Transmission Modifications, Gearbox and Differential Ratio

[d333gs]

You're right, I was looking at the transmission ratio! http://www.oursl.com/research/data/old-data/data-350-450-380-560sl.htm
RE Sway Bars , yes they have heaver ones for the curves I suspect ......Are you happy with the gear change ? Why did you make the change? Not sure what Generation I am?
PS there seem to be a few versions of the 560, I believe there is a 300HP version for the SEC......Are these torkier?
John

 

[gerryvz]

As far as I remember, the 560SL was only produced for the US, Australian, and Japanese markets. I am assuming your car is a US-spec model, correct?

By Gen 1 and Gen 2 I was talking about the 126 chassis cars.

But.....107s had several generations as well during their 18-year model run. To "up" the rear end ratio, you will still need to transplant gears from a physically compatible model. There are plenty of 116 models (and I think perhaps earlier 450SL models?) that could provide higher gearing.

I have run the higher gearing for about 9 years now, and 60-65,000 miles and have been very happy with it. The main purpose was to provide a bit better "off the line" performance, at the expense of probably 7-8 MPH of top-end speed. At 80 MPH, the car runs 800 RPM higher than it did before the gear swap.

The 300 HP Euro "ECE" version of the 5.6-liter M117 is indeed significantly torquier than the 247HP version of this motor as found in all US models. The US spec 560SL was de-tuned somewhat from the US-spec 560SEL and 560SEC versions of the engine. The US-spec 560SL had 227 HP, where as the SEL and SECs had 238 HP. The SLs only had one air intake snorkel, whereas the sedan and coupe both had dual snorkels.

As found in the 126 chassis, here are four versions of the 5.6 M117 that I am aware of:

• US-spec version with catalytic converter
• European version with catalytic converter
• European version without catalytic converter, but "cat-ready" for bolt-in
• European version ECE without catalytic converter

However, there are physical differences between the version of the M117 as found in the 560SL and the M117 as found in the sedans that make direct transplantation impossible.

Furthermore, the ECE (300HP) versions of the M117 have different exhaust manifolds (the hard to find four-piece "tri-y" factory headers) that are specific to the R107 chassis and are physically different from the 126 versions of the tri-ys. These factory headers for the 107 would be basically IMPOSSIBLE to find in the US. I know of one brand-new set in Europe, but he would never consider selling them as he will be using them for a project of his own.

 

[Klink]

I think I will need a euro sway bar too vs the one on this US version

For your information: The USA 107.048 (560SL), and the ECE 107.046 (500SL) use the same front and rear torsion bars as of the 9-'85 "facelift".

 

[d333gs]

One that got away : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mercedes-...46rTah4ye4Khp57sMFA2s%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

 

[d333gs]

Thanks Klink , I am 86

 

[d333gs]

Gear ratios: I had a 66 mustang 289 HO when I was a kid and it burnt rubber with a light touch of the accelerator :"... HiPo cars received a 9 inch differential with gear ratios of either 3.89 or 4.11 to one.. " This setup was a lot of fun around town! http://www.mustang-s.com/years/1966/1966_mustang.htm.......... I will be looking for a bolt in solution for the SL

 

[Ascension]

Jono has a good point. If you spend a lot of time in the city from stoplight to stoplight, gears in the 3.06-3.27 range might be more fun. If you spend more time on the freeway at 75-90mph, the taller 2.24-2.65 gears can make more sense. Totally depends on your intended usage... of course the ideal would be a 722.6 which allows the best of both worlds, but alas, there is no simple swap for our old iron.

