ordered and delivery is in 4-6 weeks.

Ordered mine as well

Can't wait to hear reviews. Thanks all!

Wevo alternative
 

Sounds great, looking forward to hear feedbacks...

I know this is about function, but I can't divorce aesthetics either.
it would look even better and I would buy it if it was silver (my floors and transmission tunnel are painted black and I would not see it).

Muscle memory kicks in.......

Hey Guys! We are new to the Pelican forum but it is cool to see a thread already started for our new G Body Shifter! This thing is the real deal and we are really excited about it. We have been testing it for what seems like a year now and we finally have everything ready to roll. This will no doubt be the best shifter on the market.

We made a short video giving a more in detailed comparison between the stock shifter and ours! The bearings, self centering springs, and adjustable reverse lockouts makes this a game changer. Check out the video for a better look and we would love to answer any questions!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=---nyTHP0Jk&t=59s

As a Wevo owner there are a couple of obvious ways the Numeric shifter is a better value:

First, the Numeric version includes the shifter housing so there is no need to reuse your current one. Also since I reused my current one I needed to have it powder coated which was an additional expense.

Second, the shift linkage is included with the Numeric. I bought the Wevo PSJ separately which was approx $200.

So I would have saved $200 plus what I paid for powder coating if I bought the Numeric.

How do you think the Numeric shift joint compares to the Wevo PSJ?

Interesting shifter and looks well relatively well-designed. It's nice to see something different.

Couple of comments / questions:

- My understanding is that ball bearings don't do well for oscillating motion with small angular displacement; monoball-style bearings generally do better in those situations. You may not have enough load in the linkage or coupler to make a difference, but watch out for eventual brinelling / "stickiness".

- I thought the bushings in the shift coupler were slotted to prevent binding of the shift rod when it rolled left/right when the shifter is moved? This also served to limit side load on the transmission input shaft. How does your coupler handle the side flex of the shift rod?

Thanks for posting the video, but I have a question, will they work on a 901 side shift transmission in a 914? As have a 74 914-6 GT clone with a 3.0 and a 76 914 2.0, so might be interested.

and not forget: the WEVO copper plunger pins at bottom wear out!
after years of shifting they can turn flat and need replacement.
(read: http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/1044916-wevo-plunger-pins-worn-out-replacemnets.html)

That service from WEVO was provided.
BUT: the mating surface on which the copper pin rubs has irreparable wear.

all this would not happen with the NUMERIC I figure due to the different mechanical setup.

This shifter looks really well made and it’s an interesting take but I can’t help but wonder, and forgive me if this is naïve- in any assembly of moving parts there’s going to be wear and isn’t the point of bushings to be the point of wear. That is, the replaceable, $10 bushings take the abuse, fail over time and are cheaply and easily replaced so that the rest of the system, which is much more costly and difficult to reach doesn’t wear and fail.

I would worry that a shifter and coupling that’s so tight and without any play would take its toll on other parts of the transmission.

That is exactly what we were going for, we wanted to enhance the performance of the shifting and have it at the most competitive price on the market. Also, they use a universal joint, which should last the longevity of the car without a ton of wear. Our shift coupler is a whole ton better than the stock one, but in comparison to the other aftermarket ones (ONLY those who don't use bushings, because all of the bushing ones will wear quickly), honestly they're all reducing the play to almost none. So we just will offer our shift coupler at a better price point. We offer it with all of our shifters so that no one has an excuse for sloppy shifting with our shifters.

Hello, the technical parts of the shifter have been tested using FEA and all of our components are designed using a factor of safety of at least 5 (and that is with using exaggerated load situations). Also, 4 out of the 6 bearings used in our shifter only serve as a pivot point so no radial load is applied. The only two bearings that do are in the shift coupler, which is why we used overengineered bearings (22x10x6)mm. These bearings used in our coupler are rated up to 175 lbf static radial load (and dynamic up to three times that). The amount of force required to move that coupler into gear is under 40 lbf, well under the static load rating. Also brinelling often occurs when the load is being applied for an extended period of time, which isn't the case in this application.

And I don't think I understand your second question fully. The shift coupler is supposed to rotate, that is how the non centralized gears are reached. So when the stock coupler is used, when you move your shifter to the left or right to put it into first gear for example. The coupler isn't translating that directly to the transmission because of the play. There is no side flex. The shift rod that is hooked up to the coupler is supposed to be straight, and our coupler ensures that. There is no stress to the transmission, our solution just makes sure that everything that your hand is doing at the shift lever is actually being translated to the transmission perfectly.

What we did is replace the wear parts with ball bearings, which have a life expectancy of around one million cycles (well over the life of the car). Also, what we did is take out all the play from the transmission rod to the shift lever. But this doesn't affect what the transmission "feels", we just provided a direct path to shifting the transmission. The transmission rod is still experiencing the same amount of force when being shifted into gears or rotated then shifting into gears. We just offer the solution so that what you are trying to do with the shift lever is being directly transmitted to the transmission.

I believe this is Showdown’s concern. The bushings are designed to be a point of failure or wear, rather than a more important/expensive part.

Along these lines I always wonder when a claim is made about "40% shorter shifts"...how much more shift effort does that translate to?

I would think it unlikely that you've engineered the shifting to be shorter without impacting anything else?

That's right, it would be physically impossible to reduce the throw and not increase the force required to be put into gear (at least with a single bar mechanism). They are actually linearly correlated, Torque = Force * Distance. So the amount of force required for it to be put into gear at the bottom of the shift lever is always the same. But what we change is what the driver feels in changing gears by moving the pivot point up, therefor reducing the distance required to travel while increasing the force. But that is why we have been designing a shift knob extension for if that increased forced isn't desired and we have really dialed in the sweet spot.

One of the things I have always disliked about the improved 915 shifters on the market is the amount the throw is shortened. Why? Not because of the force required to shift gears is increased. It is the fact that the 915 does not do well when shifted too quickly. People, especially when racing, already tend to shift the 915 faster than is ideal. It just gets worse when you shorten the shifting 40%. This is one of the main reasons I went with the JWest Engineering Rennshift. It has options for 33% and 20% shorter throws. I am using 20% and that works great for me.