I've had the cravenspeed ssk for a few months now -
since having it installed I've kept it at the lowest setting. Here are some things I've noticed about it. First, I'll make this disclaimer - I haven't driven any other Cooper S cars with other SSK's - so my comparisons are relevant to other cars I've owned (VW, BMW, Porsche) with SSK's and other car's I've driven (Honda) with SSK's.

1. Over time the adjusting nut comes loose and the SSK will come loose and slip between the lowest and highest setting. (a really frustrating thing if you're actually trying to fly thru the gears and the shift lever is slipping up and down!) Anyone had this problem?

2. Initially, it was a welcome difference from stock. I enjoyed the lower sitting position of the shifter altogether and the "perceived" short throw. Over time, I've started to notice that it really doesn't provide a short throw. Ok, before I get criticism, I'll concede that it has reduced the distance between progressive gears but it really is minimal (again, my comparision to other well made SSK's - namely the Porsche and Honda - in my VW the B&M wasn't too impressive and in my BMW the SSK still had a rubbery feel to it).

What I notice more than ever is that it just increased the resistance to go from gear to gear (the "perceived" notion of short throw). Some call this notchy. Having driven the Honda s2000, which has a brilliant stock SSK that is short, tight (which really translates into what really is true notchiness) and effortless (yes you can have notchy with little effort) - i feel that I can make that statement accurately. When I upgraded the shifter in my P987, the throw became noticeably reduced, stiffer (both from gear to gear, but also in horizontal play in neutral and side-to-side play when in gear). This isn't the case with the Cravenspeed. There's still a ton of play when in gear and when in neutral.

Additionally, there is a large amount of effort required to actually engage the gear. Coupled with a small difference in the actually throw difference between stock, I actually have the "perceived" notion that shift time is now likely increased in my MCS. Anyone noticed this as well? This definitely wasnt the case in the Porsche or the Honda. My VW wasn't really a performance car, just a car that I added a lot of performance crap to make it more fun to drive. The BMW had the factory SSK and although better than stock non-SSK, it still felt like it was made with a rubber band.

I've actually wondered if upgrading the clutch to a higher performance clutch would help in terms of quicker shifting. I'm sure you've all noticed that there is a nice little delay when you depress the clutch and the RPM's actually drop or when you rev the engine and how long it takes for the RPMS to drop. Although an upgraded clutch is on my list of future upgrades (especially if I upgrade the pulley and pursue Jan's ecu tuning), it seems a little extreme and costly as a modification to help achieve improved shifting from my SSK.

When I bought the Cravenspeed I was actually on the verge of buying the Helix adaptor instead, just to save money. I'm starting to wonder if I should have gone the cheaper route. However, I like the lower position of the Cravenspeed.

So, now for your comments -
1. Anyone done anything with their Cravenspeed to improve the overall shift experience?
2. I've heard that the B&M feels better b/c it replaces the plastic bushings with metal. Anyone replaced these with their Craven or actually made the direct comparison between B&M and Cravenspeed?
3. Any other comments are welcome.

 

I've had the Craven Speed short shifter for over a year now. I love it ! I haven't had any of the problems you've expressed but, I don't have mine set to the lowest position as you do. For me, that would just be too low, too hard to reach and too hard to shift as you've found out !

The adjustment nut has never come loose on mine. I've moved mine up and down a few times and have never had a problem. Having your shifter adjusted to it's lowest position is going to make it harder to shift, it's just a matter of physics. Having the shifter REALLY LOW might look cool to you but it won't make it quicker to find a gear. You were most likely correct in thinking you increased the amount of time to shift.

I believe if your going to make comparisons, you should compare short shifters that are made for Mini's rather then short shifters made for VW, BMW, Porsche and Honda (apples and oranges). Take a drive with someone that has another brand of SS in a Mini and feel how that brand works under the same conditions.

If you want your shifter to feel better than it does now, Raise it up to a level that isn't to difficult for you to push into gear. Tighten down the lock nut (softly) with a pair of pliers. If this doesn't work for you, than sell it and buy another brand but before you do, make sure you try that brand before you buy it. You might find that other brands have the same problems as you've got with the Craven speed !