These tall gear ratios freak me out in these cars. I'm used to the other side like my Volvo V-90 with the 3.73 geared real locker not a freekin 2:26!!
What the heck is the 1st gear ration in the 722-3's on these cars WOW!!!
I broke a T-Top out on a 77 Trans-Am with a 2:43 one night on a 7000 RPM shift running a built SD 455 when I flexed the body so bad it popped the top. Those kind of gears are absolutely BRUTAL on transmissions and drive shafts as I also snapped a Turbo 350 input-shaft clean at the torque converter one night in that car and broke so many other things with drive shafts and transmissions I lost count with that tall gear ( car was built with the intent to run the REAL cannonball and topped above 180 MPH back in 1981 BTW)!!
With the rev happy M119 bet these cars would scream with a real gear under them! What about the wavetrac units aren't they a bolt in and lower geared? I'm kinda infatuated with the idea of a 420 sleeper with a real locker running a mid 3's gear and a 5.0 or 6.0 M119.
Is that not a feasible set up on the rear without breaking the bank?

 

[Ascension]

Gear ratios: I had a 66 mustang 289 HO when I was a kid and it burnt rubber with a light touch of the accelerator :"... HiPo cars received a 9 inch differential with gear ratios of either 3.89 or 4.11 to one.. " This setup was a lot of fun around town! http://www.mustang-s.com/years/1966/1966_mustang.htm.......... I will be looking for a bolt in solution for the SL

I understand as my first car I bought ( that's not counting the Studebaker R3 Super Hawk I got from my dad!!) was a Calypso corral 1970 boss 302 with a 3:90 gear.

 

[400Eric]

I get this a lot from folks [coughgsxrcough], even those folks who love these cars. Our 2.24s are NOT too tall! You need to think of those 2.24s as 3.23s with an overdrive.

Back in the day, a great street combination was a 340 mopar with a 727 torqueflite and 3.23 gears. This was how it was done, even in later years when the 340's compression ratio was lowered, it's torque rating went down to 290 pounds, and it was installed in the heavier B-bodies. The 340, contrary to published figures, actually produced it's peak torque at 3900 RPM, just like our 4.2s do http://www.stockmopar.com/340-mopar-engine.html. The overall first gear ratio of that combo was 7.91 . Even if you ordered an optional 3.55 rear, you still only ended up with a 8.70 overall first gear ratio. Our overall first gear ratio is 8.67! Virtually the same as the 3.55 geared Mopar! And get this: our overall ratio in third gear is 3.23 ! That's exactly why I say you need to view these 2.24s as a 3.23 with an overdrive. Our 3.87 first gear ratio is what makes the difference. If we had lower rear gears, we'd be getting poor fuel economy like the E500E guys get, and like you get with your Volvo!

You yourself have admitted repeatedly that you are not happy with the fuel economy you are getting from your V90. Maybe you'd get some better fuel economy from your V90 if it had some taller gears! Tall gears are your friends!

Before I blew my trans in my 400E, I ran a 14.200 in the quarter mile, got over 21 MPG in mixed driving with a VERY heavy foot (and a full load of passengers and luggage), and passed California's tough emissions testing with lots of room to spare. I LOVE my 2.24s!

Regards,
Eric

 

[Ascension]

I get this a lot from folks [coughgsxrcough], even those folks who love these cars. Our 2.24s are NOT too tall! You need to think of those 2.24s as 3.23s with an overdrive.

Back in the day, a great street combination was a 340 mopar with a 727 torqueflite and 3.23 gears. This was how it was done, even in later years when the 340's compression ratio was lowered, it's torque rating went down to 290 pounds, and it was installed in the heavier B-bodies. The 340, contrary to published figures, actually produced it's peak torque at 3900 RPM, just like our 4.2s do http://www.stockmopar.com/340-mopar-engine.html. The overall first gear ratio of that combo was 7.91 . Even if you ordered an optional 3.55 rear, you still only ended up with a 8.70 overall first gear ratio. Our overall first gear ratio is 8.67! Virtually the same as the 3.55 geared Mopar! And get this: our overall ratio in third gear is 3.23 ! That's exactly why I say you need to view these 2.24s as a 3.23 with an overdrive. Our 3.87 first gear ratio is what makes the difference. If we had lower rear gears, we'd be getting poor fuel economy like the E500E guys get, and like you get with your Volvo!

