I am, definitely all new components including the crossmember but as far as whether or no I got the stiffer version, I cant remember.

Yes, you should have added oil to the shifter housing.

ok cool. Yeah who knows... i may end up right there with you. We'll see. My guess is that since I'm not driving the car every day, even if it does wind up vibing more than i remember I won't be bothered.


Shoot.. it looked like it had enough in it. Looks like I'm making a trip to buy gear oil today then. Luckily its not hard to take apart all of that.

It doesn't need to be overflowing, there just needs to be some in there. . I assumed that with the cars age it would have been dry

agreed. According to mazdatrix it wasn't quite full enough but there was still a decent amount in there it seemed. The stock shifter didnt really feel notchy at all but it was like a floppy sausage. Now the new shifter is obviously nice and tight but also pretty notchy. Do you think adding more fluid will help that?

May just be the feel of them, I have the same shifter in mine. . you have new upper and lower bushings matched with decreased leverage so it is definitely gonna feel different than what most 2nd gen owners are used to which is a floppy sausage lol

Actually, Mazda does not fill the shifter extension housing with any fluid from the factory...
So, all stock cars which have never had the transmission serviced should be dry.

IIRC, even the FSM does not instruct you to do so?

Most of us do - it doesn't hurt anything.
One negative is that if you DON'T have good shift boot covers (all THREE of them! - well, at least the most expensive, inner one with the metal flange), it's going to make a mess!


-Ted

Good to know Ted! Luckily before I ordered the short shifter (which comes with the inner boot) I checked the condition of the other boots as well. They were gone. So I now have all new boots down there :)

Very interesting. . . I thought I had read somewhere (don't remember where though) that it needs oil poured in it. Good to know, thanks.

Just checked my old Haynes manual I use (I knew I wasn't making this up lol) and found that instruction. .
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/...57e43360_k.jpg

Haynes?
What's that?
:D


-Ted

:rofl: I'm not sure if impressed or embarrassed that I have a somewhat impressed that I have parts of the fsm of all three gens memorized

Im impressed for you?:ugh2:

So i just got to thinking... I'm making a parts list so i can keep track of the stuff i need/want. Since the GTUs has the turbo suspension components wouldn't that mean that id need to buy Coilovers and such for the turbo car? Or does are the mounting points the same for turbo and non turbo cars?

Same.

Sweet. Thank. You. Brian.

Yep, as TTT said, it's the same...
In fact, the base models had the "special" suspension and brakes.

GXL is the "loaded" model, and the turbo (i.e. Turbo II) is a GXL + turbo engine.

The 1998 "GTU" + 1989 / 1990 "GTUs" are just GXL models minus all the heavy (i.e. powered) shit and some special features (i.e. no sunroof, but amazingly there are some that did come with sunroof).
The 1986(?) and 1987 has a "Sport" model available, and this was a precursor to the 1988 "GTU."

The brakes are standard across the board with the exception of the base models; this is for the 4-pot fronts with vented disc and 2-pot rears with vented disc.
This big brake or heavy-duty brake package were on all GXL, turbo, and convertible models + the abovementioned 1988 "GTU" and 1989 / 1990 "GTUs" models.

Brakes on base models - 1986 / 1987 "base" + 1988 "SE" - had the 2-pot(?) front with vented disc and single-pot rear with NON-vented disc; these were obvious due to the 4-lug wheel lug pattern.
In 1989 - 1991 base models, all FC's were 5-lug wheel lug pattern, but the base models had different brake calipers and discs.
(Forgot some of the specifics here...)

Let's see how long before the corrections come flying in... :D


-Ted