Transmission Modifications, Gearbox and Differential Ratio

[vatc5637]

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.

Note: the following statements are based on my unscientific, non-correlated, back of the pants, butt-dyno experience, so your results may vary.

I think that GSXR is generally correct about the real life impact of changing the rear axle ratios (though I would observe that many of us probably have made decisions based on an expected "return" of less than 10%.) So like so many things in life, this decision is based on our personal perceptions of value. So here's another data point for you to consider. For the last year I've been running a FGS valve body coupled with a 2.24 rear axle. I did that primarily because I thought it would fit my personal driving "habits" better than the stock setup. I don't go to the drag strip (formal or informal), so I don't care if my 1/4 mile time drops from 13 to 14 sec. In my real world, the loss of off the line acceleration is immaterial. I do like to drive as fast as I can reasonably get away with on the highway, so effortless "high" (subjective) speed cruising, coupled with good 70-90 acceleration was what I was after. After making the switch, my revs did drop about 600 or so rpm at 75 mph as compared to the stock setup, so the engine is pulling about 2600-2700 rpm at that speed (again measured unscientifically). Car continues to accelerate well in my desired range, and theoretically, my top end is slightly higher.

From a data perspective, on my last trip home from Atlanta, my mpg (averaging 75 mph or so on the highway the entire trip) was in the 22 mpg range. On one segment, I measured 24 mpg, but I think that was a fluke. Prior to the switch, I don't recall ever exceeding 19 mpg under any circumstances. As others have said, for most people, its not enough of a difference to warrant the effort and expense of a rear axle switch. However, given how I want to setup my car, I do not regret making this change.

 

[gsxr]

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.

I understand where you are coming from... but to use your analogy, yes they are sort of like 3.23's with overdrive, but ALWAYS STARTING IN SECOND GEAR.

(While we're niggling: 3.23's were not offered as a ratio for MB 210mm diffs, and with the 0.82 overdrive those would be a measly 2.65 final drive. You would need to go all the way down to 2.82 gears with 0.82 overdrive to hit 2.31 final drive, or 2.65 gears to achieve a 2.17 final drive. In perspective... the 2.24's would be like putting a 722.6 into a 500E and then never, ever using first gear!)

 

[400Eric]

I understand where you are coming from... but to use your analogy, yes they are sort of like 3.23's with overdrive, but ALWAYS STARTING IN SECOND GEAR.

No, they are not Dave! Didn't you read this post from the first page?

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

 

[gsxr]

... In my real world, the loss of off the line acceleration is immaterial. I do like to drive as fast as I can reasonably get away with on the highway, so effortless "high" (subjective) speed cruising, coupled with good 70-90 acceleration was what I was after. After making the switch, my revs did drop about 600 or so rpm at 75 mph as compared to the stock setup, so the engine is pulling about 2600-2700 rpm at that speed (again measured unscientifically). Car continues to accelerate well in my desired range, and theoretically, my top end is slightly higher.

From a data perspective, on my last trip home from Atlanta, my mpg (averaging 75 mph or so on the highway the entire trip) was in the 22 mpg range. On one segment, I measured 24 mpg, but I think that was a fluke. Prior to the switch, I don't recall ever exceeding 19 mpg under any circumstances. As others have said, for most people, its not enough of a difference to warrant the effort and expense of a rear axle switch. However, given how I want to setup my car, I do not regret making this change.

Exactly correct: The differential gearing change affects primarily three items, in no particular order:

1) Off-the-line acceleration (i.e., 60-foot times at the dragstrip)
2) Top speed
3) Fuel economy

If you are able to enjoy living in an area where 100+mph blasts are possible, the taller gears can be useful, ditto for extended cruising at high speeds. Lower gears offer a pretty big change in the perceived acceleration, even if the stopwatch doesn't agree. The subjective improvement in city driving may be substantial.

The 2.24's would be far more tolerable with 5.0L power, that's for sure!! Or 6.0 power, as Jono can attest to...

