Shift coupler

356 Porsche-related discussions and questions.
Message
Author
Michael Ufford
356 Fan
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:55 pm
Location: Toronto

Shift coupler

#1 Post by Michael Ufford »

I'm reassembling my 1961 T5 project and have got to the shifter connections.

I purchased a coupler (NLA 424 024 04) from Stoddards because my car did not have a coupler when I got it.

When we went to fit the coupler it became apparent that the coupler pushed the peace pipe shift rod 50 to 60 mm forward of the correct position to receive the gear shift lever.

Is it possible I have the wrong (i.e. too long) peace pipe part?

Or did any models of the 356 delete the coupler? The photo shows the connection with the coupler unfitted.

Thanks,

Mike
Attachments
DSCN1285.JPG
Mike
Toronto
T-5 Coupe 

User avatar
Harold Singh
356 Fan
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:43 am
Tag: Cooling with air
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Shift coupler

#2 Post by Harold Singh »

If it helps any, that's exactly what my T-6 looks like when I remove the cover.

maybe this thread will help?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26476
Harold
In the garage:
1964 356C Irish Green
1995 993 GP White

Geoff Fleming
356 Fan
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:50 pm
Location: Union, New Jersey

Re: Shift coupler

#3 Post by Geoff Fleming »

The T-5 used a different coupler...it had a black rubber end and didn't have the bushings or cage that the T-6 uses. No reason why the later style couldn't be used though. No 356 models deleted the coupler.
The end with the bolt attaches to the length of rod that extends from the nose of the transmission. The bolt is snugged up into a small indent on that rod.It is then safety wired in place, ( very important!) The long end simply enters the hollow shift rod and is secured by tightening the pinch bolts. You will have to play with it quite a bit in order to find the right fore and aft and side to side movements. When found, that is where you snug everything up.

User avatar
Harold Singh
356 Fan
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:43 am
Tag: Cooling with air
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Shift coupler

#4 Post by Harold Singh »

Any luck Mike? Maybe add more photos if you get it done? I would seem the coupler is on the other side of the sheet metal and we cant see it in your photo.
Harold
In the garage:
1964 356C Irish Green
1995 993 GP White

Michael Ufford
356 Fan
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:55 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Shift coupler

#5 Post by Michael Ufford »

Thanks guys for your ideas and suggestions. Will check them out on the car tomorrow. The connection currently goes directly from the hollow peace pipe back to the transmission rod. (That is the Stoddard coupler sitting uninstalled on the carpet, Harold).

The other thread was helpful too. It is good to know that others have done without the coupler as I did for two years before my restoration job.

When I get it fitted, I hope to be pleasantly surprised at how smooth shifting can be on the 356.

Mike
Mike
Toronto
T-5 Coupe 

Brad Ripley
356 Fan
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:28 pm

Re: Shift coupler

#6 Post by Brad Ripley »

The coupler you bought (695-424-024-04) is only compatible to the late (T-6/C) peace pipe (695-424-021-04).

There were three "peace pipe" versions:
695-424-021-01 T-5 earliest, no shift lock piece -- U-joint: 695-424-024-05
695-424-020-03 T-5 later w/shift lock piece -- U-joint: 695-424-024-05
695-424-021-04 T-6/C latest w/shift lock piece -- U-joint 695-424-024-04

See http://www.stoddard.com/catalogsearch/r ... 95-424-024

The diameters of the forward end of the U-joints are different; the diameter to the trans hockey stick is the same.

notes: [*] the suffix on the part number above is correct (higher number for an earlier part!)
[*] The prefix "NLA" indicates an aftermarket German-sourced part.

