44 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHDoes the B&M SSK actually damage syncros
Leading reported evidence
Recommend against it
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Leading evidence: 'Recommend against it' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Recommend against it' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
- or is it just a theory (shorter throw = faster shift = less time between gear change = mashing of the syncros)?
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I presume that these model years had some changes done to the tranny and synchros themselves to allow that, since the SSk was not offered for the earlier years as an OEM option.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
If you are concerned about proper fitting, you can use your original shift ****.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I presume that these model years had some changes done to the tranny and synchros themselves to allow that, since the SSk was not offered for the earlier years as an OEM option.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
44 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T082735Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Driving my C4S has been total bliss - but the throws on the shifter are just too long for my taste (especially after a couple hours in the S2000).
Getting through the posts regarding various SSK options (OEM, B&M, OEM GT3) I have read a few posts that suggest the B&M actually causes syncro damage. Is there any proof of this?? - or is it just a theory (shorter throw = faster shift = less time between gear change = mashing of the syncros)?
My personal preference would be to make the throw as short as possible without making the shifting effort overly cumbersome...
No SSK's do not damage sychros. They simply reduce the travel of the shifting mechanism. That's it. Think of it this way. You're still pushing in the clutch, and selecting a gear and then re-engaging it. Simple as that.
C.
True, but the SS does what you "tell" it to. The factory ones will let you know something is not quite right. The SS has no choice, haha
I am all about SS shifters, but in time, they more than likely will accelerate syncro wear if one is too forceful and careless. Seen it many times in other cars. I, myself included.
LOL.
Thanks for the info - I suppose its time to order the B&M. I don't know about the install though - I'm not sure I have the guts to remove all those interior panels....
Plus, I'll need a new shift ****. That Carnewal site has awesome stuff but 500+ for a shift **** seems a little crazy.
This was asked in Panorama several months back. The quick answer is the SSK increases the chances of synchro damage due to the shortened time it takes for the synchros to engage and mesh. The editors did recommend AGAINST it.
The later model cars had the option for the OEM SSK. I presume that these model years had some changes done to the tranny and synchros themselves to allow that, since the SSk was not offered for the earlier years as an OEM option. In my 2005 987S, improved synchros were touted as one of the evolutions for that year. Unfortunately, my 2002 model year C4S is not as "evolved", did not have the SSK as an option, so I'm sticking with my OEM shifter. I actually like the length of the throw anyway.
Yeah, it can wear the synchros faster. The only reason is, like any other ssk, is because it's possible to shift faster than the normal shifter. The faster you shift, the more strain it puts on the synchros to get the gears up to matching speed.
Just don't slam the shifter as fast as you can and you'll be alright.
Palting, have you driven a SSK? It really is so impressive that after using one for a week, you will NEVER go back, and upon driving a stock shifter remark how you ever liked it in the first place. But if you have, well then, what the hell do I know?!
Who cares? I'd rather kill the transmission than live with what came on the car. That stupid thing made the ZF 6 speed in my F-250 diesel seem positively sporty in comparison, and I'm not exaggerating (much).
But I think you'd have to be seriously ham-fisted for an SSK to shorten synchro life.
Like I said...shift correctly and you have NO problem no matter how fast you shift. If you are engaging the syncos with each shift, you are not driving correctly.
Heh-heh. I have driven one of my friends 996 with SSK, and by golly, I like the darn thing. I little more notchy since you have less leverage, but it's fun. I actually have all the DIY info saved in my HD. But, I am just a little timid, afraid that in the heat of the moment while on track at DE or autocross I may shift that thing quicker than what my car was designed for and ruin the tranny. It's just me, guys.
I hear what you're saying.
Of course, for me - during recent "spiriting driving" I'd be making the 2-3 shift, and catch the shifter in the dead space between 3rd and 5th... I don't know - for me, that distance is too long. Im not saying is has to be 50% shorter but 20% or so seems reasonable...
which makes we wonder about the various posts regarding the 997 Gt3 shifter... but I'd hate to go through that whole install to find out it reduces the distance by 5% or so... which happened to me in my Audi. Upgraded to their "shorter" shifter and $300 later, the change was barely perceptible.
If anyone has done the Gt3 mod -- holler back.
I talked to Rick I believe it was at Suncoast about this very thing.
The SSK itself doesn't prematurely wear out syncros.......drivers do. BUT with the SSK the drivers are more tempted to throw gears=premature wear.
"Throwing" in this case refers to a failure to pause a little between shifts?
I suppose that could be a problem if the throw was SUPER short... but even in my (now old) S2000, which had the absolute shortest throws imaginable - you had the notion to pause between gear changes... so like you all said, to prevent wear - its probably more about technique.
Has anyone had experience with the 997 GT3 kit? Is it actually any shorter of a throw?
what do you guys think would be better, a 996 with a b&m ssk, or a 996 with a 997 shift console? they're both about the same price, with the 997 console actually being a little cheaper
What do you mean? I thought you need to give a millisecond or so between shifts to allow the syncros to "catch up"... or something like that (that sounds more technical).
If you ever want to learn how to treat a manual trans, drive a Muncie 4spd for about 10 years like I did and you will truly understand how a manual shifts....
You could hear the syncros whine if you were forcing them to the next gear. I also noticed on Borg-Warner T-5's, the same noise was noticeable.
The feedback from the notchiness and whine would let you know how to approach the next gear.
Finding the sweet spot (where the shifters falls into the next gear easily) will help ensure the syncros are never worked excessively IMO
I think this technique was told to people to make sure they would not ram the next gear.
If you pause in the neutral position, the syncros are doing nothing. Once you start to engage the next gear, the slider hub kind of wedges the syncro. The syncro has the same teeth that the gear has along with a tapered edge to guide the hub to engage the gear.
I think '99 means if you pause, you are doing nothing productive to get to the next gear, I guess?
I used to have a CDL and drove some trucks you had to double clutch etc....
But I still shifted, not with a pause per se between gears, but certainly with a 2 step action instead of a straight pull from gear to gear.
How are you all defining "ram" or "throw" ?
Oh gawd, you should really know how to shift manuals, big trucks do not have syncros to best of my knowledge.
I would just say my definition of ramming is forcing or crowding the next gear.
Hey, pass that along, wilya.
I learned to drive on a WW2 weapons carrier. Talk about long throw, no synchro. To get it into 1st gear, you had to be at a dead stop, then lean into that lever with your full weight (I was 12), listen to the groaning gears as they tried to mesh, until you heard and felt a thud as the gears drove home. Other gears you can double clutch to kinda sync the gears, but first gear was always a noisy manuever. That's in high gear 2WD. Try low gear 4 wheel drive for more fun
.
How about that for dating oneself?
Ok, ok - after driving a little bit and actually paying attention to shifting... I think I may have over-emphasized the pause between shifts... I suppose it is a straight pull back. And truth be told, you get used to the longer throw... so maybe I want a reduction not as extreme as the B&M... gt3 or gt3 rs shifter assembly??
