Third gear grind is back

[Mike Schofield]

My friend owns a mondial and I can attest to the second gear woes....my X also has a dodgy third gear. If I’m very deliberate with timing and force then she’ll glide in but most of the time, it’s a grind. Because these cars are so nimble and the revs are quick there’s a tendency to want to shift fast. In my experience anyway.

 

[myronx19]

I hope to have these bits back into a transmission in 2019 - I found a Fiat Strada transmission and will use that diff for my turbo build. I hope it lives a long life!

 

[Dr.Jeff]

I thought I was OCD about my workplace.
Remind me the advantage of using a Strada diff? Gear ratio, limited slip, or ??

 

[ianlawson]

IMO, Borg Warner synchro design is better than the Porsche synchro design.

Totally agree with you there, Bernice! BW gearboxes, used "sensibly" will last as long as the best on the gearbox market! What kills them early in life is "the NUT behind the wheel!!"

cheers, IanL - NZ

 

[Rupunzell]

Syncros in the Porsche G50 gear box are these syncros:

Where they live:

Easily found via google search for Porsche G50..

Saab transaxle uses Borg Warner Syncros, ones in the 91' 9000 turbo is approaching 250,000 miles, syncros are still OK.
Two finger shifting, no forcing into gears..


Bernice

Totally agree with you there, Bernice! BW gearboxes, used "sensibly" will last as long as the best on the gearbox market! What kills them early in life is "the NUT behind the wheel!!"

cheers, IanL - NZ

 

[myronx19]

I thought I was OCD about my workplace.
Remind me the advantage of using a Strada diff? Gear ratio, limited slip, or ??

LOL! hehe.. it's usually a mess! I took a pic to remind me that it should be clean

BTW: The Strada diff is a 3.59:1 ratio, making a bit taller - better for the turbo for a few reasons, and makes the boost a little more useable (1st won't be super short for example). Makes it similar to the Uno Turbo ratios (kinda sorta).


BTW - the Uno Turbo Mk1 box uses the same type of syncros as the X1/9 - everyone says that the UnoT Mk1 box is "stronger". I beg to differ. The big difference is that the box uses needle bearings for the gears, not bushings. Otherwise, it's mostly the same gearbox.

 

[myronx19]

Syncros in the Porsche G50 gear box are these syncros

One thing that is different is that the X1/9 doesn't use Baulk Rings/Pre syncrhonizers as the Porsche does (blocker rings, in this vid they're cone syncros). I don't know how much better these make it, but pretty much every gearbox uses them from what I've seen - after watching the vid, oh yes.. it's better

Here's a nifty vid - pre synchronization! (the yellow teeth)

Some reading material:

https://www.hoerbiger.com/upload/file/2013_basicsofsynchronizers.pdf

Which got me to thinking... gear lightening. I've noticed that Alfisti lighten their gears (I guess some Alfas used syncros without any pre-synchronizer rings). - I guess this would reduce the rotational inertia, and help slow down/synchronize the slider.. mind you, 3rd and 4th aren't very large gears, so I'm not even sure that it's practical to do so.

https://www.lesliewong.us/tag/lightening/


2 finger shifts is in my future.. maybe 3.

 

[Rupunzell]

"1st or 2nd gear syncro ring. This is Fiat's variation of the Borg Warner syncro introduced in 1967. Basically the Borg Warner syncro design (circa 1930's) inverted. For those who are curious about this syncro design, here is a link for more info."

https://xwebforums.com/forum/index....saxle-part-three-gear-sets.26322/#post-219177
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lower weight gears and rotating parts IS one significant way to improve performance, shifting and accelerating and more.
For items that wanna have the ability to have high rates of change, lower weight is better.


Bernice

One thing that is different is that the X1/9 doesn't use Baulk Rings/Pre syncrhonizers as the Porsche does (blocker rings, in this vid they're cone syncros). I don't know how much better these make it, but pretty much every gearbox uses them from what I've seen - after watching the vid, oh yes.. it's better

Some reading material:

https://www.hoerbiger.com/upload/file/2013_basicsofsynchronizers.pdf

Which got me to thinking... gear lightening. I've noticed that Alfisti lighten their gears (I guess some Alfas used syncros without any pre-synchronizer rings). - I guess this would reduce the rotational inertia, and help slow down/synchronize the slider.. mind you, 3rd and 4th aren't very large gears, so I'm not even sure that it's practical to do so.

https://www.lesliewong.us/tag/lightening/


2 finger shifts is in my future.. maybe 3.

 

[Steve Hoelscher]

I tend to agree, and with the X I can't quite put my finger on it. Possibly it was its lack of power and low torque, but 1st gear is incredibly short, and you're doing 3,500 rpm after about 10 feet! Personally I believe it is to compensate for the weight of the X (as for a small car it's actually quite heavy) and low hp, so the only way to get it moving off the mark is with a low ratio and to use the revs. That being the case, changes from 1st to 2nd needed to be quite rapid to keep the X in that high rev band otherwise you lost momentum. This I believe is a major contributor to the 2nd gear failure. I also tend to find I end up driving in 3rd most the time round town in the 30-40mph range as the X really struggles under 3000 rpm.
I think the only real way to save an X Box (not the Bill Gates One) is to give up on any aspirations of getting briskly off the mark, and just be happy buzzing around once you're up to speed.

