PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)
-   Tech Help (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/tech-help/)
-   -   2.47 in 300SE (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/tech-help/304913-2-47-300se.html)

PaulC 09-15-2011 10:02 AM

I'm curious as to what the transmission and final drive ratios are for the European application of the 300SE automatic. I'm making the assumption that the overall gearing would have been a little taller to accomodate autostrada/autobahn ventures.

mbdoc 09-15-2011 10:36 AM

3.46/1 on euro cars as well!

But the 722.5 trans was available after 1989, and it has an overdrive ratio for 5th gear.

Brian Carlton 09-15-2011 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnM. (Post 2788507)
A complete FGS valve body from a 90-92 300E should be a direct swap.

John, the DD moderator, has a valve body from a '90 300e 2.6.

Just double checking to confirm that it is what I'm looking for................???

mbdoc 09-15-2011 02:55 PM

No, Brian
The 300E 2.6 is from a 722.4 trans

Brian Carlton 09-15-2011 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbdoc (Post 2791569)
No, Brian
The 300E 2.6 is from a 722.4 trans

Ahh.........damn..........

Does the 300e with the M103 have the 722.3 in those years?

JohnM. 09-15-2011 07:01 PM

90-92 with the 3.0L M103 should have a 722.3. The only problem is it appears they were fitting both non-FGS and FGS transmission in the 1990 MY from this thread below. 1991-1992 should have FGS no question.

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/tech-help/81253-300e-transmission-question.html

Brian Carlton 09-15-2011 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnM. (Post 2791745)
90-92 with the 3.0L M103 should have a 722.3. The only problem is it appears they were fitting both non-FGS and FGS transmission in the 1990 MY from this thread below. 1991-1992 should have FGS no question.

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=81253

Thanks.

Interesting thread.

Poor fellow swapped in the 722.358 from the '91 and still was stuck with second gear start.

So, questions remain...........as usual.

I've made and inquiry to Silver Star Transmissions in OK to see what they have to offer on the subject.

deanyel 09-15-2011 10:16 PM

You'd be safe with a 92. Going to all this trouble are you sure you like 1st gear start? I never liked it - noisy engine off the line, slam into second gear, too much drama for me.

JohnM. 09-16-2011 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanyel (Post 2791867)
You'd be safe with a 92. Going to all this trouble are you sure you like 1st gear start? I never liked it - noisy engine off the line, slam into second gear, too much drama for me.

I think your missing the point of the entire thread. He has a dog slow W126 with super tall gearing and 2nd gear start. If your transmission is slamming into second, something might be wrong. Mine shifts like butter into second whether your at 3K RPMs or 6.3K. :confused: ;)

Brian Carlton 09-16-2011 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnM. (Post 2791917)
I think your missing the point of the entire thread. He has a dog slow W126 with super tall gearing and 2nd gear start. If your transmission is slamming into second, something might be wrong. Mine shifts like butter into second whether your at 3K RPMs or 6.3K. :confused: ;)

Sadly, everyone misses the point of the thread. Those that claim the vehicle won't perform with the 2.47..........those that claim that it needs to run at the torque peak...........those that claim the I6 has no torque down low.............

The 300SE drives perfectly fine..........it is not "dog slow". It currently uses gears 2-3-4 with relatively short gearing provided by the 3.46.

I simply want to get to approximately the same final drive ratios using gears 1-2-3 as I currently have with 2-3-4.

I will then use 4 as the "overdrive" for the highway.

It's not rocket science.

deanyel 09-16-2011 09:52 AM

Nor is my point rocket science - just asking if you know you like first gear start. I've found it disconcerting, consistantly, since the 111 automatics of the 60s. The wide relatively ratio between first and second makes for a much less elegant shift than between second and third. You are afterall about to far exceed the market value of your car with this project.

Air&Road 09-16-2011 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 2791972)
Sadly, everyone misses the point of the thread. Those that claim the vehicle won't perform with the 2.47..........those that claim that it needs to run at the torque peak...........those that claim the I6 has no torque down low.............

The 300SE drives perfectly fine..........it is not "dog slow". It currently uses gears 2-3-4 with relatively short gearing provided by the 3.46.

I simply want to get to approximately the same final drive ratios using gears 1-2-3 as I currently have with 2-3-4.

I will then use 4 as the "overdrive" for the highway.

It's not rocket science.


Sounds like you already have your own idea about it and it's your car. You should do with it as you please.

Enjoy,
Larry

Brian Carlton 09-16-2011 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanyel (Post 2792030)
Nor is my point rocket science - just asking if you know you like first gear start. I've found it disconcerting, consistantly, since the 111 automatics of the 60s. The wide relatively ratio between first and second makes for a much less elegant shift than between second and third. You are afterall about to far exceed the market value of your car with this project.

The diesels all have first gear start and they perform perfectly well in the second generation W126. There is no "less than elegant" 1-2 shift. The SD has a "less than elegant" 1-2, but this is completely corrected in the later vehicles.

You ought to take a look at my original post and do a few calculations for yourself. You'll find that the 2-3 shift is wider than the 1-2 shift.

The reason that you might find a harsh 1-2 shift has nothing to do with the spacing between gears, but more likely the engine speed in first at the point of the shift. With a 3.46, it's likely that you'll wind it up too far in first. This won't occur with the 2.47.

The project should be accomplished for $500-$600. You'd have to explain in more detail how I'm going to "far exceed the market value" with that investment.

deanyel 09-16-2011 06:48 PM

You're continuing to make up anything you want to believe - and such an attitude for someone asking, ostensibly, for help. Changing the transmission and rear axle on a 126 model for RPMs is at this point is utterly beyond the pale.

Brian Carlton 09-16-2011 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanyel (Post 2792378)
You're continuing to make up anything you want to believe - and such an attitude for someone asking, ostensibly, for help.

I'm an engineer.........I go with the data.

Clearly you're not of the same persuasion and prefer to go with what you think you believe.

That's fine........

My objective was to find folks who had experience with this swap and can understand the discussion of final drive ratios.

Unfortunately, you're not one of them.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website