Stock & Super Stock 4-speeds

[Jim Caughlin]

You need to look at the inside of a GF5R side by side with a Doug Nash before you conclude that they are in any way the same transmission. Just because they look the same from the outside doesn't mean much. My old Doug Nash broke on regular intervals, the GF5R is indestructible.

Jim Caughlin
SS6019

[joespanova]

Originally Posted by Jim Caughlin

You need to look at the inside of a GF5R side by side with a Doug Nash before you conclude that they are in any way the same transmission. Just because they look the same from the outside doesn't mean much. My old Doug Nash broke on regular intervals, the GF5R is indestructible.

Jim Caughlin
SS6019

I dont know WHAT you were doing with the Nash , but I run one and its a damn good trans...........faceplated.
They are the same , albeit for the upgrades to Nash's design........and yes , I've looked at them all. It was easy for G Force and Liberty to make the upgrades to a proven design. They can call them whatever they want.......to me they're all a Nash

[Jim Caughlin]

The biggest improvement between the Nash and GForce was the internal rail shift mechanism that makes it impossible for two gears to engage at once (which happened to me once). The Long shifters have been a big improvement over some of the older stuff also. Since the '80's, I've advanced from a Nash (non face plate type) to a G&G (which was the trans that evolved into the G Force) to a G Force clutch assisted to a G Force clutchless. Each one of these evolutions was a significant improvement both in performance and reduced maint issues. I'm not at all bashing the Nash, transmissions wouldn't be where they are today if that design didn't exist. The thing I don't like about the clutchless designs is that they are a pain to drive around in the pits. You have to strong am the shifter to keep it from popping out of gear, then you have to come to a full stop to reengage it. Really sucks when someone is right behind you trying to figure out why you're holding him up.

[Jim Caughlin]

As long as we are on the subject of obscure racing transmission history. The whole face plate and clutchless technology (which was a huge improvement over the old dog teeth that were constantly wearing out and burring over) was first being experimented on in the 70's in what was called the Phalanx Coupler. I don't recall the name of the guy that designed and built this but he retrofitted a Toploader to a clutchless design with an early faceplate design. The parts were too small and weak to survive for an extended period but the concept is what we are still using today. Actually, I think there were motorcycle transmissions that had the design earlier than this but the Phalanx unit was the earliest version that I know of that integrated it into a full blown automotive race transmission. Does anyone have any further history on this?

Jim Caughlin
SS 6019

[Mark Ugrich]

Jim, At one time I actually had an order form/tech sheet from them.I rememember they recommened using a Thunderbird driveshaft because it had a rubber dampner in it to reduce driveline shock.

[Run to Rund]

I remember that there was a magazine article on the Phalanx conversion for the top loader back in the 1970s, probably in SS&DI.

[Rory McNeil]

Originally Posted by Run to Rund

I remember that there was a magazine article on the Phalanx conversion for the top loader back in the 1970s, probably in SS&DI.

I had the magazine as well, I bielieve they were called "Phalenx Star Couplers", or something like that. Based upon a motorcycle design. Certainly a big improvement over the old style "crash box" or "Pro Shift" versions, and much, much less maintanance required.