 

[400Eric]

There's a 400E on dragtimes with 2.82s that's a half second slower than my car.

 

[gsxr]

No, they are not Dave! Didn't you read this post from the first page?

Dude, I dunno about you, but I am discussing old-school Mercedes here. None of this Daimler-Chrysler doomed marriage stuff, or pre-wedding children (70's vintage Mopars).

To further wind you up: I can bring out a couple of .036's and still consistently run at least 0.5 seconds quicker than your .034, same track, same day, side by side. All stock, no secret J-sauce mods. Yes, your 034 is wicked fast, but you are comparing vs a single particular 036, which is not a fair sample size.

 

[clarkz71]

I'm picking up a sour grapes vibe here..........

 

[400Eric]

To further wind you up: I can bring out a couple of .036's and still consistently run at least 0.5 seconds quicker than your .034, same track, same day, side by side. All stock, no secret J-sauce mods. Yes, your 034 is wicked fast, but you are comparing vs a single particular 036, which is not a fair sample size.

..... And you are comparing 036s that are quicker than the average 036s are.

With a bigger engine and lower gearing, I'd expect them to be quicker! No big revelation there.

And I'm comparing against a single 036 because NONE OF THE OTHERS EVER SHOW UP! I'd be happy to run ANY of them, save for the ones on N20.

Now bring me an 034 with 2.82s and run that. Then we'll have something to talk about.

 

[gsxr]

..... And you are comparing 036s that are quicker than the average 036s are.

With a bigger engine and lower gearing, I'd expect them to be quicker! No big revelation there.

To clarify... I'm referring to bone stock 036's with 5.0 motor, and stock gears. The problem with many "modified" 036's is the modifications often make the car slower. Larger wheels, tires, brakes, and subwoofers all look awesome, but can cost tenths at the 'strip. Eric is bringing a Jenny Craig special to the track, my proposal is to match it up with the 036 equivalent!!

Further pot stirring: My wife ran a 13.79 (uncorrected) in our stock red 500E yesterday (Lollipop)... click here for the theortical corrected numbers (likely 13.5x at sea level). Just sayin', Eric's car may have run side by side with one 036, but that doesn't mean it will do it will all of 'em.

 

[400Eric]

And let's be honest, anything in your fleet is in razor sharp tune, and in outstanding overall condition. Can you say that about my 400E?

And you can't talk about what the car would run at sea level because 1) you never let me get away with that and 2) My track's at 1,100 feet, almost halfway as high as yours.

And again, I've been practically begging folks to come out, I've tried shaming them as well. You've witnessed it all on the drag racing thread. There's an open active invite there right now for a week from today! I don't know what else to do.

Besides, this isn't about 036s vs 034s. It's about 2.24s vs 2.82s! Bring me a 2.82 equipped 034!

 

[clarkz71]

Further pot stirring: My wife ran a 13.79 (uncorrected) in our stock red 500E yesterday (Lollipop)... click here for the theortical corrected numbers (likely 13.5x at sea level).

Hold the music, are you saying your wife would spank Eric at the track ???

Wow, that's very impressive, Koodo's

 

[gsxr]

And let's be honest, anything in your fleet is in razor sharp tune, and in outstanding overall condition. Can you say that about my 400E?

LOL. You have an excellent point there.

And you can't talk about what the car would run at sea level because 1) you never let me get away with that and 2) My track's at 1,100 feet, almost halfway as high as yours.

I keep forgetting you are not at sea level! My local track is at 2700', btw.

And again, I've been practically begging folks to come out, I've tried shaming them as well. You've witnessed it all on the drag racing thread. There's an open active invite there right now for a week from today! I don't know what else to do.

I too am unable to explain why we can't get a couple folks to go out and smoke some rubber. Maybe we can convince Glen to get the 600kmi car out there...

 

[400Eric]

Hold the music, are you saying your wife would spank Eric at the track ???

Wow, that's very impressive, Koodo's

Put her in one of their 034s and see what happens.

Dave, I was adding to my previous post. Please see above.

