9-speed transmission
03-26-2023, 09:24 PM
#26
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Yours to Discover
Posts: 14,131
Received 2,704 Likes
on
2,300 Posts
PFL205.064 with M276.823 (Oil pump solenoid defeated)
Those aren't the only problems. There is already a shortage of many of the materials needed to produce EVs today; scale only increases that problem. Not just supply chain; you're talking about needs increasing up to a factor of 10 in some cases. That's mining, processing, the works. There is currently no road map by which that can happen on paper; let alone in process. We're talking about finding some of these materials and getting through the regulatory approval to start setting up a mining operation before any works even begin.
There is also no possible way many countries can produce the electricity for those cars without a net carbon gain unless they move forward with massive infrastructure build outs of the kind only richer countries can contemplate; some of these are moving forward but not nearly enough.
Think of the US: We're one of not so many countries that have the kind of wealth that can make this happen. How long would it take us with our money to overhaul the grid? We're talking about new nuclear, wind, solar, Tidal, and everything between them and a cord leading to an EV. Nothing less will get the move to EVs into negative carbon and the goal is negative carbon, not EVs.
My wife is an academic and working tangentially in this field. Neither she nor her colleagues see a path forward without a net carbon gain that works within the timelines many are pushing unless very significant movement starts on these fronts now.
Back to the trans; it does work better in sport and it's smooth most of the time but that's not enough to meet par. A dual clutch should not best an automatic for smoothness, not any dual clutch, not any automatic. You have that going on with this car compared to the PDK.
Any auto can be caught flat-footed, in the wrong gear, be made to clunk, but it happens more here than any car I've had recently. Or even any rental car I've had recently.
Neither of those are anything huge comparatively but they're there. It's odd to me; I'm coming from Porsche's and I'm not familiar with this brand but I did have an idea in my mind about what an S Class brings to the table. I didn't envision a trans that feels like it's a step behind.
There is also no possible way many countries can produce the electricity for those cars without a net carbon gain unless they move forward with massive infrastructure build outs of the kind only richer countries can contemplate; some of these are moving forward but not nearly enough.
Think of the US: We're one of not so many countries that have the kind of wealth that can make this happen. How long would it take us with our money to overhaul the grid? We're talking about new nuclear, wind, solar, Tidal, and everything between them and a cord leading to an EV. Nothing less will get the move to EVs into negative carbon and the goal is negative carbon, not EVs.
My wife is an academic and working tangentially in this field. Neither she nor her colleagues see a path forward without a net carbon gain that works within the timelines many are pushing unless very significant movement starts on these fronts now.
Back to the trans; it does work better in sport and it's smooth most of the time but that's not enough to meet par. A dual clutch should not best an automatic for smoothness, not any dual clutch, not any automatic. You have that going on with this car compared to the PDK.
Any auto can be caught flat-footed, in the wrong gear, be made to clunk, but it happens more here than any car I've had recently. Or even any rental car I've had recently.
Neither of those are anything huge comparatively but they're there. It's odd to me; I'm coming from Porsche's and I'm not familiar with this brand but I did have an idea in my mind about what an S Class brings to the table. I didn't envision a trans that feels like it's a step behind.
03-26-2023, 09:34 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
No, I wouldn't call them problems, it's just not the best trans.
The following users liked this post:
chassis (03-27-2023)
03-27-2023, 12:49 AM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: U.S.
Posts: 1,795
Received 748 Likes
on
484 Posts
Current/Last 5-years: GLS,X5,Tesla,Accord; Sold:S560;S550,2x X7; X5;BMW 530e;Lincoln Navigator;LS460
Agree! Canada used to mainly use nuclear to produce electricity now it is cleaner with electricity mainly produced through hydro sources. That said, we haven't abandoned nuclear yet and still are producing electricity to some extent through nuclear which means it is not renewable, we also sometimes use coal, natural gas, petroleum, biomass and solar to produce electricity I believe wind too.
Sigh, I was hoping e-Fuel was the breakthrough, as how you described it looks like it is (so far) an empty promise. Porsche also entertained the idea of synthetic fuel but I guess that is not going to do much either plus might be exclusive for their own vehicles.
