According to the following thread, Both the 92-93 400E and the 500E had mid model transmission changes for the 1994 model year.
Anyone know why??

http://www.austauschgetriebe.net/Application.htm

__________________
Regards,

Albert
aldedmon@yahoo.com

Hi,
I would think that the change in the transmission is due to the change in the engine. In europe the 5.00 had an output of 326 hp until 1993 and changed to 320 hp in 1994 to meet the emissions regulations. I think that this demanded a change in the engine electronic management and consequently (maybe) in the transmission.

__________________
Carpe Diem

perhaps a good MB rebuild trans shop will be able to tell you what the differences are...

It would not be surprizing to learn up beefed up parts or improvements implemented to to the latest versions of trans

let us know what you find...

I'm wondering on a different note- - wouldn't you consider 70k low miles on an MB tranny?

best regards
-fad

I think as a rule, when you speak of low milage its all relative. Its a formula relation of the age and type of car to miles that constitutes low milage. For instance on a 6 month old car 10K mi is HIGH. But on a 5 yr old car that's low. Of course on a 10 year on car 10 miles would be a DREAM, but I think in the real world 70K mi is Medium mileage(Low from the perspective of miles/yr , but medium from a buyer/seller perspective.) on an MB. A 10 year old(German)car with 100K really is NOT high mileage. But each of us here wants one with less than that majic mark.By all accounts the average engine rebuild takes places well into the high 2-300K mi range so at 100K mi as they say, its just getting broken in....IF it was properly cared for. There are RAGS out there by every make in every model. I've seen Roll Royes Ragged out under 10 years old with less than 150K mi. (say that 3 times fast) So any car can be abused and just because it has a number of miles on it, doesn't make it better than one with higher mileage. So I while agree that 70 K mi would seem a little premature in terms of my Tranny failing, The 70K mi mark itself, although it took 10 years to get here, may yet have been a tough 10 years and thus discredit the seemingly reserve usage of the car to that of work dog status. That is when it was brought out it was ridden and ridden hard and then out up wet...as my cousin would say. I have no idea. By all outward appearances, this is a pristine car and it was taken care of pretty well, but the fact that it spent a lot of time in storage. The PO told me that the guy he purchased it from had it locked away. So much so that the wipers rotted. This, I'm sure, may have contributed to my premature failure.

__________________
Regards,

Albert
aldedmon@yahoo.com

I believe that the 500E change might have been to slipstream the stronger clutch packs out of the 600SL version of the transmission.

I've heard several anecdotes about that being a recommended field update for early 500E owners whose transmissions were outmatched by the engine, so it's possible it was in a few '94 factory cars as well.

As for the 400E, I have no idea.

s/b