Which one is best and what cars had which when they were new? (Hopefully that's not a daft noob question )

Oh, and why is one better than the other?

I think the side shift was introduced in 73'
The tail shift linkage has a longer way to go to get to the "tail" of the transmission, therefore more linkage = slopier shifting. Even though the side shift isnt all that great anyways. IMO

My Tailshifter with all new bushings shifts nicer than my sideshifter ever did. This usually is not the case. Although get one of the Honda guys and I bet he can't shift either.

I have a 74 1.8 (well.. actually my wife has it) that shifts like a new car. I rebulit the shifter, and replaced all the bushings in the linkage. Then I spent a few hours carefully adjusting it. Now you can put it in first, and with the palm of your hand push the gear lever and it drops into second. From second to third is a two finger pull, and from third to fourth is a push forward at a 45 degree angle.

My car needs the syncros replaced in the tranny, but it shifts well too. Just not quite as well.


The tail shifters can shift well, if they are repaired and properly adjusted.


The one thing everyone forgets is that the shifter has a reverse lockout plate and a nylon bushing in it too. If they are worn, all the new bushings and linkage adjustments will not solve the sloppy shifting problems.

It also depends on wether we are talking -6 tailshift vs -4 tailshift since the linkage is different.

I refreshed my -6 linkage and added a RennShifter and I have been very happy, but I still can't help wonder...would a sideshift be better?

Transmissions used as you asked.
Tailshifter 1970, 1971, 1972
Side Shifter 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976

Have had both types and some worked well and others didn't.
Doing proper scheduled maintenance will make both slick shifting. Sadly, that is not the norm until it gets out of hand and then completely worn out bushings are replaced. The neglect creates a price. The shifter linkage maintance determines tranny internal conditions of correct and smooth movements. Over the years all have suffered no matter which of the 2 is considered best since most use the 914 creed, don't fix until it's broke.
No question is daft noob althought some asked questions many, many years ago and they still don't know you have to use maintanence to prevent total fatigue on moving and related parts.

Cooley
Tennessee, USA

No question the side shift as the length of the shift linkage is reduced. However the best shifting 914 is the sportomatic six cylinder! Only four speeds to shift through and no clutch!

Clay hit it right on the head. Most people neglect the bushings inside the shifter. All things considered, though, I have rebuilt both and been impressed with how well a tail shifter can be made to shift. PROPERLY rebuilt, you would find it hard to tell the difference if all fo the external parts were spot on. The tail has its inherrent shaft lenght which will magnefy any anomally sooner and more egregiously so it tends to get a bad wrap. The side shift can be neglected longer typically before it gets as bad

Mike.... Them is some big ass words.....

Me thinks that school shit is getting you more smarter than before...kinda..

C

Ok, so can anyone elaborate on "rebuilding the shifter"?

I've got a side shift, replaced bushings and made a good difference, but shifting is still a little sloppy.
How much is to be gained when replacing the shift coupler bushings? I didn't replace those.

How hard is it to replace the bushing in the shifter? And lock out plate? Where can you get the bushing?

Thanks I'm used to VW vans and the differences between the shift mechanism on them and it looks like the issues are similar

Clayton, dont worry, I probably still misspelt most of them

Hammy, That would be a good topic for a new thread where folks with pics might find it. I do not have any pics, unfortunately.