Sigh, I was hoping e-Fuel was the breakthrough, as how you described it looks like it is (so far) an empty promise. Porsche also entertained the idea of synthetic fuel but I guess that is not going to do much either plus might be exclusive for their own vehicles.
But, as a nuclear professional myself and with 3 advanced degrees all in the nuclear field, I just want to clarify “and couldn’t hold myself) and say that the statement that switching from nuclear to hydropower is a “cleaner” electricity is not really true. Nuclear does not emit a single gram of greenhouse gases during power generation. As for resources, Hydro, solar and/or wind resources can require significant amounts of land and resources to produce energy on a large scale. Additionally, the manufacturing and disposal of renewable energy infrastructure can also have environmental impacts. Nuclear energy nowadays have breeder reactors that technically generate almost no-waste after the life-cycle of the reactor (i.e.: beyond 60 years), in a way that waste fuel is used as a fuel for the following reactor. Nuclear generally is not renewable simply because Uranium is a finite resource, but keep in mind that a single reactor generating 3000 MWe of electricity needs less than 30 tons of Uranium. About 10 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium. So technically, despite being a finite resource (not renewable), it is almost an infinite source (especially that current technologies such as breeder reactorscan generate more material “fuel” at the end of it’s cycle than it consumes! (Sounds like an exaggeration, but that’s 100% true)… hence waste* fuel is actually a fuel for the next reactor when the reactor reaches the end of it’s lifetime.
Last edited by S_W222; 03-27-2023 at 12:59 AM.
03-27-2023, 12:58 AM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: U.S.
Posts: 1,795
Received 748 Likes
on
484 Posts
Current/Last 5-years: GLS,X5,Tesla,Accord; Sold:S560;S550,2x X7; X5;BMW 530e;Lincoln Navigator;LS460
There have actually been people suggesting to use nuclear to produce e-fuel. Nuclear is one of those plants that you can't just shut down when the electricity demand is reduced, so what some have suggested is to use the nuclear plants during the times when the sun shines and the wind blows to produce e-fuel for later use, while the renewables power everything else and then when the sun goes down the nuclear plants can keep the lights on. Obviously this hinges on politicians realizing that the electric future is most likely not gonna happen w/o nuclear, at least not as long as we don't have large scale long term storage to supply energy during the winter and times when the sun don't shine. Currently, their solution is natural gas plants as those are the easiest to quickly spin up and then shut down again.
Sorry again for going off topic, back to transmission stuff….
03-27-2023, 01:25 AM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 8,605
Received 3,947 Likes
on
2,633 Posts
2019 C63CS
Happy to hear you have no issues and enjoying your vehicle as a result.
The problem with updates is that it is a never ending loop, after a TCU update unfortunately the dealership will likely reset the adaptation and the learning cycle restarts again leading to the possibility of having clunky and jerky transmissions.
Granted, not all dealerships update the transmission for every service visit and usually does it when there is a compliant with the shifting but the transmission keeps on getting resetting and the customer complains again as it is doing the jerky and clunking because it wasn't given time to adapt then the reset happens again, like a loop.
The problem with updates is that it is a never ending loop, after a TCU update unfortunately the dealership will likely reset the adaptation and the learning cycle restarts again leading to the possibility of having clunky and jerky transmissions.
Granted, not all dealerships update the transmission for every service visit and usually does it when there is a compliant with the shifting but the transmission keeps on getting resetting and the customer complains again as it is doing the jerky and clunking because it wasn't given time to adapt then the reset happens again, like a loop.
