Me thinks this 2.82 rear gear ratio needs some live'n up
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
I'll bet my money that lowering the final gear ratio will have a greater effect than that of pretending I'm in 6th gear while driving in 5th.
Psst... by the way... I'm doing this to make the car more fun to drive; not to win a NHRA championship.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,942
Likes: 192
From: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
Super Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 818
Likes: 3
From: Atlanta, GA
'02 C230 Coupe (Me) '03 SLK320 6MT (Wife)
This conversation may well jump over my head: my only experience was playing with ratios for a 1985 Mustang GT. The stock with the 5-speed manual was a 2.73 (I believe - that's fairly close anyway, been a while). Although everyone was jumping to a 3.55 or 3.73, I stumbled upon a 3.27 cheap and used that. The 3.27 was stock with the Automatic tranny for a 1986 (just to complete the story, I swapped out the true dual exhaust from the '86 too).
With the stock T-5 ratios and the 2.73, the car wouldn't rev to the upper limits in the higher gears. Based on friends cars, the 3.55+ cars would, but ended up with a lower top speed. The 3.27, as it turned out was the sweet spot, letting the car rev fully in 5th -- and ended up being faster top end than either the 2.73 or the 3.55 cars, with the performance off the line being a big step up as well; it really woke the car up and made driving it a pleasure. Didn't care about gas mileage then, but I don't think it suffered.
My long winded point is that, in theory, the 2.73 should have given me a higher top speed, but whatever the physics/mechanics indicate at first there are other factors that may end up changing the equation. It sounds to me like stepping up might make the car a lot more fun to drive, and the cost seems pretty reasonable. If you don't like it, you can change it again.
With the stock T-5 ratios and the 2.73, the car wouldn't rev to the upper limits in the higher gears. Based on friends cars, the 3.55+ cars would, but ended up with a lower top speed. The 3.27, as it turned out was the sweet spot, letting the car rev fully in 5th -- and ended up being faster top end than either the 2.73 or the 3.55 cars, with the performance off the line being a big step up as well; it really woke the car up and made driving it a pleasure. Didn't care about gas mileage then, but I don't think it suffered.
My long winded point is that, in theory, the 2.73 should have given me a higher top speed, but whatever the physics/mechanics indicate at first there are other factors that may end up changing the equation. It sounds to me like stepping up might make the car a lot more fun to drive, and the cost seems pretty reasonable. If you don't like it, you can change it again.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
This conversation may well jump over my head: my only experience was playing with ratios for a 1985 Mustang GT. The stock with the 5-speed manual was a 2.73 (I believe - that's fairly close anyway, been a while). Although everyone was jumping to a 3.55 or 3.73, I stumbled upon a 3.27 cheap and used that. The 3.27 was stock with the Automatic tranny for a 1986 (just to complete the story, I swapped out the true dual exhaust from the '86 too).
With the stock T-5 ratios and the 2.73, the car wouldn't rev to the upper limits in the higher gears. Based on friends cars, the 3.55+ cars would, but ended up with a lower top speed. The 3.27, as it turned out was the sweet spot, letting the car rev fully in 5th -- and ended up being faster top end than either the 2.73 or the 3.55 cars, with the performance off the line being a big step up as well; it really woke the car up and made driving it a pleasure. Didn't care about gas mileage then, but I don't think it suffered.
My long winded point is that, in theory, the 2.73 should have given me a higher top speed, but whatever the physics/mechanics indicate at first there are other factors that may end up changing the equation. It sounds to me like stepping up might make the car a lot more fun to drive, and the cost seems pretty reasonable. If you don't like it, you can change it again.
With the stock T-5 ratios and the 2.73, the car wouldn't rev to the upper limits in the higher gears. Based on friends cars, the 3.55+ cars would, but ended up with a lower top speed. The 3.27, as it turned out was the sweet spot, letting the car rev fully in 5th -- and ended up being faster top end than either the 2.73 or the 3.55 cars, with the performance off the line being a big step up as well; it really woke the car up and made driving it a pleasure. Didn't care about gas mileage then, but I don't think it suffered.
My long winded point is that, in theory, the 2.73 should have given me a higher top speed, but whatever the physics/mechanics indicate at first there are other factors that may end up changing the equation. It sounds to me like stepping up might make the car a lot more fun to drive, and the cost seems pretty reasonable. If you don't like it, you can change it again.
