I just want to know from anyone's experience with this transmission if it is anygood or is it just crappy like i've been hearing from a alot of people. Also can you get faster times with the 6speed than the auto?

 

I like mine. I drove the C230 6sp and a C320 auto. I liked the power and smoothness of the V6 and I don’t drive auto’s. I had read the forums and took my car for a test drive before I accepted it because of what I had herd about the manual trans. I find the gearing to be too short, just glad it’s a six speed and not a five. I believe that a standard trans is always faster than auto if you are willing to hammer on them. I would rethink my choice of the MB C type if you are that worried about which is faster. There are many faster cars than the 320.

 

Instead of listening to what others say...go drive it. I love my 6 speed. Shifts better than my father in law's Boxster. OTOH, I did test drive a 'base' 6 Speed(non C7) that was a little balky from 1st to 2nd, and the shifts were much longer throws than on the C7s. The stick will kill the Auto in any drag race.

 

I am not sure I understand this. I agree that the gearing is WAY too short, but if it were a 5-speed and not a 6, at least there would be more spacing between the gears. Don't be fooled by more is better. I'd take a higher geared 5-speed, with more space between the gears any day.

I think the MB 6-speed sucks because of its low and close gearing and it may drive me away from the marque.

 

Different people, different requirements, I like the close-ratio 6 speed. It makes it easy to keep the engine in the torque band and get maximum enjoyment out of the car.

 

I think the ratios in the gear-box are good for keeping the C240 in the torque band. I don't think the ratios are as good for the M111 motor in the 2002 C230K. With to the M111's much wider torque band, I think a wider-spaced 5-speed would have worked better. However, with the M271 motor in the 2003 C230Ks (sedan and coupe), the torque curve is shortened up somewhat and I imagine that the ratios are much better for these motors.

For the 3.2L V6, I think its torque curve would probably be better served by a 5-speed manual. Which it won't get, due to marketing pressures over performance.

Cheers, BT

PS: "It goes to eleven !"

 

The gear ratios are weighted towards urban use. First gear in the 6-speed is excellent for crawling in traffic without riding the clutch, a pretty useful feature in today's world. Fourth gear is just right for the range just-under 30 to 40+ MPH, which is the speed that city traffic flows where I live.

I've had cars with close ratio boxes more suited to track use, where driving in stop-and-go traffic was agony because the idling speed was over 5 MPH. When I was shopping for a coupe, I tested the Acura CL Type S 6-speed. Aside from the significant torque-steer, the one performance feature I remember not liking about it was the gear ratios. The Acura has a much taller first gear than the C-class, with a closer second and with the 3-4 shift in the wrong place for relaxed driving on city streets.

So for me it's a case of different horses for different courses. I spend most of my driving time in town, where the C-class gear ratios work well.

 

On this point, we can agree. I get that same feeling. I'm willing to bet that the 6speed in the 240 has the exact same ratios. The M111 needs a slightly taller first and second gear. The other ratios are fine....although perhaps I'd make 6th gear even taller...that engine has soooo much low end torque, it could aford to loose another 500-1000RPM on the highway.

Quote:

With to the M111's much wider torque band, I think a wider-spaced 5-speed would have worked better.

I have to disagree about using a 5 speed. I agree with taller gears for first and second, but I like the extra gear. Without sixth, you'd either have a top gear that buzzes, or a super tall fifth that would make hamper accelleration once out of 4th gear.

Quote:

However, with the M271 motor in the 2003 C230Ks (sedan and coupe), the torque curve is shortened up somewhat and I imagine that the ratios are much better for these motors.

The lack of superlow end torque in the M271 would likely make a taller 1st gear hamper accelleration.

Quote:

For the 3.2L V6, I think its torque curve would probably be better served by a 5-speed manual. Which it won't get, due to marketing pressures over performance.

Where do you get the idea that a 5 Speed better serves bigger and more powerfull motors? I still think 6 is the way to go. Having 6 gears allows you to have a supertall highway gear, while still having good spaced city gears.

 

They do have the exact same ratios in the gear-box.

1 (4.46), 2 (2.61), 3 (1.72), 4 (1.25), 5 (1.00), 6 (0.84)

Although the 2002 C230K has a 3.27 rear-end, while the C240 has a 3.46.


I was addressing Fresh's question about acceleration times, perhaps I should have worded it better. One less shift equals quicker acceleration.

Anyway, having six-speeds in most cars is a marketing gimmick. I remember someone once posted that since the Ford Focus has a 6-speed, a MB better have one, as there is no way five is better than six. That's why I had the "It goes to eleven !" quote at the end of the post.

