I replaced my wagons at ~70k miles...This is the condition 30k miles later when I pulled the transmission at 100k. You can already see the bolt holes are beginning to show wear. I don't drive like a grandma, but point still stands...Flex disks are a weak point.

http://www.w124-zone.com/downloads/p...ny/remove3.jpg

Same thing my mechanic said when I asked why the front and rear are different.

I'd put the correct front disc in front, then just put the rear disc on the rear. Hopefully the rear disc is bad enough to justify this...

Here's my contribution to the picture portfolio - old (90K) vs new.

The only hint I got that it was going bad was intermittent vibration in the shifter. When it got worse, the driveline started vibrating.

:eek: now THAT is a worn flex disk!

Holy @#!? :eek:.....I honestly thought mine was bad. Dear god, you were one strand away from disaster. I can also see that it was your rear flex disc

No, it was my front flex disc. I bought the car at 52K, so I don't know whether it was replaced before that... I kinda believe it was original.

Fastlane shows the same part number for both front and rear flex discs.

We had what I believe to be the original front flex disk with 278K replaced on the C280 when the shaft was removed so that the sagging insulation in the tunnel could be torn out. There was nothing wrong with the disk, it just didn't seem right to try to save something that old and re-install it.

Interesting - EPC gives the option to use same part number for front and rear as a taxi spec, using the rear type at both ends?

Looking at those pictures, the front type looks like its designed to take more force in one direction more than the other? Because its working hardest when the engine is flat out in drive - but the rear one takes a lot more stress in reversing?.....hey that's what happened to my 230TE...

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/album.php?albumid=572

I imagine if the front type is softer than the hard, maybe it gives a softer pick-up but doesn't last as long?

cheers!

Interesting catch on that, that Fastlane shows the same part number for both. If you look closely at the picture you posted regarding your own flex disc, it is actually the rear flex disc. Note the difference from the pictures in the earlier part of the thread. You show pictures of circular steel housing for the bolts, but in the actual pictures earlier in the thread the bolting house looks like a circle with winged edges.


Also, Steve M notes that epc shows the rear flex disc being able to be interchanged in lieu of the front one. Anyone else care to chime in with any facts regarding this? I will still get the correct ones, but Kestas was obvious driving for a while with the rear flex disc with no apparent ill effects other than the fact that the disc looks like it was mauled.

Need VIN#
 

Need VIN# for correct part.

EPC lists two possible front Disc split by chassis#.

MB# 1244100615

MB# 2024101315

The rear Disc is superseded from MB# 1244100215 to MB# 2024101315.



.

My '93 300TD lists p/n a1244100615 front, a2024101315 front for taxi, and a2024101315 rear

So presumably it IS fine to run the rear type disk in the front....in a taxi?
Is it just a cheaper, tougher option for taxi's compared to a passsenger car?

Why would the stresses at one end of the drive shaft be different that those at the other end? I replaced mine with the same disc on each end. Don't forget the bearing in the middle too, as long as you've got the drive shaft out already.

Answer
 

:) Got the PM VIN#.

:) Verified through EPC:

Front Disc
MB# 1244100615

Rear Disc
MB# 2024101315.

Thanks whunter.

So you are running the rear type disk on both ends then?

No issues with harsh pickup or vibration or anything?