 

[gsxr]

Hold the music, are you saying your wife would spank Eric at the track ???

My wife has starting running out of room for the trophies she's won at the track... you don't want to line up against her in a bracket race.

 

[gsxr]

Put her in one of their 034s and see what happens.

She raced her 034 for a full season, and put it in the Winner's Circle several times!!

 

[400Eric]

I'm not saying she's not good, I'm just saying that the cars should be more evenly matched in the name of fairness, 034 vs 034. You're thinking too much like a bracket racer. Clark and I are talking heads up.

 

[400Eric]

There's an open active invite there right now for a week from today!

Edit: Make that a week from yesterday.

 

[gsxr]

I'm not saying she's not good, I'm just saying that the cars should be more evenly matched in the name of fairness, 034 vs 034. You're thinking too much like a bracket racer. Clark and I are talking heads up.

Eric, c'mon now, think about this. You are wanting to pair up your freakishly-fast 034 against a somewhat less than average 036. OK, fine, but that isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

For the record: Our normal bracket cars are a bit slower, although they would still give Eric a run for his money. My 94 generally runs in the 14.4-14.5 range (at 2700' elevation), my wife's 92 is one to two tenths slower due to heavier brakes & wheels/tires. That would be right around your 034 times at the same track. Both have 2.65 diffs which slow them a tenth vs the stock gearing, both have 18" wheels, both have aftermarket stereo stuff adding weight. Our bone-stock 036 runs 14.0-14.1 most of the time, but can dip under 13.80 with some weight removed and a tailwind...

 

[clarkz71]

I'm not saying she's not good, I'm just saying that the cars should be more evenly matched in the name of fairness, 034 vs 034. You're thinking too much like a bracket racer. Clark and I are talking heads up.

Now I'm confused......:?

One minute, you run side by side with a "modded" 036, and now
you're afraid to run a girl in a "stock" 036 ???

What, is Dave's wife Shirley Muldowney 2.0 ?

 

[400Eric]

Dave, There's nothing "freakish" about any of my Benzers.

And for the record, here is a list of the weight that was removed on the day I ran the 14.200:

Pads, carpets, and insulation (which is attached to the carpets) removed from the front seat footwells only.
The two passenger side door panels were removed because of un-related unfinished repair work necessitated by the T-bone the car suffered. They weigh hardly anything.
The spare, jack, etc.
That's it!!!

I have NEVER removed ANY of my seats, despite constant prodding to do so. I don't even remove the child safety seats, cause they're too big a pain to put back.

Now here's the extra weight I was carrying:
The afore mentioned two child seats
A quarter tank of fuel, cause I once again mis-judged fuel usage prior to track day and ended up with too much fuel left over.

Now I'm confused......:?

One minute, you run side by side with a "modded" 036, and now
you're afraid to run a girl in a "stock" 036 ???

What, is Dave's wife Shirley Muldowney 2.0 ?

No, but her in a 034 against an 034 is still a more fair race. And you can be sure that Dave's 034s are in better shape than mine are. And his 036s, stock or not, are still quicker than the average 036, cept for maybe his 2.65 equipped ones. (How many 036s does Dave have anyways? Are they all accounted for in his sig?)

I'd still MUCH rather race your 2.82 equipped 034 Clark, that's for sure. So when are you doing the gear swap?

 

[d333gs]

3.69 for sale in the UK
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MERCEDES-...arts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM&hash=item2a264b86f3

 

[M104-AMG]

Hmm, as the 2nd 500E isn't a daily-driver, maybe I should put the LSD into the 3.06 ASR diff and drop her in . . .

neil

 

[400Eric]

Dave, There's nothing "freakish" about any of my Benzers.

And for the record, here is a list of the weight that was removed on the day I ran the 14.200:

Pads, carpets, and insulation (which is attached to the carpets) removed from the front seat footwells only.
The two passenger side door panels were removed because of un-related unfinished repair work necessitated by the T-bone the car suffered. They weigh hardly anything.
The spare, jack, etc.
That's it!!!