You yourself have admitted repeatedly that you are not happy with the fuel economy you are getting from your V90. Maybe you'd get some better fuel economy from your V90 if it had some taller gears! Tall gears are your friends!

Before I blew my trans in my 400E, I ran a 14.200 in the quarter mile, got over 21 MPG in mixed driving with a VERY heavy foot (and a full load of passengers and luggage), and passed California's tough emissions testing with lots of room to spare. I LOVE my 2.24s!

Regards,
Eric

One BIG issue with tall gears is with a lot of HP it puts an incredible amount of strain on your transmission and drive shaft as well as serious twisting forces with the vehicles body. Not a real factor with the power levels of these M119's but was a nightmare with the big SD Pontiac that was pounding out 550 + on HP and well over 600 ft lbs just on the 9 to 1 motor not counting spray. I almost ripped that old Firebird in half before I tied the sub-frames and broke direct drums snapped input shafts and tore hunks out of clutch disks with that much power and those gears. Keep in mind we are talking a 4000 lb car that would fall on it's face and not leave hard but still ran mid 13's on the motor at 115 MPH on the big end ( Cops got it on radar at 169 MPH one night ( long story) and it had more saw it pull almost 2000 RPM more on the Tac so---). My milder motored 1972 455-HO GTO on the other hand ran mid 11's with slicks no spray and a 3.90 in that 12 bolt.
The lower gears are more responsive in normal driving but the tall gears are for the long distance runs with lower drive shaft speeds. These Mercs are specifically designed for long distance high speed runs on the Autobahn and the gearing with that design hurts performance in the short runs. You can OD the short gears in the trans and lower the RPM at cruse but still have the high shaft speeds and all the related harmonics and other factors to deal with on the long hauls I know because of building the bird with the intent on running the Cannonball.
Think of gearing on a bicycle and how hard it is to pump those pedals with a tall gear. All that additional force required to turn that tall rear end gear is now transferred to the drive shaft, center of the body and inside the transmission when you run a super tall gear in the rear then step it down in the trans.
With a 3.43 gear I would bet your E-400 with the right tune a set of headers no cats and true free flowing exhaust would be a street rocket!

 

[clarkz71]

The 2:24 axle ratio in the 034 sucks

At 150 mph the 4.2 is only turning 4600 rpm, 1000 rpm less then the 2:82 ratio 036 and well below redline

First chance I get I'm installing a 2:82 axle, the 034 is still capable of 150 to 155 with that ratio

 

[gsxr]

Y'all should install 2.82 diffs with a 722.6 overdrive transmissions (for 2.31 final drive in 5th gear) and quit your bellyachin' already.

 

[400Eric]

We'll wait till you do it.

 

[gsxr]

We'll wait till you do it.

Drat! I was hoping you would blaze that trail...

 

[400Eric]

I'd rather just buy a Benz that already has one. That's why I started talking about M119 powered W210s back in 2008.

 

[400Eric]

I just don't get all of this sniveling about the 2.24s. I've posted that video of my 034 taking on a modded 036 a dozen times, and I'm side by side with him all the way down the track. That's my 2.24 geared 4.2 running side by side with a 2.82 geared 5.0 all the way down the track. So I'm clearly doing fine with my 2.24s. Stop sniveling! Life could be worse!

 

[Stevester 500E]

400Eric,

But imagine the 722.6 in the .036, you might never go back to that w210, even if id keeps up with a 500e.
If I had the technical knowledge to do the swap, I would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[gsxr]

I just don't get all of this sniveling about the 2.24s. I've posted that video of my 034 taking on a modded 036 a dozen times, and I'm side by side with him all the way down the track. That's my 2.24 geared 4.2 running side by side with a 2.82 geared 5.0 all the way down the track. So I'm clearly doing fine with my 2.24s. Stop sniveling! Life could be worse!

What are you 60' times (average / best)? I consistently see my 034's running 2-3 tenths slower in the 60' compared to the 036, which is roughly what I'd expect for 2.24 vs 2.82...

