PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - View Single Post

JimSmith · #6 01-24-2002, 04:51 PM

ajb,

I have had a 1975 and now a 1982 manual transmission equipped 240D. In each one the original clutch lining lasted until some other mechanical problem (part of the spring mechanism in the '75 broke due to chatter from leaking Mobil 1 oil past the rear crank seal and on to the clutch, while the ring gear failed on the '82) made access to change the parts at over 180,000 miles. Neither clutch plate was worn more than half way, but I replaced them because 90% of the trouble was getting to them and I did not want to do it again.

The transmissions were/are rock solid. No problems with either the 220D, or the two 240D's, and I routinely change the oil every two and a half to three years. I use Redline transmission oils for manual transmissions now, and used Mobil 1 products before that.

I have changed the clutch hydraulic components in each car due to leaks that most likely developed because I never drained and refilled the fluid in the lines. By the way, the clutch in my 1986 190E 2.3-16 is original and has 206,000 miles on it now, and the same goes for the transmission. It has also had the clutch hydraulic elements replaced after 200,000 miles.

Overall I think the M-B hydraulic clutch actuation allows a superior, more robust clutch to be used without making the driving experience build the left leg muscles to twice the volume of the right leg's. The original change to this system was to serve the taxi cab market, and it has been adopted, like any technical feature that adds value and performance on an M-B, to suit the entire product line. The transmission robustness is also likely traceable to its industrial/commercial design roots.

On an aside, while I enjoy the added control the manual shift affords, I have yet to actually experience some unusual extra pleasure from the act of shifting from one gear to another that others have noted with certain other auto makes. These drivers often note the M-B manual transmissions lack that certain feel to provide the extra pleasure. I have driven a numbe of autos with manuals, and trucks too. Porsches, BMWs, Alfa Romeos, Fiats, Hondas, Peugeots, Toyotas, Nissans (Datsuns) and a Lancia (really a Fiat when I drove it) and have noted differences, some being vague (Peugeot column shifter takes the cake there) and others being light and quick (tie between Honda and Fiat), but none stroked a particular pleasure node just by shifting. If I had to pick a favorite based on feel I would likely pick the 1967 Fiat 124 Sport Spyder transmission. But that transmission was rebuilt due to weak synchros and lost gears twice in 120,000 miles. So I, personally, will gladly give up the quickness and lightness of the sporty shift mechanisms/tranmissions for the robustness of the M-B units.

Back to your question, the manual transmission is the way the car (240D) was designed to be built and driven, and the two are matched much better than the car with an automatic or a 300D with an automatic. The 300D turbodiesel is the only one of the line designed from the ground up to work with an automatic only, and I would suggest even that choice is a little less than optimum. A manual in that car would have been a great choice, had it been available.

Go for the 240D with a manual if the car is really as you have been told. As another said, fixing a clutch if it was really abused and is shot at that mileage will not cost you an arm or a leg. Hope this helped, Jim