the assembly line?
2 thoughts:
Before F-bird came to N-wood, shipped batch wrong or shortage?
After F-bird made at N-wood, mix up on the line?

In my opinion, it could be possible. No way to prove one way or the other in my opinion.

JoeC · « **Reply #13 on:** April 03, 2016, 12:15:18 AM »

Nice job on the shifter report

I "think" the rod spacers were used to allow easer access to the adjustment nuts. When you put in the alignment shim, the adjusters are also in line. The spacers offset the adjuster nuts and makes it easer to get a wrench on them.

I looked at my sets of rods and some have the spacer and some don't.

The spacers may not have always been installed as they show in AIM drawings

I have been working with shifters for many years and the Muncie unit is a real "Rube Goldberg" design but it can work well when set up correctly.

Hans L · « **Reply #14 on:** April 03, 2016, 12:28:46 AM »

Great job Martin and Kurt - another treasure trove of information! Much appreciated.

HustleRussell · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2016, 01:05:19 AM »

Awesome information Kurt & Martin. This is the most awesome website on the net IMO. However the shifter handle in my 69 MC1 Camaro has the word "MUCICIE" stamped in it, which disagrees with yall's research. So I'll assume either my shifter handle is not original or the MC1 transmission is so rare it might have been over looked. I'm looking forward to JKZ27 aka John chiming in as he is the only other member on this website that I know of having a MC1 transmission.

bcmiller · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2016, 01:34:01 AM »

Quote from: 1969Z27 on April 03, 2016, 01:05:19 AM

Awesome information Kurt & Martin. This is the most awesome website on the net IMO. However the shifter handle in my 69 MC1 Camaro has the word "MUCICIE" stamped in it, which disagrees with yall's research. So I'll assume either my shifter handle is not original or the MC1 transmission is so rare it might have been over looked. I'm looking forward to JKZ27 aka John chiming in as he is the only other member on this website that I know of having a MC1 transmission.

What is the build month and week of your car?

HawkX66 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2016, 01:43:01 AM »

Kurt, I noticed in the shifter ball section you didn't have a 69 ball listed. Is the chrome ball listed as a 68 actually a 69?

JKZ27 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2016, 01:44:34 AM »

Thanks for the great report fellas!

My MC1 handle does have MUNCIE stamped on it. I would guess Kurt is aware of the MC1 Muncie handle but maybe overlooked it during the write up because most of the 69 3 speeds were Saginaw which received a blank handle. Also, I wouldn't say the MC1 was rare it was just unpopular. And, as Kurt has said, most have been converted to a 4 speed by now which makes them rare today. The only real telltale might be the square shifter hole.

HustleRussell · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2016, 01:55:46 AM »

My MC1 Camaro was build last week in February NOR.

HustleRussell · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2016, 02:02:46 AM »

transmission & shifter.

JKZ27 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2016, 02:11:04 AM »

Quote from: HawkX66 on April 03, 2016, 01:43:01 AM

Kurt, I noticed in the shifter ball section you didn't have a 69 ball listed. Is the chrome ball listed as a 68 actually a 69?

Dave, I see the 69 knobs and descriptions are listed but there are just no pictures.

bcmiller · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2016, 03:06:03 AM »

Thanks Russ. We will take a look.

The MC1 was a Muncie 3 speed, so I guess it is possible it used a Muncie shifter handle.

ko-lek-tor · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2016, 03:23:37 AM »

When did the Firebird start using the same Hurst shifters as the 69 Camaro? Is the answer: since the 1st Bird (67)?

JoeC · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:02:03 AM »

Firebird used the Muncie shifter in 1967 and the Hurst in 1968

Pontiac began a long history with Hurst beginning with GTO and LeMans using a round stick Hurst shifter in 1964

68camaroz28 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2016, 12:19:41 PM »

Went thru the report and as many have stated well done and an excellent report. Jerry and Joe had helped (thanks again Jerry and Joe) with my Muncie set up as the stabilizer bar was missing and I ended up with all three and found it difficult to research. This CRG report is going to assist many when both identifying correct parts and restoration.
Thanks Kurt, Martin and all involved.....

JoeC · « **Reply #26 on:** April 04, 2016, 12:43:35 AM »

On the Muncie shifter chrome sticks where some Muncie trans cars were found without the MUNCIE stamp. This question has been around for many years and is hard to say if the car came from the factory that way or not.