03-27-2023, 06:35 AM
#31
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: unbegrenzt
Posts: 13,471
Received 3,992 Likes
on
3,138 Posts
2017 GLE350 4MATIC
First am sorry if I am (or we are) getting off topic… [please skip reading this comment if u want to read about transmissions : )]
But, as a nuclear professional myself and with 3 advanced degrees all in the nuclear field, I just want to clarify “and couldn’t hold myself) and say that the statement that switching from nuclear to hydropower is a “cleaner” electricity is not really true. Nuclear does not emit a single gram of greenhouse gases during power generation. As for resources, Hydro, solar and/or wind resources can require significant amounts of land and resources to produce energy on a large scale. Additionally, the manufacturing and disposal of renewable energy infrastructure can also have environmental impacts. Nuclear energy nowadays have breeder reactors that technically generate almost no-waste after the life-cycle of the reactor (i.e.: beyond 60 years), in a way that waste fuel is used as a fuel for the following reactor. Nuclear generally is not renewable simply because Uranium is a finite resource, but keep in mind that a single reactor generating 3000 MWe of electricity needs less than 30 tons of Uranium. About 10 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium. So technically, despite being a finite resource (not renewable), it is almost an infinite source (especially that current technologies such as breeder reactorscan generate more material “fuel” at the end of it’s cycle than it consumes! (Sounds like an exaggeration, but that’s 100% true)… hence waste* fuel is actually a fuel for the next reactor when the reactor reaches the end of it’s lifetime.
But, as a nuclear professional myself and with 3 advanced degrees all in the nuclear field, I just want to clarify “and couldn’t hold myself) and say that the statement that switching from nuclear to hydropower is a “cleaner” electricity is not really true. Nuclear does not emit a single gram of greenhouse gases during power generation. As for resources, Hydro, solar and/or wind resources can require significant amounts of land and resources to produce energy on a large scale. Additionally, the manufacturing and disposal of renewable energy infrastructure can also have environmental impacts. Nuclear energy nowadays have breeder reactors that technically generate almost no-waste after the life-cycle of the reactor (i.e.: beyond 60 years), in a way that waste fuel is used as a fuel for the following reactor. Nuclear generally is not renewable simply because Uranium is a finite resource, but keep in mind that a single reactor generating 3000 MWe of electricity needs less than 30 tons of Uranium. About 10 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium. So technically, despite being a finite resource (not renewable), it is almost an infinite source (especially that current technologies such as breeder reactorscan generate more material “fuel” at the end of it’s cycle than it consumes! (Sounds like an exaggeration, but that’s 100% true)… hence waste* fuel is actually a fuel for the next reactor when the reactor reaches the end of it’s lifetime.
Summary for me: there is no free lunch.
2nd law of thermodynamics always holds. This means all energy “costs” something and something is always emitted or consumed.
The payback to society on the investment in eletricity+battery driven transportation is many decades away.
Buildout of the EV infrastructure “costs” society more energy (emissions and consumption) than doing nothing, therefore the buildout is an investment that needs to be returned in the form of lower total lifecycle emissions.
The buildout itself requires decades; the return on this investment requires still more decades thereafter. During these decades combustion technology will continue to improve, further extending the societal return on EV investment.
Last edited by chassis; 03-27-2023 at 06:38 AM.
The following users liked this post:
S_W222 (03-27-2023)
03-27-2023, 03:08 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
There are problems with nuclear on the timelines we're talking about.
We managed to make it take 40 years to get a plant online in the US. Thats an outlier but my understanding is you can figure 7 to 10 years to see power from a plant that you start building today but that wont happen unless you've already completed the 4 years to site it and gain regulatory approval.
Then there's the cost, or more specifically the problem up front is it's impossible to put a cost on it. There are few recent plants in the west but all of them are, or were, significantly more expensive than planned, up to 2 or even 3 times the estimated costs before construction began. This inhibits construction on the front end but also changes the calculus for the comparative cost versus other source since something like 3/4 the total cost of nuclear comes from construction of the plant.
You've got the profit motive. Green is happening, but this being capitalism, everyone wants to maximize the profits and you don't build nuclear powerplants without friends in high places. Nuclear needs to show a business case versus other sources of power production so that the people who put money into reelection campaigns will feel generous, or it has no champions in state or federal government.
These things are how plants have not been getting built for decades. I'm a fan of nuclear as a vital ingredient in moving toward greener power and fully believe the science in regard to greenhouse gases but the goal is not to build plants of any type, it's not to build EVs, it's lower carbon.