I have NEVER removed ANY of my seats, despite constant prodding to do so. I don't even remove the child safety seats, cause they're too big a pain to put back.

Now here's the extra weight I was carrying:
The afore mentioned two child seats
A quarter tank of fuel, cause I once again mis-judged fuel usage prior to track day and ended up with too much fuel left over.

One other weight reduction I forgot to mention: The lighter than stock CLK wheels. But they most certainly aren't the lightest wheels out there.

 

[gsxr]

One other weight reduction I forgot to mention: The lighter than stock CLK wheels. But they most certainly aren't the lightest wheels out there.

Um, actually, they just might be the lightest wheels out there. I have never seen anything lighter in a similar size.

 

[Jim]

... am looking for 2.24 ...

I have found a 2.24 Differential with ASR in Europe from an R129. Will it fit my 036?

The only number I have is 1094702 which I think is the differential serial number.

More pictures added in Word Doc.

Jim

 

[gsxr]

If it's from an early R129 (90-92 .066), yes it should fit. Can you get the casting number from the diff housing? Or post a larger photo?

From the small photo, it looks like that may be the later 'reinforced' diff, and I'm not sure if it will fit or not...

 

[Jim]

Ah...reinforced diff?...

More pictures added in original post...

Jim

 

[gsxr]

Yeah, looks like the reinforced diff to me, no breather visible on the top of the housing. Don't think it will work, at least not with the stock axle shafts...?

http://124performance.com/docs/mb/other/diff_210mm_reinforced_35-0500.pdf
http://124performance.com/docs/mb/other/diff_210mm_reinforced_35-0550.pdf
http://124performance.com/docs/mb/other/diff_210mm_reinforced_35-0560.pdf

 

[Jim]

Yeah, looks like the reinforced diff to me, no breather visible on the top of the housing. QUOTE]

Dave,

Many thanks for the links.

Ok so on the differential I need the breather is on the housing next to the passenger side ASR pick-up. Got it.

Jim

 

[Zuffenhausen]

Gerry is correct... you can swap the rear end (differential) to get different gearing. No need to mess with the tranny.

The 500E stock gearing is 2.82 which is the best compromise for acceleration, fuel economy, and top speed. This of course can be changed to accommodate specific needs. For a slight change, you could install 2.65 gears, although as noted above there may only be about 1mpg difference, maybe. If you do a lot of freeway driving, or have a long commute at freeway speeds (or at least not city stop & go), then the 2.24 gears might provide a decent increase in fuel economy, but still likely to be in the 2mpg range (i.e., bumping your 20mpg up to 22 or so, maybe).

The 1993-95 400E/E420 gets surprisingly good mileage due to the tall 2.24 gears, and also due to the higher 11:1 compression ratio. The 1992 400E had a 10:1 compression ratio and slightly lower fuel economy. Assuming you had owned 1993 400E, you can figure that with the same gears but a larger motor (and at lower compression), 22mpg would be pretty realistic. Another option would be to get a 400E/E420 as a commuter car rather than rack up the miles on the 500, if fuel economy is a concern. Or even - dare I say it - an MB diesel!! {flame suit on}

What changed on the 1993-95 400E/E420 to get the 11:1 compression ratio?

 

[gsxr]

What changed on the 1993-95 400E/E420 to get the 11:1 compression ratio?

Most likely the pistons, as I think the same cylinder heads were used for all years... but I'd have to check the EPC. The LH module and EZL also changed fuel/timing curves to accommodate the CR bump.

 

[500AMM]

I am slowly concluding on a 722.6 upgrade in my 6.0 supercharged car. Due to the high torque it is not straight forward, so it will be a long term plan inducing several upgrades in addition to the transmission. Except from reading a lot and lifelong wrenching, I don't have much experience on this, but the enclosed threads do at least sketch the path quite well:

Have you seen this? 722.6 interface for older cars.
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3720

Are different stall torque converters available for our transmissions?
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7391&p=94039#post94039

Summer Dyno Result after Motec M800 conversion with Pump Gas and Race Gas.
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8518

Group buy - Wavetrac differentials for w124.
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5237

The scope is:
- find a 722.6 as a basis for upgrading to handle the torque
- choose between the two TCU systems available
- choose a rear diff. with capable drive shafts
- select a suitable diff. ratio
- select a Wavetrac diff.