The late version of the 5 speed has a shorter 1st gear than any other X transmission.

And you are completely off base on the cause of 2nd gear issues. There are only two issues with 2nd gear; poor metallurgy on the synchro hub causing the hub to wear out instead of the synchro and poor quality aftermarket synchros. The 1-2 shift should be flawless if the gearbox is healthy and it has the correct lubricant in it.

The OE synchros were of good quality in both materials and manufacturing. The problem is the Porsche design is deficient. The blocker ring design on 1st and 2nd is by far a superior design. The Porsche type synchros wear quickly and result in lots of expensive parts needing to be replaced to return the unit to proper operation.

 

[Eugene Harvey]

And you are completely off base on the cause of 2nd gear issues

This where we will have to agree to disagree. My argument is that entire design of the X Box (and mine is a late model 5spd with ridiculously short 1st ) is so flawed it predisposes itself to wear. The X1/9 is cursed with probably the 2nd worst Italian shifter linkages in history, and I am fortunate enough to own the worst, the Alfa Romeo GTV6. Both are rear mounted boxes where the linkage is so vague and indirect that changes need to be unhurried and direct. Each time time I take the X1/9 out I play my usual game of "now where did you hide reverse today?" , and it's not just me, reverse is usually the first gear in the X Box to pack its bags and leave.
I've had many cars, old and new, and none have a reputation for failure like the X1/9. You are right, good boxes don't fail, but there are many contributing factors to why the X is so crap, and I don't believe it is just components, as a lack of low end torque requires high revs to compensate, and an indirect and vague linkage requiring a specific driving style all contribute.
That there are so many posts on this forum on gearbox failure is no coincidence, and all are enthusiasts who know how to drive, but for many who are restoring, the damage was done many years before they found their X, probably by the first owner that wanted a cool little cheap sports car to run around in, back in a time when, if driven hard, it was spritely and competitive, when hulking SUV's and any Japanese Hot Hatch couldn't do 0-62 in 7 seconds.

 

[Dr.Jeff]

I won't take sides. And hopefully this discussion does not lead to a "flame war". But I will disagree with this earlier comment:

The problem is the Porsche design is deficient.

Possibly the Fiat version of the Porsche design is deficient? But in my opinion the Porsche design itself certainly is not deficient; as noted in my earlier comments about heavily abusing Porsche gearboxes in off-road race vehicles for decades without failures.

the linkage is so vague and indirect that changes need to be unhurried and direct

On other old foreign cars, the shift linkage tends to become vague once the varied bushings and other serviceable "wear" components become loose. Replacement of those items brings it back to precise and direct. I have not tried replacing any of the components on a X1/9 shift linkage system. I don't believe there are very many serviceable wear items on it? But I've read several comments on the forum where others have tried replacing everything they could, with no improvement. This tends to make me think it was rather vague from day one. Maybe some of the original owners can offer opinions on that. I'll also add that in my opinion, somewhat vague shifting was not uncommon on older imports in general. So I don't really expect much from it in this example.

Again, no intention of feeding any fires here.

 

[Eugene Harvey]

This tends to make me think it was rather vague from day one.

Yep. My current 89 X has only 17,000 original miles on the clock, my donor 89 I got at around 35,000 and my first ever 1980 X that I brought in my early 20's would have had only 30,000 at most, and all had/have the same characteristics. I sold my 80 with around 75,000 miles and reverse had started going AWOL. There are no issues with any of the gears on 89's, but I am no longer in my 20's and looking to preserve the boxes.
The GTV6 is also low milage (65,000km) and all gears are fine, just the linkage is very vague and almost every review on the GTV6 in the day lambasted the vague and indirect changes, recommending driving more as a Grande Tourer than a Sports Car. But they are just both such beautiful designs you're happy to put up with it. Otherwise buy a Miata.

outtake from GTV6 Review

"The creamy V6 and striking coachwork masked an unusual transaxle layout – the GTV and its four-door Alfetta sibling were among the rare cars that use such a set-up, despite the motor and driven wheels being at opposite ends of the car. This quirk established an unconventional way of separating the wheat from the chaff; an unfamiliar pilot would soon draw a crunch from the gearbox which would only be drowned out by the laughter of onlookers. Only those who knew the car were aware that second gear had to be engaged before first – the GTV was a car that needed to be conquered, in the character of a true Italian sports car."

and another

"The weakest link to these cars is the gear box. Terrible thing it is. Be patient changing gears, slowness and vagueness is normal, but a crunchy 2nd gear means gearbox replacement time."

In short, gear shift and box is rubbish. And yes, these are GTV6 reviews (as the X1/9 did not demand the same attention) but the driving dynamics are similar.