EVs in aggregate sold in the US this year will go from new car to the junkyard as a net carbon gain. Even were the green power available today we have no way of making all those cars without finding and sourcing raw materials which we believe is possible but have done little to prove out. This weighs particularly heavy on the 2035 timeline in the EU and is why MB has invested billions in a consortium looking for new materials sources. It's not just a matter of vertical integration and costs, there isn't enough to get there now and they don't know where it's coming from... yet.
I'd say I made do with 4 years of school but that would be a bit misleading as it actually took 5; what I see isn't just a need to embrace a long term commitment, I see the possibility of failure over a long period doing what we're doing now.
Or maybe I'm too pessimistic. With some experts in the field here I'm more than willing to learn something new if they care to explain what I'm missing.
Also, to be clear, my car has a transmission which is NOT supplied power from a nuclear plant. Don't want anyone to think this post is off-topic.
We managed to make it take 40 years to get a plant online in the US. Thats an outlier but my understanding is you can figure 7 to 10 years to see power from a plant that you start building today but that wont happen unless you've already completed the 4 years to site it and gain regulatory approval.
Then there's the cost, or more specifically the problem up front is it's impossible to put a cost on it. There are few recent plants in the west but all of them are, or were, significantly more expensive than planned, up to 2 or even 3 times the estimated costs before construction began. This inhibits construction on the front end but also changes the calculus for the comparative cost versus other source since something like 3/4 the total cost of nuclear comes from construction of the plant.
You've got the profit motive. Green is happening, but this being capitalism, everyone wants to maximize the profits and you don't build nuclear powerplants without friends in high places. Nuclear needs to show a business case versus other sources of power production so that the people who put money into reelection campaigns will feel generous, or it has no champions in state or federal government.
These things are how plants have not been getting built for decades. I'm a fan of nuclear as a vital ingredient in moving toward greener power and fully believe the science in regard to greenhouse gases but the goal is not to build plants of any type, it's not to build EVs, it's lower carbon.
EVs in aggregate sold in the US this year will go from new car to the junkyard as a net carbon gain. Even were the green power available today we have no way of making all those cars without finding and sourcing raw materials which we believe is possible but have done little to prove out. This weighs particularly heavy on the 2035 timeline in the EU and is why MB has invested billions in a consortium looking for new materials sources. It's not just a matter of vertical integration and costs, there isn't enough to get there now and they don't know where it's coming from... yet.
I'd say I made do with 4 years of school but that would be a bit misleading as it actually took 5; what I see isn't just a need to embrace a long term commitment, I see the possibility of failure over a long period doing what we're doing now.
Or maybe I'm too pessimistic. With some experts in the field here I'm more than willing to learn something new if they care to explain what I'm missing.
Also, to be clear, my car has a transmission which is NOT supplied power from a nuclear plant. Don't want anyone to think this post is off-topic.
The following 2 users liked this post by crabman:
chassis (03-27-2023),
Streamliner (03-27-2023)
03-27-2023, 03:57 PM
#33
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: unbegrenzt
Posts: 13,471
Received 3,992 Likes
on
3,138 Posts
2017 GLE350 4MATIC
The thing is there is no green energy. The second law of thermodynamics assures us of this.
Emissions and consumption are the fact for all energy sources, without exception.
Emissions and consumption are the fact for all energy sources, without exception.
03-27-2023, 04:44 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 8,605
Received 3,947 Likes
on
2,633 Posts
2019 C63CS
Originally Posted by chassis
The thing is there is no green energy. The second law of thermodynamics assures us of this.
Emissions and consumption are the fact for all energy sources, without exception.
Emissions and consumption are the fact for all energy sources, without exception.
Last edited by superswiss; 03-27-2023 at 06:39 PM.
The following users liked this post:
chassis (03-28-2023)
03-27-2023, 06:33 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
lol My point is that there is a point and that would be reducing carbon output, not building power plants, not building EVs, etc. Those are potential means to that end, not the goal itself. Not sure what you were shooting for there but I think you know that most people talking about green in this context are referring to some aspect of reducing carbon output, not magic fairy dust.
03-27-2023, 08:30 PM
#36
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Yours to Discover
Posts: 14,131
Received 2,704 Likes
on
2,300 Posts
PFL205.064 with M276.823 (Oil pump solenoid defeated)
That is good to hear glad it worked out for you.
