Since my "M103 Best Motor Ever" threat got some interesting discussion, I try to keep it going tonight. Several of the comments in the "M103" thread mentioned that Mercedes in general and their manual transmissions specifically are "truck like." I have to say I agree with that especially about the manual transmissions. My question to the group is why did Mercedes do it this way?

The 717.431 mercedes manual transmission in my R107 300 SL is truck like. I'm not saying its a bad tranny or doesn't do its job, but it's not BMW or Honda slick. Its slower, heavier, more dampened, and with longer throws between gears. I have grown to love how it operates, but it was not at all intuitive to me when I got the car how to work it properly.

Is there some inherent benefit that I don't understand, or did Mercedes do it this way out of tradition?

Attached Images

 

__________________
Michael

1988 300 SL (5 Speed)
1994 E320 Wagon
1997 C230

let me say this in response, if the 103 is the best Merecedes has to offer then I don't get it.......it's OK but not even close to a BMW engine...not even close....believe me....I have both

and don't even get me started on the automatic transmissions....hmmm

The trannies are smooth shifting. But they are extremely robust and do not shift like a short handled shifting miata. They shift just fine.

A truck shifts fine too just its an enormous tranny and needs a longer shifter yet for leverage.

dont expect a mercedes to shift like a mini and you wont be disappointed.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

What I would like to know is; how many people here have ever driven a TRUCK?!

I've driven plenty of trucks and I've driven a good number of MB's with sticks. I find NO similarity.

If you have a little stick shift experience, you can tell very little difference between the MB transmissions and any other. In fact the difference in the MB and many American muscle cars put the MB AHEAD in shifter feel.

The old muscle car transmissions were external shifters that were mounted on the transmission itself, while MB shifters until very recently, were external shifters mounted to the body.

My personal idea about all this shifter speak is that for years car magazine reporters comment on shifters and use words like "vague." The reason they comment on such things is that MOST car magazine articles are written by Journalists. They're skill is wordsmithing. Many of them know very little about cars so they have to resort to things like the light switch being difficult to reach or the "shifter being vague."

If you can't drive an MB stick shift comfortably then you don't have enough stick shift experience. Go find yourself a car with a slush-o-matic.

My $0.02,


BTW, I agree that the M103 is not the end all engine of all time, but it is a pretty decent powerplant. The BMW sixes are decent engines as well, but they aren't the end all engine of all time either.

The usual comparison is to compare the made-by-Mercedes manual transmission shifting with BMW's made-by-ZF manual transmission shifting.

When you have had THAT experience, you'll indeed compare the Mercedes to a truck.

One suspects the 21st century Mercedes manuals shift better, but we get so few of them. In fact if you check you'll find that Mercedes doesn't put manuals behind any of its larger engines in any markets. None in AMGs either, of course.

__________________
Kent Christensen
Albuquerque
'07 GL320CDI, '10 CL550. '01 Porsche Boxster
Two BMW motorcycles

I have driven several manual transmission BMW's over the years for brief periods as well as an untold number of other cars including German, Japanese and American. I have driven something close to a million miles in manual transmission MB's and unless a shifter is malfunctioning, I don't really notice the difference in any of them.

I had a 2001 C240 six speed and to those who notice such things, it might have had better shifter feel. I was very happy with it as I have been about every shifter in every manual transmission car that I've ever driven with the possible exception of my first car, a '48 Chevy.

My farm pick up is a four wheel drive, five speed manual and I don't even really notice the difference in it.

If you're an experienced manual transmission lover like myself, you're just happy that you have three pedals on the floor and just deal with it.

BTW, Kent I will ask again, have you ever driven a truck? I'm talking about a BIG, non synchronized, manual transmission truck? Go drive one and you won't be saying that ANY passenger car manual transmission built in the last 40 years shifts like a truck.

Sure, when I was growing up my Dad was a GMC truck dealer. One of those small ones that would have been recently closed if it hadn't closed 20 years ago when everybody got too old.

This is irrelevant, as of course the term "truck" is used in this instance as a comparative term and to suggest how the Mercedes is "closer" to truck than other cars.

__________________
Kent Christensen
Albuquerque
'07 GL320CDI, '10 CL550. '01 Porsche Boxster
Two BMW motorcycles

I have more then a 500,000 city miles in big trucks, 5 and 4, 10 speed, 13 Speed, 6 speed, 5 and 2, 5 and 3. I know what a big truck shifts like, and my Benz doesn't shift like a truck. I have had a number of Ranger Pickups with both 4 and 5 speeds, liked them and they didn't shift much better or worse the the Benz. But different, probably because the shifter was internal. Way back in 63 I had a 63 SS Chevy with a 409 and a 4 speed. It was not a pleasant car to shift. But it went like heck!

__________________
Junqueyardjim
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. C.S. Lewis



1983 Mercedes W123 240D 4 Speed 285,000 on the road with a 617 turbo, beautiful butter yellow, license plate # 83 240D INDIANA

2003 Jaguar Type X, AWD. beautiful, good mileage,
Mom's car, but I won't let her drive it!

In the early 80's when I was working for Steve B. I replaced the synchros in a customer's 1977 240D with approx 120K miles. After repairs were performed, my test drive demonstrated just how nicely a properly operating W123 4speed would shift. Although not a speed demon by any means, the light-by-today's standards 240D could easily keep pace with traffic when wound to redline and the manual transmission was delightful. Although MB makes an excellent autobox, I wish Mercedes still offered manuals for its V8's. Mark

Mark,

I drove about 750,000 miles in manual transmission 240D's. The only maintenance that I ever did was clutches and an occasional oil change. They were delightul little cars to drive.

I haven't talked to Steve for several years. Is he still doing well?

Larry

I was surprised that the w123 needed synchros at 120k but that's all I replaced and it shifted better than new. Steve and company are doing fine---busy in this down economy which is good for them. You have been MIA for a while. Good to have you back! Mark

yeah, it is hard to imagine how one could wear out the synchros on a mb tranny at 120K

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.