 

[Klink]

I just don't get all of this sniveling about the 2.24s. I've posted that video of my 034 taking on a modded 036 a dozen times, and I'm side by side with him all the way down the track. That's my 2.24 geared 4.2 running side by side with a 2.82 geared 5.0 all the way down the track. So I'm clearly doing fine with my 2.24s. Stop sniveling! Life could be worse!

I just drove vatc5637's .036 fitted with a 2.24 and it seriously did not suck. I had thought about doing the same thing myself for years. It did also convince me of something that I had imagined might be true: for my personal taste it seems that the difference between the 2.82 and some of the other possibilities would not be enough of a change to be worth doing. So for me at least, the choice now is stay with stock or jump all the way to the 2.24.

 

[400Eric]

Dave, Steve,

A 722.6 would be nice, no question. But I think even Dave is on record as saying that until the cost and required effort of the swap comes down, the ROI just isn't worth it.

Dave, my 60s were in the 2.2-2.3 range. Again, look at the videos. Side by side, all the way down the track.

 

[clarkz71]

What are you 60' times (average / best)? I consistently see my 034's running 2-3 tenths slower in the 60' compared to the 036, which is roughly what I'd expect for 2.24 vs 2.82...

Agree 100%

I raced my GSXR 1100 at the track for years, as well as top end racing

Gear ratio is critical for the best 60' which has a huge affect on overall ET

 

[M104-AMG]

The 2:24 axle ratio in the 034 sucks

At 150 mph the 4.2 is only turning 4600 rpm, 1000 rpm less then the 2:82 ratio 036 and well below redline

First chance I get I'm installing a 2:82 axle, the 034 is still capable of 150 to 155 with that ratio

Why not a 2.65 ? FWIW, I believe Stu Ritter swapped in a 3.06 into his 400E, and the acceleration was wonderful . . .

neil

 

[clarkz71]

Oh sure, 2:65 is actually perfect all around

But I rarely go on the highway anymore, mostly around town stuff
But I'd be happy with either

 

[gsxr]

Gearing is highly subjective. Some people love their tall gears, others prefer the opposite. There's no "right" answer. Might as well start a blonde vs brunette vs redhead discussion, or - gasp - an oil thread.


For the 500E specifically, MB selected the gearing which offered the best compromise. The USA and Japan spec 034's received the super tall gears allegedly to sneak past gas guzzler import taxes, at least in USA (not sure about Japan), plus the MBNA target customer was different vs Europe. Which might have something to do with all the damned beige colors we got for paint & interior in the late 124's.

 

[clarkz71]

Which might have something to do with all the damned beige colors we got for paint & interior in the late 124's.

Exactly correct on the 034 US spec gearing

It was covered in MB training, it was specifically for the gas guzzler tax

On the interior colors, I sure you meant to say Mushroom....

 

[gerryvz]

an oil thread.

For the 500Eboard, the "ATF thread" is the new new oil thread.

 

[clarkz71]

For the 500Eboard, the "ATF thread" is the new new oil thread.

Isn't it though.......:clarkz2:

 

[Klink]

For the 500Eboard, the "ATF thread" is the new new oil thread.

Yep! And just as informative and "real world" useful!

 

[gerryvz]

Yep! And just as informative and "real world" useful!

I've been waiting for days now for Vader to provide me with the proper MB specifications for transfer case and differential lubricants for my 1995 G-wagen. The one that is sorely and woefully underpowered, you know.

 

[clarkz71]

PM me your VIN again

I forgot with my Clarkplug business

 

[gsxr]

Clarkplug!! I like it!!!

 

[gerryvz]

WHere have you been? I've been calling them clark plugs for weeks !!!

 

[clarkz71]

WHere have you been? I've been calling them clark plugs for weeks !!!

True, Honcho coined the term "clarkplug"

It is catchy.............

 

[gsxr]

WHere have you been? I've been calling them clark plugs for weeks !!!

The electrical item that makes the spark, yes.

I think referring to Vader hisself as a "Clarkplug" is new though!