One thing I found interesting was back in the 1980s I bought a NOS Muncie shifter from a swap meet. The seller was a Chevy dealer mechanic and was selling off NOS items to clear out the dealer stock room. He told me he remembered replacing many Muncie shifters due to customer complaints of poor shifting. There was a part number where you can order a replacement shifter. It was the chrome stick and shifter body but no rods or mount plate or other parts,

I have had a few of these NOS units over the years, so that tells me the dealers did use these to some degree.

I had some with the Muncie stamp and some without.

I still see these come up for sale occasionally. This one was on ebay recently.

last pic, Some factory installed shifters have a yellow paint inspection mark on them but I don't see it on the replacement units.

jdv69z · « **Reply #27 on:** April 05, 2016, 12:14:28 AM »

So attached is a pic of the Hurst shifter from my 69 Z, build 10B, Oct 68. Shifter is dated 6 8B2. The 6 is hard to see. That's Jun 1968, correct? According to the article, my shifter is date coded for a Firebird? Did I read that right?

bcmiller · « **Reply #28 on:** April 05, 2016, 08:09:36 AM »

Your shifter date is June of 68. Probably original for your car.

Shifters are date coded, not necessarily for application. The one in the article used is one I have and I knew where it was from. We may swap that particular pic out for a different one.

ko-lek-tor · « **Reply #29 on:** April 05, 2016, 09:10:10 PM »

Quote from: jdv69z on April 05, 2016, 12:14:28 AM

So attached is a pic of the Hurst shifter from my 69 Z, build 10B, Oct 68. Shifter is dated 6 8B2. The 6 is hard to see. That's Jun 1968, correct? According to the article, my shifter is date coded for a Firebird? Did I read that right?

X2 on 68B2 off my 12B. I am/was beginning to be concerned that this shifter was not the OE. Not so sure now. Seems unlikely 2 have the same dates, but 6 months?. Anyone else?

KurtS · « **Reply #30 on:** April 06, 2016, 03:28:55 AM »

I don't have all the data on Hurst dates (especially Firebird) and am trusting what some others who have more experience have told me.
Maybe the date format changed midyear...

ko-lek-tor · « **Reply #31 on:** April 06, 2016, 09:31:33 AM »

Quote from: KurtS on April 06, 2016, 03:28:55 AM

I don't have all the data on Hurst dates (especially Firebird) and am trusting what some others who have more experience have told me.
Maybe the date format changed midyear...

Not a criticism, but why was date gathering for shifters not a research topic or why not make it one? Like gas tank dates, which provided enough data to graph a conclusive pattern of tank dates, same could be done for shifters, I would think? I'll volunteer to get this started and collect and arange the data.

bcmiller · « **Reply #32 on:** April 06, 2016, 12:31:52 PM »

Quote from: ko-lek-tor on April 05, 2016, 09:10:10 PM

X2 on 68B2 off my 12B. I am/was beginning to be concerned that this shifter was not the OE. Not so sure now. Seems unlikely 2 have the same dates, but 6 months?. Anyone else?

I don't think there is that much reason for concern.

jdv69z · « **Reply #33 on:** April 06, 2016, 12:57:58 PM »

Thanks, I wasn't really concerned. I know my shifter is original, just thought I'd add some info from my car which might enhance info on this the topic overall. I had never really looked that closely at the date/batch code until the report, and had never seen the 6 before reading the report and checking my picture more closely.

bcmiller · « **Reply #34 on:** April 06, 2016, 08:55:30 PM »

Joe, I moved your last post on date codes into a new thread in the Research Topics and reports section.

This is the link.
http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=14476.0

KurtS · « **Reply #35 on:** April 15, 2016, 03:52:36 PM »

I updated the article. Though the research is not complete, the date coding apparently goes by model year.
And I updated about the 69 3-speed handles.

cruizin69 · « **Reply #36 on:** May 16, 2016, 06:12:14 PM »

I have a 02A car with the original Hurst shifter dated Jan 1969.

cook_dw · « **Reply #37 on:** May 25, 2016, 04:50:31 PM »

Great info.. Glad to see this published.

News:

Author Topic: CRG Shifter Report (Read 16311 times)