03-28-2023, 03:41 PM
#37
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: unbegrenzt
Posts: 13,471
Received 3,992 Likes
on
3,138 Posts
2017 GLE350 4MATIC
That's not quite correct. There's no energy conversion without a loss, but not necessarily emissions. For example converting electrical energy to mechanical energy doesn't produce emissions. It produces a loss in the form of waste heat, but no emissions. The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't say there are emissions. It just says not all of the energy can be converted to work.
Name one mainstream energy conversion process used to deliver electricity or motive (transportative) power to consumers that does not produce an emission of one kind or another, taking an end-to-end view.
Last edited by chassis; 03-28-2023 at 03:44 PM.
03-28-2023, 04:17 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 8,605
Received 3,947 Likes
on
2,633 Posts
2019 C63CS
Not correct. "Loss" as you correctly pointed out is always the case. "Loss" means something is wasted. Waste = emissions, whether by incomplete combustion, residual radiation, or upstream losses (emissions) in the capital equipment (wind turbines, solar cells) manufacturing process. Take a holistic end-to-end look at this.
Name one mainstream energy conversion process used to deliver electricity or motive (transportative) power to consumers that does not produce an emission of one kind or another, taking an end-to-end view.
Name one mainstream energy conversion process used to deliver electricity or motive (transportative) power to consumers that does not produce an emission of one kind or another, taking an end-to-end view.
There are indeed harmful upstream emissions currently in the production of pretty much all the equipment needed to produce energy. Solar panels don't grow on trees etc. But that is because we are still burning fossil fuel upstream. The goal as was stated above is decarbonization, so that all of our energy sources become carbon neutral. Now let's be clear, that doesn't mean they don't have emissions, but the harmful emissions can be abated such as via capturing technology, or the fuel in case of e-fuel captures CO2 that's already there and then when it's released back into the atmosphere it isn't a net increase.
You are absolutely correct that every energy conversion produces byproducts. The question is are those byproducts harmful or harmless, and if they are harmful, can they be easily neutralized.
Last edited by superswiss; 03-28-2023 at 04:27 PM.
04-05-2023, 08:48 PM
#39
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Yours to Discover
Posts: 14,131
Received 2,704 Likes
on
2,300 Posts
PFL205.064 with M276.823 (Oil pump solenoid defeated)
First am sorry if I am (or we are) getting off topic… [please skip reading this comment if u want to read about transmissions : )]
But, as a nuclear professional myself and with 3 advanced degrees all in the nuclear field, I just want to clarify “and couldn’t hold myself) and say that the statement that switching from nuclear to hydropower is a “cleaner” electricity is not really true. Nuclear does not emit a single gram of greenhouse gases during power generation. As for resources, Hydro, solar and/or wind resources can require significant amounts of land and resources to produce energy on a large scale. Additionally, the manufacturing and disposal of renewable energy infrastructure can also have environmental impacts. Nuclear energy nowadays have breeder reactors that technically generate almost no-waste after the life-cycle of the reactor (i.e.: beyond 60 years), in a way that waste fuel is used as a fuel for the following reactor. Nuclear generally is not renewable simply because Uranium is a finite resource, but keep in mind that a single reactor generating 3000 MWe of electricity needs less than 30 tons of Uranium. About 10 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium. So technically, despite being a finite resource (not renewable), it is almost an infinite source (especially that current technologies such as breeder reactorscan generate more material “fuel” at the end of it’s cycle than it consumes! (Sounds like an exaggeration, but that’s 100% true)… hence waste* fuel is actually a fuel for the next reactor when the reactor reaches the end of it’s lifetime.