 

[alabbasi]

Y'all should install 2.82 diffs with a 722.6 overdrive transmissions (for 2.31 final drive in 5th gear) and quit your bellyachin' already.

You'll like it, I had one for 10 years and even though I now have an E55, I really miss my 97 E420.

 

[gerryvz]

Vader, it was a nice attempt at a self-save by David....but not good enough.

Clark Plugs, Clark Vader, Colonel, Clank .... yep, I made up all the cool terms. :clarkz3:

 

[Ascension]

The 2:24 axle ratio in the 034 sucks

At 150 mph the 4.2 is only turning 4600 rpm, 1000 rpm less then the 2:82 ratio 036 and well below redline

First chance I get I'm installing a 2:82 axle, the 034 is still capable of 150 to 155 with that ratio

It would help with response in normal around town driving and drop a few tenths and that's a fact on any of these cars!
Yes you would loose a few MPG and some top end but IMO the gains on the other end would be worth it for a street car that is mostly driven around town or playing on the street red-light to red light.
My Green 420 will likely keep the 2:26 but at some point I might just pick up a second non ASR 400 or 420 to play with. I'm thinking something like a 3:43 locker would be fun if you could hook it.
Keep in mind I'm an old muscle car guy used to 4:11's or better.

 

[clarkz71]

Vader, it was a nice attempt at a self-save by David....but not good enough.

Clark Plugs, Clark Vader, Colonel, Clank .... yep, I made up all the cool terms. :clarkz3:

True again, Gerry has a knack for that.....:clarkz1:

 

[400Eric]

It would help with response in normal around town driving and drop a few tenths and that's a fact on any of these cars!
Yes you would loose a few MPG and some top end but IMO the gains on the other end would be worth it for a street car that is mostly driven around town or playing on the street red-light to red light.
My Green 420 will likely keep the 2:26 but at some point I might just pick up a second non ASR 400 or 420 to play with. I'm thinking something like a 3:43 locker would be fun if you could hook it.
Keep in mind I'm an old muscle car guy used to 4:11's or better.

This is my point. For a daily driver where fuel economy IS AN ISSUE, the 2.24s have a place and a purpose. And I have proven that one can be quick with them too. I mean seriously, uncorrected 14.2s-14.3s isn't good enough? That's what stock 92 036s run!

Now yes, for a week-end only toy, lower gears would be even quicker, provided you could still get the car to hook consistently. But I thought we were talking about daily drivers here.

Two months before we ran that 14.200, we got over 21 MPG on a trip with a VERY heavy foot, doing 85 MPH climbing grades on the El Cajon pass into the high desert, where we continued to drive at 85 MPH, with lots of WOT driving cause we were passing cars on a two lane road, then when we got back down into town, there was LOTS of stop and go driving because of high traffic, then more driving on surface streets. We were carrying 5 people and a full trunk. OVER 21 MPG! You will NOT be able to do that with 2.82s. You won't even be able to do that with 2.65s either.

2.24s HAVE A PLACE AND A PURPOSE. It's a well known fact that 4.2 powered W124s get fuel economy that is damn near as good as that attained by the 2.65 geared M104 HFM powered W124s. And they are light years quicker and faster than those M104s are as well. Short of having a trans with an overdrive, 2.24s give you the best of both worlds.

They are 2.24s BTW, not 2.26s.

And your 2nd gear ratio is 2.25, just for more confusion!

Regards,
Eric

 

[gsxr]

I haven't done any specific testing, but I am very suspicious that gearing changes will have a relatively small effect on freeway MPG numbers. I bet it is less than 10% loss when changing from 2.24 to either 2.65 or 2.82... meaning, less than 2mpg difference. Translating that into dollars, if you drive 10kmi per year and lose 10% economy at $4/gal fuel and 20mpg average... it will cost you ~$200 per YEAR to have the snappier acceleration. Is it worth it? You need to decide. Two Franklins is what, less than one pesky red light camera ticket?