However, a motor with a broad torque-curve (such as the M111) doesn't require as many gears as a "peakier" motor would (such as the 2.6L C240 motor). As an example of how you could have an equally effective 5-speed gearbox, I've made some calculations using an M111 motor on a C230K with C7 wheels/tires. This motor has good power from about 1700 rpm up, a redline at 6000 rpm, and a torque peak that is essentially flat from 3000-5500 rpm.

Hypothetical 5-speed box: 3.33/1.82/1.30/0.95/0.75 (3.96 rear-end)

Hypothetical acceleration shift points:
1-2: easy shift at 17 mph, 3194 (1st) to 1746 (2nd) rpm - hard (redline) shift at 33 mph 5857 to 3201 rpm
2-3: easy at 31 mph, 3007 to 2065 rpm - hard at 61 mph, 5917 to 4064 rpm
3-4: easy at 45 mph, 2998 to 2278 rpm - hard at 89 mph, 5929 to 4506 rpm
4-5: easy at 60 mph, 3038 to 2398 rpm - hard at 117 mph, 5924 rpm to 4677 rpm

I chose gear ratios that would give a 0-60 time with only a single shift (would also need one less shift in the 1/4-mile), as well as a good first gear for cruising around in traffic (10 mph is 1774 rpm in first with my hypothetical 5-speed, it's 1963 rpm with the 6-speed ratios), plus an OK overdrive gear for freeway cruising (70 mph in hypo-5th is 2798 rpm, current 6th is 2588 at 70 mph; or 210 revs difference, so my 5-speed box is a little busier on the highway). Also, by looking at my "easy" acceleration shift points, this 5-speed box would still be good around the city.

Cheers, BT

 

0-60 is not at the top of my list, on the track you want to keep the engine at the torque peak as much as possible and a close ratio
transmission helps a lot with a peaky engine.

 

Absolutely right. I doubt that any of the MB engines requires more than five gears, or maybe even four. I was once given a Chevelle to drive with 396 cu. in., a 4-speed, and a 4.56 rear end. The car could start off comfortably in third, and would actually pull away on the level in fourth with a bit of clutch slip. For normal driving it probably did not need even four gears.

I like your thoughtful five-speed, but would have probably gone with the optional six-speed had yours been part of the standard equipment. Marketing beats Engineering one more time.

 

Funny thing is I would have done the same.

I like how people riding in my car say, "Wow, this car has 6-gears." Like this makes it faster somehow.



BT

 

Trench,
My opinion is that 1774 RPM at 10 MPH is too low for the type of traffic I drive in. Hard to tell without doing the calcs, but I bet I'd be riding the clutch at 5 MPH to keep the motor from bogging. I'm a lazy guy and hate hitting the clutch while crawling in traffic if I don't need to. The wifes Honda 5spd is a b**ch in traffic because it simply won't stay running at idle while in 1st gear.

Also, 2800 RPM at 70 MPH is way too high. Even 2600 in 6th is already too high for this engine (I keep looking to see if 7th magically appeared overnight).

Just goes to show different tastes. I guess that's why some manufacturers offer(ed) different rear-end ratios in an attempt to please everyone.

 

They do not make a C320 6 Speed......
The Manual is a little quicker on the C240, Than the C240 ****box auto. Also depends on your skillz
The 6th gear is basically for cruising on the freeway and saving gas. 1st post woo hoo

 

They do now.

Cheers, BT

 

Not in the states



The 2003 C320 Sport Sedan
MSRP $35,920.00*
Packages



Options


· 5-Spd.Automatic Transmission details $1,325.00

 

I have had mine for two week now C320 6sp.

 

From MBUSA:

C320 specs
C320 Sport Sedan specs

For both of these a manual is standard and the automatic is optional.

This is new for 2003.

- BT

 

Wow where the hell have I been? Thats really dope, I thought it was a big mistake not to add that option before. Now they just need to ad it for the C32AMG

 

I bet the C320 sport sedan with AMG swaybars would be a really nice car.

 

Or Brabus, I just did all my body work now I wanna trade the car in>>>I bet the Manual C320 is nice..

 

Well, you are the first that I've heard about. I guess the delay is over. YAHOO!!!

 

As much as I dislike my 6-speed (for reasons outlined above), I really do like the suspension setup I have created. If MB knew what a sports sedan really is, they would have done similar:

C240 6-speed
C32 AMG bars
Eibach springs
17" staggered AMG -3 wheels

It way out performs the wimpy factory sport package for a fraction of the cost ($3000 when I bought my car in 2001). Now all I need are shocks, waiting for Koni adjustables, hopefully in time for the SCCA autocross season which starts in April.

 

Dude chip it, And do an exhaust. It helps alot.
www.asechips.com email these guys.. for the chizip

 

Oh yeah, it also has a cat-back Brabus exhaust - awesome sound and mid-range torque.

I am not convinced that a chip on a non-boosted engine is worthwhile, especially considering that any engine warranty would be voided.