But, as a nuclear professional myself and with 3 advanced degrees all in the nuclear field, I just want to clarify “and couldn’t hold myself) and say that the statement that switching from nuclear to hydropower is a “cleaner” electricity is not really true. Nuclear does not emit a single gram of greenhouse gases during power generation. As for resources, Hydro, solar and/or wind resources can require significant amounts of land and resources to produce energy on a large scale. Additionally, the manufacturing and disposal of renewable energy infrastructure can also have environmental impacts. Nuclear energy nowadays have breeder reactors that technically generate almost no-waste after the life-cycle of the reactor (i.e.: beyond 60 years), in a way that waste fuel is used as a fuel for the following reactor. Nuclear generally is not renewable simply because Uranium is a finite resource, but keep in mind that a single reactor generating 3000 MWe of electricity needs less than 30 tons of Uranium. About 10 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium. So technically, despite being a finite resource (not renewable), it is almost an infinite source (especially that current technologies such as breeder reactorscan generate more material “fuel” at the end of it’s cycle than it consumes! (Sounds like an exaggeration, but that’s 100% true)… hence waste* fuel is actually a fuel for the next reactor when the reactor reaches the end of it’s lifetime.
04-08-2023, 01:55 PM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Well, my transmission clunked for the first time. It’s starting to hunt gears and jerk when I step off of throttle. Man, I was really hoping this one would be better than what I had in my GLE. It really detracts from what is a great car. I’ll still reserve final judgment for another thousand miles since I just 800.
04-08-2023, 02:13 PM
#41
Well, my transmission clunked for the first time. It’s starting to hunt gears and jerk when I step off of throttle. Man, I was really hoping this one would be better than what I had in my GLE. It really detracts from what is a great car. I’ll still reserve final judgment for another thousand miles since I just 800.
04-08-2023, 03:25 PM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
It works better in sport, less clunky and it's still a softer throttle and shifting paradigm than found on the rental Camry I'm driving at the moment. Don't be afraid to try it because of the name, sport is not at all sporty. To keep your comfort level where it is you'd want to go individual with sport engine enabled but leave the rest as is for maximum comfort.
You may want to consider trying the sport steering while your fiddling with individual settings. Much like the individual engine it is not at all sporty and retains one finger effort.
Neither may work for you but you'll know you've been there and done that.If you do want to retain one or the other you can check the box that will give you the toast at start up to retain the previous mode.
You may want to consider trying the sport steering while your fiddling with individual settings. Much like the individual engine it is not at all sporty and retains one finger effort.
Neither may work for you but you'll know you've been there and done that.If you do want to retain one or the other you can check the box that will give you the toast at start up to retain the previous mode.
04-09-2023, 08:49 PM
#43
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Yours to Discover
Posts: 14,131
Received 2,704 Likes
on
2,300 Posts
PFL205.064 with M276.823 (Oil pump solenoid defeated)
It works better in sport, less clunky and it's still a softer throttle and shifting paradigm than found on the rental Camry I'm driving at the moment. Don't be afraid to try it because of the name, sport is not at all sporty. To keep your comfort level where it is you'd want to go individual with sport engine enabled but leave the rest as is for maximum comfort.
You may want to consider trying the sport steering while your fiddling with individual settings. Much like the individual engine it is not at all sporty and retains one finger effort.
Neither may work for you but you'll know you've been there and done that.If you do want to retain one or the other you can check the box that will give you the toast at start up to retain the previous mode.
You may want to consider trying the sport steering while your fiddling with individual settings. Much like the individual engine it is not at all sporty and retains one finger effort.
Neither may work for you but you'll know you've been there and done that.If you do want to retain one or the other you can check the box that will give you the toast at start up to retain the previous mode.
04-09-2023, 08:50 PM
#44
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Yours to Discover
Posts: 14,131
Received 2,704 Likes
on
2,300 Posts
PFL205.064 with M276.823 (Oil pump solenoid defeated)
Well, my transmission clunked for the first time. It’s starting to hunt gears and jerk when I step off of throttle. Man, I was really hoping this one would be better than what I had in my GLE. It really detracts from what is a great car. I’ll still reserve final judgment for another thousand miles since I just 800.
04-09-2023, 09:39 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
The trans and engine are under the same setting, you can also adjust the suspension, steering, and the nanny's.
04-09-2023, 10:14 PM
#46
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Yours to Discover
Posts: 14,131
Received 2,704 Likes
on
2,300 Posts
PFL205.064 with M276.823 (Oil pump solenoid defeated)
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