Finding a 722.6 tranny, torque converter, TCU, diff.ratio and Wavetrac, is not too demanding IMO, the challenge is to get capable drive shafts without inventing the wheel over again and choke the project financially. The drive shafts will dictate the choice of diff.housing, which next points out the correct Wavetrac and diff.ratio. I want the Wavetrac due to its promising operation manner.

Member whipplem104 posted his experience on using CLK63 drive shafts with minor mods fitted into a 215 diff.housing, that sounds interesting. It will be some work to implant the 215 diff.housing, but that may be a good solution since OE MB parts can be used to a great extent.

I highly appreciate all kind of comments and advices on this, so please chime in.

Many thanks,
-arnt-

 

[whipplem104]

Remind me of how much power you are making and I can certainly point you in the right direction on all of this. Also how is the car used? Drag racing with slicks or just street use?

 

[modzona]

His use is storage

 

[gsxr]

Remind me of how much power you are making and I can certainly point you in the right direction on all of this. Also how is the car used? Drag racing with slicks or just street use?

I was thinking the same thing. On street tires, the axles should be fine. Drag racing with slicks is what snaps axles, IMO...

Russell, what 60-foot times did you achieve with stock axles, before they started snapping? Just wondering!

 

[Taxi Driver]

Arnt, you are really hitting the head of the nail, a 722.6 is very easy[....] to beef up. It has been mentioned by some, me. gsxr. and others
to convert esp. the 722.3 to 722.6 and also the LH to ME but thats another issue.

To govern the 722.6 seems to be in reach with *button* shifting and a couple of automatic shift programms, like sport, comfort, winter mode~~
The 722.6 I have now lived with in my AMG E50, wonderfull action, seamless, adaptive to driveconditions and driver, quick response.
It must be mentioned, overdrive 5th, converter lockup.

As the LH can work practically without any connection to the transmission it can be a standalone with a sensible computor management.
If the TCU could be workable, the oem i.e would be nice but it seems the aftermarket ones will work sufficiently enough.

Yeah I'm all in, now that I have a spare 722.6 Roger

 

[whipplem104]

I never got to the 60; times to break axles but a guy I know did and it is basically right around a 1.5-1.6 60'. I was having problems with my driveshaft and decided to kill two birds with one stone. I plan on putting a pretty decent stall converter in it and I should be there. I was getting sub 1.8s with the stock converter. And I am making a bit more power down low. Finally was getting the tune right for launch at the track. Hopefully next year the car will be back on the road.
Anyways.
On the transmission side of things it really depends on how it is used as well. With a standalone a stock v8 transmission can handle a tremendous amount of power. We are testing a car right now with a modified valve body that is just getting dialed in a little and it is running mid 10s at 132mph. Built 5.7 hemi with a 400 shot of nitrous.

 

[gsxr]

Thanks, Russell! I'm glad it was down in the 1.5-1.6 range. That's amazing, the guy who was hitting those times should have been close to lifting a front tire off the pavement. (!!!)

I've dipped into the mid-1.80's with the 6L and was curious how close I was to the limit. I'd be thrilled if I can get into the 1.70's with stock axles. I'd rather not have to upgrade if I can avoid it.

 

[gsxr]

We are testing a car right now with a modified valve body that is just getting dialed in a little and it is running mid 10s at 132mph. Built 5.7 hemi with a 400 shot of nitrous.

FOUR HUNDRED shot of NOS? Wowzers!

 

[Marc R]

Dragging your 500E.... not really what I thought of doing.

BTW this is what Audi's are good at... not that I do this with my g-queen

 

[gsxr]

Dragging your 500E.... not really what I thought of doing.