You're also exactly right - the are plenty of other factors at play aside from just the final ratio. In the end I'll get some more use out of the revs, without losing much mpg, have more fun, and wont miss whatever theorhetical top end i'll lose, as I don't see myself cruising at 150mph often.
I may just help pave the way for an untapped, unexpensive modification to help up the fun factor and unlock some untapped torque
Last edited by cpbeasley; Jan 14, 2011 at 08:50 PM.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,365
Likes: 12
From: Orange County, CA
GMC - Miata - Trek - P-Car
Waiting on a call back from the european rear differential "pumpkin" man to place my order for the 3.67 out of an 02 c240 for hopefully approx ~$300. Found a local installer, a performance shop, willing to do the swap for $350. Also just got off the phone with Jeremy @ OE. He has a hunch that the ratio change in Star Developer isn't a necessity, but is checking on it for me in the meantime. @ time of the install, ECU will be headed off to see Jeremy for the tune and mod for the new ratio if needed. Looks like this is all coming together nicely.
It's probabl a few weeks away from being completed, but stay tuned! The first mbworld w203 c350 w/ lower final gearing is on the way!
It's probabl a few weeks away from being completed, but stay tuned! The first mbworld w203 c350 w/ lower final gearing is on the way!
As you’re well aware, there’s no denying the joy from increasing one’s available cut ‘n thrust torque; my .83x3.06:1 final drive ratio’s 300 km/h capability is seldom utilized. Used to spin the inside rear mercilessly upon exiting 75 mph sweepers before fitting its Quaife ATB differential though. Note the W203’s various pumpkins and axles are not necessarily interchangeable, and that they’ve proven prone to premature failure when subjected decent loading, particularly when reducing the ring and pinion’s (necessarily) available loading interface in a lowered gearing retrofit. MB/AMG rightly saw fit to increase the pumpkin’s strength when sending sufficient torque loading its way.
Nevertheless, you’ll need to correct for pending speedometer error if that’s of concern.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
As you’re well aware, there’s no denying the joy from increasing one’s available cut ‘n thrust torque; my .83x3.06:1 final drive ratio’s 300 km/h capability is seldom utilized. Used to spin the inside rear mercilessly upon exiting 75 mph sweepers before fitting its Quaife ATB differential though. Note the W203’s various pumpkins and axles are not necessarily interchangeable, and that they’ve proven prone to premature failure when subjected decent loading, particularly when reducing the ring and pinion’s (necessarily) available loading interface in a lowered gearing retrofit. MB/AMG rightly saw fit to increase the pumpkin’s strength when sending sufficient torque loading its way.
Thank you for the nudge to further investigate the interchange of the pumpkin in question, i didnt realise they werent all the same. Do you happen to know what qualifications I need to make sure are compatible/the same between new vs current in terms of physical make? And yes Im aware the lower the gearing, the thiner the support area of the ring gear... i was lucky to never have a problem under the influence of my driving style with the often time precarious 4.10s (not as bad as the 4.56) in the stock 10 bolt under the heads/cam ls1 car. i have no knowledge of the benz pumpkin to compare its structural integrity to the 4.10 10-bolt, but the chevy rear was also known for its ability to explode. so, i'll take my cautious chances with my back-up 2.83 punkin on deck.
EDIT: There is a 3.47 out of an 05 c230 (with 21k miles) on ebay. that perhaps has a better chance of interchanging than an 02 c240 pumpkin? Again, i dont know what to look for to make sure it can interchange, so any help to figure this out the better. thanks!
Nevertheless, you’ll need to correct for pending speedometer error if that’s of concern.
Last edited by cpbeasley; Jan 15, 2011 at 02:15 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,851
Likes: 196
From: Huntington Beach, Ca.
'17 Jaguar XF
I agree and remember reading that the drive shaft RPM is monitored at the transmission final output and provides input for both speed and ESP function. Without recoding it will think the rear wheels are always breaking loose. I could be wrong and stand correction though. This takes me back to my '55 Chevy, bored to 301, dual quads, cam, etc etc with 4:56 rear end and welded spider gears....a poor man's LSD of the day.
