STD Tuning Drivetrain OM606.962; 717.450 clutch kit advice

OM606.962; 717.450 clutch kit advice

OM606.962; 717.450 clutch kit advice

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
 
HyperUniverse
Naturally-aspirated

14
10-19-2015, 08:35 AM #1
Hi,

I have a Mercedes W124 with an OM606.962 engine and a dog-leg gearbox (717.450?...not sure about this part number though).

I need a clutch kit that will fit this setup, and I've read on the internet that a Sprinter clutch will fit, but it might slip at higher powers.


I don't think I'll go for a high power ever, so am I OK with one of these?

I understand is a 240mm diameter,
but I am affraid that the splines on the disc won't fit my gearbox input shaft.
and also would the bolt pattern on the flywheel match my crankshaft?

Also I need a solid dual mass flywheel that will give support to the short input shaft for my gearbox.

Can anybody recommend me the right products that I need?
Or give me a hint....?
Which Sprinter year, power, engine size, or....what else?

Thanks.
HyperUniverse
10-19-2015, 08:35 AM #1

Hi,

I have a Mercedes W124 with an OM606.962 engine and a dog-leg gearbox (717.450?...not sure about this part number though).

I need a clutch kit that will fit this setup, and I've read on the internet that a Sprinter clutch will fit, but it might slip at higher powers.


I don't think I'll go for a high power ever, so am I OK with one of these?

I understand is a 240mm diameter,
but I am affraid that the splines on the disc won't fit my gearbox input shaft.
and also would the bolt pattern on the flywheel match my crankshaft?

Also I need a solid dual mass flywheel that will give support to the short input shaft for my gearbox.

Can anybody recommend me the right products that I need?
Or give me a hint....?
Which Sprinter year, power, engine size, or....what else?

Thanks.

Druk
Holset

297
10-20-2015, 04:26 AM #2
I run a 606.962 in almost standard form with DM flywheel and 717.450 dog-leg box using standard Merc clutch and it's been fine for three years now. No Grand-prix starts though. Wink

Edit...the gearbox/flywheel/clutch all came from a petrol W124 320TE that I scrapped. All fits to the 962 with no problems.

[Image: 5-7003.jpg]
This post was last modified: 10-20-2015, 04:31 AM by Druk.
Druk
10-20-2015, 04:26 AM #2

I run a 606.962 in almost standard form with DM flywheel and 717.450 dog-leg box using standard Merc clutch and it's been fine for three years now. No Grand-prix starts though. Wink

Edit...the gearbox/flywheel/clutch all came from a petrol W124 320TE that I scrapped. All fits to the 962 with no problems.

[Image: 5-7003.jpg]

HyperUniverse
Naturally-aspirated

14
10-20-2015, 04:45 AM #3
Hi Druk,

Thanks for reply,

Is your 240mm diameter, or smaller?
do you know if other models would fit? 

(did I talk to you about 2 years ago about the same kind of problem in another way - at that time I didn't understand why my new car was jerking; I was to visit Scotland, and you wanted to meet me to see the problem, but I've never came ... or was someone else?)

Regards,
HyperUniverse
10-20-2015, 04:45 AM #3

Hi Druk,

Thanks for reply,

Is your 240mm diameter, or smaller?
do you know if other models would fit? 

(did I talk to you about 2 years ago about the same kind of problem in another way - at that time I didn't understand why my new car was jerking; I was to visit Scotland, and you wanted to meet me to see the problem, but I've never came ... or was someone else?)

Regards,

Druk
Holset

297
10-20-2015, 06:32 AM #4
(10-20-2015, 04:45 AM)HyperUniverse Hi Druk,

Thanks for reply,

Is your 240mm diameter, or smaller?
do you know if other models would fit? 

(did I talk to you about 2 years ago about the same kind of problem in another way - at that time I didn't understand why my new car was jerking; I was to visit Scotland, and you wanted to meet me to see the problem, but I've never came ... or was someone else?)

Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



^ dunno the dia. Probably the max that Merc produce given the power of the 320 engine. Yeh! I think it was me, was you living in the Stockport area or east of Prestwich? Seem to remember something about that.

[Image: 5-7002.jpg]





.
This post was last modified: 10-20-2015, 06:41 AM by Druk.
Druk
10-20-2015, 06:32 AM #4

(10-20-2015, 04:45 AM)HyperUniverse Hi Druk,

Thanks for reply,

Is your 240mm diameter, or smaller?
do you know if other models would fit? 

(did I talk to you about 2 years ago about the same kind of problem in another way - at that time I didn't understand why my new car was jerking; I was to visit Scotland, and you wanted to meet me to see the problem, but I've never came ... or was someone else?)

Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



^ dunno the dia. Probably the max that Merc produce given the power of the 320 engine. Yeh! I think it was me, was you living in the Stockport area or east of Prestwich? Seem to remember something about that.

[Image: 5-7002.jpg]





.

HyperUniverse
Naturally-aspirated

14
10-20-2015, 06:53 AM #5
Hi Druk,

Manchester

If I fix the car I'll come visit Scotland again, I definitely neeeeeed a vacation.

I've been looking for 320TE clutches, and yes, they are 240mm, but the only ones I could find don't have springs in the disc.
Probably because it used a dual mass flywheel with springs inside there.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CLUTCH-KIT-280...391958857?

But I intend to use a solid flywheel, as I heard lots of problems with standard dual mass flywheels.
So I'll need a disc with springs inside it.

And it seems I can't find a 320 flywheel anywhere.
Maybe a Sprinter solid dual mass flywheel conversion kit and then a custom disc (if I find a place to do it).
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SOLID-FLYWHEEL...SwKIpWAnfh


How is your setup?


Regards
HyperUniverse
10-20-2015, 06:53 AM #5

Hi Druk,

Manchester

If I fix the car I'll come visit Scotland again, I definitely neeeeeed a vacation.

I've been looking for 320TE clutches, and yes, they are 240mm, but the only ones I could find don't have springs in the disc.
Probably because it used a dual mass flywheel with springs inside there.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CLUTCH-KIT-280...391958857?

But I intend to use a solid flywheel, as I heard lots of problems with standard dual mass flywheels.
So I'll need a disc with springs inside it.

And it seems I can't find a 320 flywheel anywhere.
Maybe a Sprinter solid dual mass flywheel conversion kit and then a custom disc (if I find a place to do it).
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SOLID-FLYWHEEL...SwKIpWAnfh


How is your setup?


Regards

HyperUniverse
Naturally-aspirated

14
10-20-2015, 07:07 AM #6
I've found someone that has a W126 300SE manual but the clutch kit is still in the car.

Do you know if this would fit ?

Regards
HyperUniverse
10-20-2015, 07:07 AM #6

I've found someone that has a W126 300SE manual but the clutch kit is still in the car.

Do you know if this would fit ?

Regards

Druk
Holset

297
10-20-2015, 10:28 AM #7
My clutch doesn't have springs. Seems to be OK so far but I said it doesn't get stressed and the cars a two seater so never gets loaded up. It's actually very soft to drive and I like it. The 300SE would depend on which gearbox was fitted. Likely it would be the 5speed but not the Getrag which would then probably have the long nose spigot and the clutch wouldn't work with your g/box. Does the Sprinter conversion not come complete with sprung disc?

edit: I clicked on your linky and it has the sprung disc and the spigot bearing in the flywheel. Perfect except for the concentric release bearing which might need some re-engineering to work with the Getrag. Unless this set-up will work with the old fork arrangement.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SOLID-FLYWHEEL...SwKIpWAnfh
This post was last modified: 10-20-2015, 10:33 AM by Druk.
Druk
10-20-2015, 10:28 AM #7