If anyone has some good data to share on before/after MPG numbers on a W124 gearing swap (not W126, not M117)... I'd love to see the numbers.

 

[400Eric]

Is it worth it?

No. Not when the car in question is already running low 14s with it's 2.24s.

 

[gerryvz]

I haven't done any specific testing, but I am very suspicious that gearing changes will have a relatively small effect on freeway MPG numbers. I bet it is less than 10% loss when changing from 2.24 to either 2.65 or 2.82... meaning, less than 2mpg difference.

I replaced the 2.47 rear end in my US-spec 560SEC with a 3.07 gearset back around 2004-2005. I've got around 60,000 miles on the 3.07 rear end on my 560SEC, and had not only prior mileage on the same car to compare it to, but the stock 2.47 setups on my 560SL and 560SEL to compare it to (identical drivetrains).

The SEC gets <1 MPG less (well within the margin of how much you are on the throttle) than my other cars. Effectively, it's been a wash.

I would expect that going from a 2.24 to a 2.65 (or even 2.82) would be even less.

The 560SEC ran about 0.75 second faster in the 1/4 mile with the 3.07. It was WELL worth the time and effort for the retrofit. If someone would be niggling about gas costs (which would be neglible), and they are driving a V-8 Mercedes ... they should not be owning and driving that V-8 Mercedes.

 

[400Eric]

I'm not niggling about MY gas costs, that's for sure. Heck, my 034 even gets essentially the same fuel economy as my M103s do!

 

[gsxr]

So if gas costs are not being niggled... you're just retaining the 2.24's to be stubborn and ensure you never crack the 13's, which I know you are dying to do?

 

[clarkz71]

So if gas costs are not being niggled... you're just retaining the 2.24's to be stubborn and ensure you never crack the 13's, which I know you are dying to do?

Yep, never crack the 13's

That's what I said above

589

 

[d333gs]

My situation is that I brought the car over from Canada to the South of France: Like the US, Canada has long stretches of relatively straight road where you can get up to speed: Here in the SoF you are almost always on a slow curve coming to a sharper curve. My sense is that I can not accelerate quickly enough when there is a bit of straightish road and then, even if I run the car in 3RD all the time, getting down to speed and accelerating through the 75° curve left then right etc , does non feel "healthy" for the car, it struggles with a 2.47.
When I get the time I will give these guys a shout (In the Slovak Repuplic!) Thet use a 4.08! http://www.slcracing.eu/en/technicalinfo.aspx

I drive this road every day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq9VhMZkRvs

 

[gerryvz]

So if gas costs are not being niggled... you're just retaining the 2.24's to be stubborn and ensure you never crack the 13's, which I know you are dying to do?

+589

 

[gsxr]

Speaking of which. I got Bugeyes to run 13.026 (uncorrected) yesterday at the 'strip... if I had remembered to blow on the windshield, it might have been 12.999! Drat! So close. Still was the new record quickest run on that car (all interval ET's were all new records as well).

Click here and scroll to the bottom to see the theoretical corrected data for that particular pass. (My estimate is that it would have been ~12.7 at sea level).

 

[400Eric]

So if gas costs are not being niggled... you're just retaining the 2.24's to be stubborn and ensure you never crack the 13's, which I know you are dying to do?

I'm not niggling them cause they're as good as my M103s costs are! Now with lower gears we might have a different situation.

I'm not changing them cause I like them! Why is everybody looking for some big mystery here? I've already shown how my overall 1st gear ratio is quite comparable to the great cars of the past. Again, think of these gears as 3.23s with an overdrive 2.24 ratio.

 

[400Eric]

Yep, never crack the 13's

That's what I said above

589

Again, we'll see. I'm not done yet. I was originally told I'd never see a 14.7 until I ditched the 2.24s. I've beaten that by a half second.

To be perfectly honest, I left a tenth at the track the day I ran the 14.200. When Steve and Casey went a tenth quicker in the next round because of improvings conditions, I went up in smoke due to my crap tires. Good tires have already procured and mounted. Only a tenth to go!