tbear853

Seeing as .... the linkage is largely inside the transmission & that only one square link connects to the shifter end & that the shifter is a stick in a ball in a socket which simply locates gates and travel as determined by the transmission & that the rear of the shifter is simply held up against the floor & that the shifter mount is free to rotate with torque reaction & that these shifters just change ratio of stick above the ball versus stick below the ball thus changing travel and width of gates felt by driver ....
.... I am curious.

How is a MGW superior?
I mean, what is it that it does better and why?

I ask because I have a Hurst Billet, I found the Hurst stick a tad too short and it had my elbow hitting console cover .... but there are other sticks available and being a bolt on stick .... it is even easy to extend (which I describe in another posts) which increases travel slightly & lowers effort & widens gates very slightly .... and I find it suits me better.
But from my investigations before purchase, MGW would have likewise had me extending shifter length slightly.

WJBertrand

If you look at the OEM shifter (no familiarity with the Hurst one), the lower part is supported at the rear by a large squishy rubber block and the guides for the shift rod are pretty thin and flimsy. I would think that any shifter that does not also replace the lower part (and the rear bracket) would remain pretty rubbery and imprecise. To me the MGW feels much more precise and rigid than OEM. This increase in precision and rigidity seems to be what's needed to prevent missing gates (lockout) when shifting in practice. The shorter throw is / was a lot less important to me.

I noticed some of the aftermarket shifters still rely on the lower OEM box with the flimsy guides.