Last edited by mleskovar; Jan 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 6
From: Corona, CA
03 g35 coupe...........02 c32 Sold
i know the s2k guys go from low 14's to high 13's just from upgrading there fd from a 4.10 to a 4.4 like the type S. So i can see how you would be interested in doing this to improve your 1/4 time.
I would be more worried if your car will throw a code and put you into limp mode from the new gear.
I would be more worried if your car will throw a code and put you into limp mode from the new gear.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
i know the s2k guys go from low 14's to high 13's just from upgrading there fd from a 4.10 to a 4.4 like the type S. So i can see how you would be interested in doing this to improve your 1/4 time.
I would be more worried if your car will throw a code and put you into limp mode from the new gear.
I would be more worried if your car will throw a code and put you into limp mode from the new gear.
I dont have to worry about any tranny module with the 6 spd, but Im working with Karo on getting the proper steps to make the adjustment via Star. Others who have done this w/ 6 spd (one with an 03 c230 in mind) had to make no ECU changes oddly enough.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
No, those aren't your current mph at max revs.
You should take some of your own advice. I'm perfectly happy over here.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
i know the s2k guys go from low 14's to high 13's just from upgrading there fd from a 4.10 to a 4.4 like the type S. So i can see how you would be interested in doing this to improve your 1/4 time.
I would be more worried if your car will throw a code and put you into limp mode from the new gear.
I would be more worried if your car will throw a code and put you into limp mode from the new gear.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
Are you effing kidding me? You are really going to sit there and tell me this? I drove the car last night, gingerly let it rev up so I could see the needle a moment before it bounced off the rev limiter.
Since I apparently cannot read my own speedometer, would you like to tell me what the correct readings are? I suppose my reading of the RPM in 6th at 60 is a wrong "calculation" as well too?
If you're going to tell me that 1st is 37 instead of 35, then Id agree with you bc I was approximating a couple marks.
I cant believe Im responding to the sentiment that my own mph readings at max revs are incorrect. You are full of crap in that accusation sir.
I cannot believe the snobbery from some people on this board on occasion.
If you want to give me something constructive, then tell me what physical difference between w203 rear differentials exist.
Since I apparently cannot read my own speedometer, would you like to tell me what the correct readings are? I suppose my reading of the RPM in 6th at 60 is a wrong "calculation" as well too?
If you're going to tell me that 1st is 37 instead of 35, then Id agree with you bc I was approximating a couple marks.
I cant believe Im responding to the sentiment that my own mph readings at max revs are incorrect. You are full of crap in that accusation sir.
I cannot believe the snobbery from some people on this board on occasion.
If you want to give me something constructive, then tell me what physical difference between w203 rear differentials exist.
Last edited by cpbeasley; Jan 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 9
From: OC
a quarter mile at a time
Are you effing kidding me? You are really going to sit there and tell me this? I drove the car last night, gingerly let it rev up so I could see the needle a moment before it bounced off the rev limiter.
Since I apparently cannot read my own speedometer, would you like to tell me what the correct readings are? I suppose my reading of the RPM in 6th at 60 is a wrong "calculation" as well too?
If you're going to tell me that 1st is 37 instead of 35, then Id agree with you bc I was approximating a couple marks.
I cant believe Im responding to the sentiment that my own mph readings at max revs are incorrect. You are full of crap in that accusation sir.
I cannot believe the snobbery from some people on this board on occasion.
If you want to give me something constructive, then tell me what physical difference between w203 rear differentials exist.
Since I apparently cannot read my own speedometer, would you like to tell me what the correct readings are? I suppose my reading of the RPM in 6th at 60 is a wrong "calculation" as well too?
If you're going to tell me that 1st is 37 instead of 35, then Id agree with you bc I was approximating a couple marks.
I cant believe Im responding to the sentiment that my own mph readings at max revs are incorrect. You are full of crap in that accusation sir.
I cannot believe the snobbery from some people on this board on occasion.
If you want to give me something constructive, then tell me what physical difference between w203 rear differentials exist.
Super Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 818
Likes: 3
From: Atlanta, GA
'02 C230 Coupe (Me) '03 SLK320 6MT (Wife)
Defend your assertion that they are not the mph for the gears. I'm curious.