 

putting the shifter at the lowest setting was more about feel for me - the stock or highest position seems so tall - but i guess i'm gonna need to play around with it.

i agree with your statement about comparisons (apples to oranges) - which is why i prefaced my thread by stating i've not driven other cooper s models with ssk, just other makes. however, not matter what car you drive, a good ssk should have similarities b/c after all (as you put it) - physics is physics, levers are levers and distance and force is....ya you guessed it! yet, each car would have it's subtle feel, though which i appreciate (which explains the beautiful feel of the s2000 ssk - but confounds me as to why other moderate priced sport cars dont follow suit and build a similar stock ssk for their vehicles)

anyone with the b&m or the alta who can pipe in here?

anyone who's at least driven or owned the s2000 and can comment on their MCS ssk vs Honda's?

 

IMHO, your complaints are more or less inherent in the transmission feel of the MINI and especially the S. We have an '03 MCS and a '07 MCc. Both have Helix SSKs. The MCS feels much 'notchier' and requires more effort than the MC. My daily driver is neither of them (stock '03 TDI) so when I drive them, the difference in feel compared to previous cars I've driven is noticeable and takes some getting used to for me.

Of course, for my g/f who drives the MCS daily (the MCc is our w/e toy) the feel doesn't both her since she's used to them.

The Helix SSK doesn't lower the shift **** (which I like), but the difference in fore-aft throw distance is pretty dramatic.

 

The Honda S2000 and the Miata are two of the best shifters out there (that I've had the pleasure of handling) hands down ! Why can't they all be that smooth ? The Mini pales in comparison but it is what it is . I remember meeting one of my club members sporting an Alta shifter with his adjusted "ALL" the way down, It looked so cool ! much like the Miata (deep in the well) but, It was SO hard to push into gear ! I just don't think the design of our shifters allows the lever to be that low and shift well. I found a happy medium and for me it works visually as well as performance wise. I'm not real sure if these pictures give you a great visual of where my shifter is but, I've found it to be perfect for me ! You can see the drop a little better with a shot taken last year when I had a Craven speed shift well cover but you get the idea !

 

sweet - thanks for sharing the pix! i completely agree about the honda (and it's been a long long time since i drove a miata) - yeah, really why can't everything be sooooo smooth and perfect! i almost bought an s2000 in 2006 right before i bought my P987. the honda would have left the dealership with me, but oddly enough you can't disable the passenger air bag (in the porsche you can). 2 small kids who would've hated me if they couldn't ride in daddy's car!

i'll adjust my craven and then add some more input later.

ianF - thanx for your input - i've heard (and would imagine given the design) that the helix really dramatically reduces throw, but increases effort (again, which i think negates the true idea of a ssk - since the incr effort translates into incr throw times albeit decr distance)

 

I can't imagine the Craven or B&M or any of the "arm-replacement" type SSK's having less effort than the Helix simply due the change in leverage. The Craven lengthens the bottom section while reducing the top side (or just reducing the top length), reducing the throw, but reducing the leverage as well, whereas the Helix lengthens the bottom a lot while leaving the top alone (IIRC, Moss sells a similar extension, but not quite as long), thus reducing the throw while still providing some leverage.

Not saying I really like it... and I've installed 6 of the things... And so far, the only car I might consider it an improvement on is with the Getrag 5spd equipped Cooper. Even then, not by a lot... and I'm still thankful to get back into the VW. I drove trucks for years (and still have a Dodge Cummins 5spd), so longish throws don't bother me too much. I guess the difference is I tend to shift the VW very quickly (while supposedly not good for the syncros, at 156K, the tranny still doesn't grind) and I find shifting in the MINI to be tediously slow because of how notchy it is. Adding the SSK in the MCS just made the notchiness worse.

Or to put it another way, if you're like me and don't like how the MINI shifter feels in the first place, then installing any SSK may make it feel worse. I have yet to feel any SSK that has made me want to whip out the c-card and replace the Helix. If anything, I would keep the Helix and get an "onasled extension" to bring the **** closer to the steering wheel.