My clutch doesn't have springs. Seems to be OK so far but I said it doesn't get stressed and the cars a two seater so never gets loaded up. It's actually very soft to drive and I like it. The 300SE would depend on which gearbox was fitted. Likely it would be the 5speed but not the Getrag which would then probably have the long nose spigot and the clutch wouldn't work with your g/box. Does the Sprinter conversion not come complete with sprung disc?

edit: I clicked on your linky and it has the sprung disc and the spigot bearing in the flywheel. Perfect except for the concentric release bearing which might need some re-engineering to work with the Getrag. Unless this set-up will work with the old fork arrangement.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SOLID-FLYWHEEL...SwKIpWAnfh

HyperUniverse
Naturally-aspirated

14
10-20-2015, 10:42 AM #8
Hi Druk,

I am not sure if the disk would fit the input shaft on my 717.450,

I couldn't find any useful information about this, nothing to suggest it does, nothing to suggest it doesn't...???
have you got any idea?

Thanks
HyperUniverse
10-20-2015, 10:42 AM #8

Hi Druk,

I am not sure if the disk would fit the input shaft on my 717.450,

I couldn't find any useful information about this, nothing to suggest it does, nothing to suggest it doesn't...???
have you got any idea?

Thanks

Druk
Holset

297
10-20-2015, 11:08 AM #9
Nothing definitive but if you judge the splines in the ebay ad against the ones in my clutch pic above they do look similar. My experience of Merc parts is they seldom vary things from model to model even over many years.
Druk
10-20-2015, 11:08 AM #9

Nothing definitive but if you judge the splines in the ebay ad against the ones in my clutch pic above they do look similar. My experience of Merc parts is they seldom vary things from model to model even over many years.

raysorenson
Superturbo

1,162
10-20-2015, 12:08 PM #10
I have a single mass FW in front of my .404. I've tried a couple of different sprung discs, but prefer unsprung. The springs seem to amplify the jerking at times. Besides, sprung discs are nowhere near as efficient at damping torsional vibrations as a dual mass FW is. I recommend a heavy flywheel and keeping both rubber flex discs to dampen torsional vibes.
raysorenson
10-20-2015, 12:08 PM #10

I have a single mass FW in front of my .404. I've tried a couple of different sprung discs, but prefer unsprung. The springs seem to amplify the jerking at times. Besides, sprung discs are nowhere near as efficient at damping torsional vibrations as a dual mass FW is. I recommend a heavy flywheel and keeping both rubber flex discs to dampen torsional vibes.

HyperUniverse
Naturally-aspirated

14
10-21-2015, 02:36 AM #11
Druk, I know Mercedes like to keep things simple over the years, but I was thinking being a van, the Sprinter gearbox input shaft might be a bit thicker for the added load on the vehicle. I might be wrong though......

raysorenson.... are you saying a solid dual mass flywheel (that was my intention all along), plus an unsprung disk?
And let the rubber flex disks take care of the dampening?

Wouldn't the rubber get worn out prematurely in this scenario?

My intention was a solid dual mass flywheel and a sprung disc.
Do you think this will still bring some jerking from time to time?


Thanks
HyperUniverse
10-21-2015, 02:36 AM #11

Druk, I know Mercedes like to keep things simple over the years, but I was thinking being a van, the Sprinter gearbox input shaft might be a bit thicker for the added load on the vehicle. I might be wrong though......

raysorenson.... are you saying a solid dual mass flywheel (that was my intention all along), plus an unsprung disk?
And let the rubber flex disks take care of the dampening?

Wouldn't the rubber get worn out prematurely in this scenario?

My intention was a solid dual mass flywheel and a sprung disc.
Do you think this will still bring some jerking from time to time?


Thanks

raysorenson
Superturbo

1,162
10-22-2015, 11:20 AM #12
Mine jerked with a weak sprung disc from a 190e, a stiff sprung disc from Clutchnet and a solid dics. All 3 had torsional vibrations. The unsprung is the worst for vibrations but is most controllable for jerking. I do not have any flex discs at all so there is no damping of torsional vibrations. I enjoy driving more with an unsprung disc. At some point I'll try just a rubber disc at the diff side.