 

[Steve Hoelscher]

This where we will have to agree to disagree.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. I have probably rebuilt more X1/9 transmissions than anybody else in the history of the car. I understand their failures. I have also raced the cars for more than two decades. I have beat on 2nd gear as much or more than anybody I know. Aside from the two issues I cited above, 2nd gear doesn't often break.

I have also built a range of transmissions, from Chevy pickups (the dreaded Getrag 5 speed) to Porsche GT3s. And that rear mounted Alfa transaxle. The biggest problem with the X1/9 transmission was it was designed to go in the front of an 1116cc economy sedan making about 50 HP. A 50% increase in HP and Tq, and moving it to the rear of a sports car over stessed the original design.

I also know the Porsche 901 as well. The early Porsche gearboxes required a sympathetic touch or you wore the synchros excessively.

 

[Eugene Harvey]

The biggest problem with the X1/9 transmission was it was designed to go in the front

Sorry, I need to clarify as we are basically agreeing, as by 'design of the X Box' I meant the entirety of its setup, with the layout (shifter to box) being a major contributing factor, the short gearing of 1st to 2nd, and even 2nd to 3rd I believe exacerbated the issues, and also led to the hard to find reverse. What I call the perfect storm, and why you've ended up rebuilding so many of them.

"My argument is that entire design of the X Box (and mine is a late model 5spd with ridiculously short 1st ) is so flawed it predisposes itself to wear."

 

[ianlawson]

...and also led to the hard to find reverse.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, the ONLY item I have to replace on the gearbox/linkage componentry on my '78 1300 X1/9 is the flexy "lollipop" which links the long gearshift rod to the gearbox selector shaft. It may be this item that is causing the "hard to find reverse" problem on your X?
I have owned my X for 19 years, and never had a problem with the gearbox internals at all! Oil changes at recommended intervals are par for the course!
Bearing in mind that my X is used mainly for "weekend cruising" , NEVER for "boy-racing" type activity, so the gearbox gets treated somewhat mildly!
Consequently, I am sort of surprised that you are somewhat critical of the X's gearbox durability.

cheers, IanL - NZ

 

[Cratecruncher]

I was under my transaxle recently (having an intervention with some elderly fuel lines, thanks for asking) and noticed the dust boot where the shift linkage exits the rear firewall had torn open. I checked the lollipop and it was pristine. As I started playing with the linkage I was a bit startled by how much free movement there is in the linkage at that point. I was able to move the linkage from side to side about an inch overall. There appears to be no linkage support at all within the console tunnel. I think if you want to cancel some of that vagueness this would be a great place to start. I would think a plate with a hard rubber or polyurethane bushing at the center might improve things and I plan to do some experimentation. That is, as soon as I get to the bottom of my "critical life-threatening repairs I must do" list.

 

[Steve Hoelscher]

Well, you kept using the word design. Aside from the Porsche synchros Its not so much the design as the application and metallurgy. And now, the poor quality of replacement parts.

 

[Eugene Harvey]

I too would have been dismissive of the many posts on gear box failures in this forum, if it didn't happen to me with my first X1/9 when I was in my early 20's, but the prevalence of failures, and some at relatively low milage is more than coincidence.
With my first X I probably fell into the 'Boy Racer' category as I did drive it hard, seeing 110 on my speedo more times than I should admit to, actually tearing the belts from the rubber in both rear Pirelli's, and when I traded it in, reverse was shot, constantly jumping out, and you had to be delicate with 3rd. I've had many cars, mainly Alfa's and driven them equally as hard, my 1990 Boxer Cloverleaf especially, and after 150,000km the box was just as precise, an old 87 spider no issue, the GTV6 had to be driven carefully much as I should have probably driven my first X1/9. But realistically a gearbox should outlast the 1st clutch and the 2nd, which means there is something in it.

 

[Dr.Jeff]

I was a bit startled by how much free movement there is in the linkage at that point.

I know what you mean, it does feel very sloppy. My '79 has the "solid" metal link rather than the rubber "lollipop" on my '85. But the play in the long shaft is the same. There does not seem to be very many replaceable "wear" components in the linkage; I know there is a plastic/rubber cup of sorts above/below the round ball at the selector pivot (below the shift handle), and I think one or two (?) plastic bushings around the same area? I'd have to look at it again to recall for sure. But other than at that end of things, there's nothing until the lollipop area that I know of.
If you were to add a support at the tail end of the long shaft, then I think you would also need to replace the lollipop with more of a "U-joint" to allow enough translation of movement in all axis.

 

[Cratecruncher]

My '79 has the "solid" metal link rather than the rubber "lollipop" on my '85. But the play in the long shaft is the same.
If you were to add a support at the tail end of the long shaft, then I think you would also need to replace the lollipop with more of a "U-joint" to allow enough translation of movement in all axis.

I remember that direct link on my '79 way back too. I think it was the only year for that design and frankly, if a lollipop ever delaminates you are screwed! There must have been a reason for them switching back to it though. My Pantera had a bushing with a grease fitting for the shifter shaft just before it entered the transmission. You just need forward, back, and a few degrees of rotation for a great shift. That floppy lateral stuff is what I think makes the shifting vague.