See illustration below -- obviously, the original rubber coupling idea didn't work out and was replaced by the U-joint type (used 'way up into the 911/912/914/928).
Attachments
Shift Linkage comps.jpg

Jon Bunin
356 Fan
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Vista, CA

Re: Shift coupler

#7 Post by Jon Bunin »

Michael Ufford wrote:The connection currently goes directly from the hollow peace pipe back to the transmission rod.
Under normal circumstances, it's not possible to connect a properly positioned tunnel rod directly to the transmission. The photo you posted shows a shaft entering the tunnel from the rear- if everything is stock, that cannot be the transmission shaft, it would stop well short of the tunnel. Either you have a coupler or connector piece already in place, or your car has been altered and is not as-original.
Jon Bunin

Jon Bunin
356 Fan
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Vista, CA

Re: Shift coupler

#8 Post by Jon Bunin »

Brad,

All B/C shift couplers interchange except for the first 3 months of 356B production, when the connection diameter was 18mm. All subsequent B/C coupler diameters were 15mm and interchangeable.
Jon Bunin

Michael Ufford
356 Fan
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:55 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Shift coupler

#9 Post by Michael Ufford »

More great info.

Jon, it would be great if I ALREADY have a coupler hiding behind the tunnel! I'll take a closer look under the boot tomorrow. Here's the best picture of the transmission before mounting.
Attachments
transmission 1.jpg
Mike
Toronto
T-5 Coupe 

Jon Bunin
356 Fan
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Vista, CA

Re: Shift coupler

#10 Post by Jon Bunin »

Here are the three B/C shift coupler versions shown in Brad's diagram.

The two shown on the right have 15mm shafts, and are interchangeable.

The 15mm coupler was effective from 1960 model chassis numbers:
Coupé: 110407
Cabriolet/Hardtop: 153023
Roadster: 87492
Attachments
DSCN6196.JPG
Jon Bunin

Brad Ripley
356 Fan
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:28 pm

Re: Shift coupler

#11 Post by Brad Ripley »

Jon,
Clearly, there are two versions of the U-joint type couplers.

Then, the "05" only goes on the earliest shift rod?

and the "04" goes on the other two rods? Correct?

Jon Bunin
356 Fan
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Vista, CA

Re: Shift coupler

#12 Post by Jon Bunin »

Brad,

The 18mm U-joint type coupler is a later replacement part, it was never original to a car.

I have seen different part numbers applied to the same couplers.
The factory parts catalogs will sometimes apply a later replacement number to an earlier illustration.
Here is a Stoddard catalog page from 1981, with the numbers reversed from those you posted (items 100 and 101).
I think it's simpler to identify B/C couplers by their shaft diameters, either 18mm or 15mm.
Attachments
DSCN6197.JPG
Jon Bunin

Brad Ripley
356 Fan
Posts: 4205
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:28 pm

Re: Shift coupler

#13 Post by Brad Ripley »

I know you know I wrote that catalog page -- at the time I thought the Porsche Parts Catalogs were wrong -- a part with a 04 suffix must be earlier than a part with an 05 suffix .

Tomorrow, I will have both parts measured and post the diameters vs the part numbers.

Jon Bunin
356 Fan
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Vista, CA

Re: Shift coupler

#14 Post by Jon Bunin »

Michael Ufford wrote:The photo shows the connection with the coupler unfitted.
Mike,

I suspect that you already have a shift coupler fitted, but do not realize it. Unlike 911 and 912 model cars, the coupler does not enter the tunnel of a 356B or C, so cannot be easily seen under the access cover.
Jon Bunin

Jon Bunin
356 Fan
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Vista, CA

Re: Shift coupler

#15 Post by Jon Bunin »

Brad,

Most 356B factory Parts Catalogues are revised editions, which often applied replacement numbers to original illustrations. I don't believe the 04 and 05 numbers apply to the bonded rubber couplers, but were in fact later U-jointed numbers. The 15mm U-joint version was made for a model in production, so probably came first. The 18mm version was for a model out of production, so I suspect the replacement part was made and numbered somewhat later, hence a later number for an earlier application. That might explain the numbers seeming to be out of sequence.
Jon Bunin

Post Reply