P.S. No happy pill needed here.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
Ok, I am puzzled. If those are his "observed" readings, and your argument is that they are not matching the "theoretical" limits then there has to something that is not being accounted for.
Defend your assertion that they are not the mph for the gears. I'm curious.
P.S. No happy pill needed here.
Defend your assertion that they are not the mph for the gears. I'm curious.
P.S. No happy pill needed here.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,537
Likes: 8
2006 C350 Sport 6MT
I'm interested as well, to compare it to the 7speed. The 1st in the 7speed goes higher and 7th gear (which people say is overdrive) cruising at 75mph is close to 2k rpm (around there).
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
If you're interested, look at the numbers I posted above to compare. These were taken from my speedo and tach. I dont understand why he's questioning my ability to observe my own guages lol.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,365
Likes: 12
From: Orange County, CA
GMC - Miata - Trek - P-Car
It’s seldom my intent to get in the middle of a pissing match. :nix:
The gearbox ratios in yours manifest results remarkably similar to mine:
1st: 38 (3.59)
2nd: 64 (2.19)
3rd: 101 (1.41)
4th: 142 (1.00)
5th: 179 (.80)
~2225 rpm at 60 mph.
Aforementioned GPS-verified figures obtained with a 3.06:1 R&P ratio, ~24.9-inch rear tire height, 6200 rpm upshifts and account for the 722.6’s PWM torque converter slippage.
Note those beyond the legal speed limit were recorded exclusively during sanctioned off-highway, closed course events.
Seems MB may have used the extra cog in its 6MT to help cheat CAFE requirements.
To your other thread - my early differential required 220 350 20 45 output flanges when swapping in later hardware. Its 002 980 17 02 bearings and 025 997 27 47 seals were replaced concurrently as a matter of course. Your installation may indeed go off without a hitch.
Trust, but verify is always a sound policy. Regret that I can’t be more forthcoming.
1st: 38 (3.59)
2nd: 64 (2.19)
3rd: 101 (1.41)
4th: 142 (1.00)
5th: 179 (.80)
~2225 rpm at 60 mph.
Aforementioned GPS-verified figures obtained with a 3.06:1 R&P ratio, ~24.9-inch rear tire height, 6200 rpm upshifts and account for the 722.6’s PWM torque converter slippage.
Note those beyond the legal speed limit were recorded exclusively during sanctioned off-highway, closed course events.
Seems MB may have used the extra cog in its 6MT to help cheat CAFE requirements.
To your other thread - my early differential required 220 350 20 45 output flanges when swapping in later hardware. Its 002 980 17 02 bearings and 025 997 27 47 seals were replaced concurrently as a matter of course. Your installation may indeed go off without a hitch.
Trust, but verify is always a sound policy. Regret that I can’t be more forthcoming.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 997
Likes: 2
From: KC, MO
"annoyance" and "self-righteousness", amoung others...
No pissing match here anymore, no worries.
Yes they are quite close. I was most definitely off a few marks using only my guages. It would be nice to have access to GPS for greater accuracy. Hopefully come time for the swap I'll be able to do so.
I'll look over the pumpkin with the shop before the install. Hopefully the flanges at most can be swapped for the retrofit and go without a hitch as you said. I'll inquire about the bearings and seals (thank you for the PNs!) to see if I need to get them myself as Im not sure if the indy shop included them in the over-the-phone quote I was provided for the install.
Unless I can locate a 3.67 in outstanding condition by tomorrow, Im sourcing a 3.46 w/ 20k miles out of an 05. Without an LSD at the time, I wont mind the slightly taller ratio.
Yes they are quite close. I was most definitely off a few marks using only my guages. It would be nice to have access to GPS for greater accuracy. Hopefully come time for the swap I'll be able to do so.
I'll look over the pumpkin with the shop before the install. Hopefully the flanges at most can be swapped for the retrofit and go without a hitch as you said. I'll inquire about the bearings and seals (thank you for the PNs!) to see if I need to get them myself as Im not sure if the indy shop included them in the over-the-phone quote I was provided for the install.
Unless I can locate a 3.67 in outstanding condition by tomorrow, Im sourcing a 3.46 w/ 20k miles out of an 05. Without an LSD at the time, I wont mind the slightly taller ratio.