BTW this is what Audi's are good at... not that I do this with my g-queen

Oh, don't worry, the MB's are quite good at it too!

 

[maw1124]

Oh, don't worry, the MB's are quite good at it too!

Audi's are good at it. But I have to say, over the long term, my impression is that their ambition tends to overrun their engineering budgets/talents (for their halo cars at least -- we don't discuss pedestrian models here). They're great on paper and all, but just don't seem to hold up as well as the theory.

That's not to say they're not great cars. Indeed I think they are, all things considered. I call my allroad 4.2 my "problem child" but it's still worlds better than most anything else I see. Worlds. And I'll probably replace it with... (drum roll) ... another Audi halo car (S6, S7, S8, RS7, something), if I still have a need for a snow car when replacement time comes (if it comes, which it may not, to show how good I think the allroad really is). I've been thrilled with it the great majority of the time.

But halo Benz to halo Audi, I'll take the halo Benz every day of the week and twice on Sunday, for every purpose except snow. But then, I'll take the halo Benz over just about everything. Sure you can pay more (Lambo, Bentley, Ferrari, whatever), but I'm not sure you'll get a better car to go with that privilege.

Just my $.02.

maw

 

[maw1124]

We are testing a car right now with a modified valve body that is just getting dialed in a little and it is running mid 10s at 132mph...

PLEASE come back to us with precision on those valve body modifications. Something tells me you'll have a real market here.

maw

 

[whipplem104]

I retail the [722.6] valve bodies. I spent a tremendous amount of time coming up with the setup. They retail at 400.00 with a core return. The main thing that they do differently than others on the market is you still get a civil downshift when coasting to a stop. The shifting is near stock on the 1-2 and 2-1 but the rest are very firm. I mean very firm.
All the other downshifts are noticeable but civil except when engine braking downshifts by manually downshifting. Those are extremely firm.
Working pressure is also up quite a bit to help with clutch holding capacity.
This with a standalone give tuning control is about as good as it gets for pressure control.
I would not recommend the valve body for the average Mercedes out there or even most of the modified ones. None of them make enough power to need it and 99% of Merc owners would complain about the shift quality.

 

[Marc R]

There will always be pro's and con's in comparisation between Audi and Mercedes... thats why i need both.

 

[gsxr]

MAW brings up a good point... does anyone build VB's for the 722.3 / M119? You can only do so much via modulator pressure, kickdown, and Superior kit...

 

[whipplem104]

If you want to up the pressures in a .3 that is easy. Just turn up the modulator adjustment. You can get quite a bit out of it. Make smaller adjustements and keep track of how many turns so you can go back. I normally do 1-2 turns at a time.

 

[jhodg5ck]

how silly a VB do you want??? I've got a recipe for St I, II and III....III being what we run on track.

 

[maw1124]

There will always be pro's and con's in comparison between Audi and Mercedes... thats why i need both.

I just think each company does one thing that the others really cannot touch, and I try to buy that one thing from each. Continent crushing sedans is MB AMG all day long (with this nod to Porsche), so I have two as my preferred vehicle configuration (500E and S55). Sporty 4 seater drop tops is BMW M all day long. Sporty snowdrift luxo-hatch, Audi all day long (with a nod to the ML and R Class AMGs -- the Panamera is just ugly to me). There are a few of us here who are all on that same page.

maw

 

[maw1124]

how silly a VB do you want??? I've got a recipe for St I, II and III....III being what we run on track.

Well, since he was talking .6s, when I dig my .3 out for fiddling Jono, you know it's coming your way. In the back of my mind, I'm wondering if I didn't send it to Sun Valley as a core in exchange for the built FGS VB they included with my trans. I figure it's good to have a spare around, so hopefully I kept it.

I'm still looking at that Wavetrac diff for the S55, as we discussed. Although their website lists the SL55 and E55 as applications, should I take that to include the S55? I'm just not sure I want to fiddle with the S55 just yet. Since all the rest of them have been modded to death and thrashed, "stock" increasingly seems like the way to go with that one for me.

maw