Will rubber deteriorate because of vibrations? IDK. Rubber has superior damping ability over any polymer. It lasts in motor mounts and flex discs, so long as the discs are sized right for the torque.
raysorenson
10-22-2015, 11:20 AM #12

Mine jerked with a weak sprung disc from a 190e, a stiff sprung disc from Clutchnet and a solid dics. All 3 had torsional vibrations. The unsprung is the worst for vibrations but is most controllable for jerking. I do not have any flex discs at all so there is no damping of torsional vibrations. I enjoy driving more with an unsprung disc. At some point I'll try just a rubber disc at the diff side.

Will rubber deteriorate because of vibrations? IDK. Rubber has superior damping ability over any polymer. It lasts in motor mounts and flex discs, so long as the discs are sized right for the torque.

Druk
Holset

297
10-23-2015, 02:19 AM #13
(10-22-2015, 11:20 AM)raysorenson Mine jerked with a weak sprung disc from a 190e, a stiff sprung disc from Clutchnet and a solid dics. All 3 had torsional vibrations. The unsprung is the worst for vibrations but is most controllable for jerking. I do not have any flex discs at all so there is no damping of torsional vibrations. I enjoy driving more with an unsprung disc. At some point I'll try just a rubber disc at the diff side.

Will rubber deteriorate because of vibrations? IDK. Rubber has superior damping ability over any polymer. It lasts in motor mounts and flex discs, so long as the discs are sized right for the torque.

I also have no flex-discs nor sprung clutch disc but rely on the DMF and it seems to work well. Only occasionally do I get a shudder on clutch take-up from stopped but that's probably down to my left foot  more than anything and a quick dip and try again always works. 

Ray, regarding using a flex disc together with (presumably) a UJ my shaft guy reckoned that would be a step too far because it would then have a double joint which could deflect and cause the shaft to whip?
Thoughts?




.
Druk
10-23-2015, 02:19 AM #13

(10-22-2015, 11:20 AM)raysorenson Mine jerked with a weak sprung disc from a 190e, a stiff sprung disc from Clutchnet and a solid dics. All 3 had torsional vibrations. The unsprung is the worst for vibrations but is most controllable for jerking. I do not have any flex discs at all so there is no damping of torsional vibrations. I enjoy driving more with an unsprung disc. At some point I'll try just a rubber disc at the diff side.

Will rubber deteriorate because of vibrations? IDK. Rubber has superior damping ability over any polymer. It lasts in motor mounts and flex discs, so long as the discs are sized right for the torque.

I also have no flex-discs nor sprung clutch disc but rely on the DMF and it seems to work well. Only occasionally do I get a shudder on clutch take-up from stopped but that's probably down to my left foot  more than anything and a quick dip and try again always works. 

Ray, regarding using a flex disc together with (presumably) a UJ my shaft guy reckoned that would be a step too far because it would then have a double joint which could deflect and cause the shaft to whip?
Thoughts?




.

JoeB
TA 0301

74
07-29-2016, 08:51 PM #14
(Post edited with updated information)

OK,

A Bit of thread revival here.

My 124051 722.509 suffered a 2nd reverse failure, and because this was the 2nd box it happened to within 3 months of dropping huge $ on the rebuilt auto, I made a decision to swap in a manual.

There were a number of reasons for this, and the gearbox choice.  To understand the reasoning, one must go back to 2009/2010, when Clayton (aka Bahaimus) & I were discussing the 5 & 6 speed manual transmissions used in 201/202/203/124/210's - or to put it another way, M102,103.104,111, OM602,603,605,606.

In another post on this same subject on this forum, referrence was made to the 190rev thread topic containing the images of this exact gearbox - which was originally posted on ozbenz.net - same topic, same people, same time, same information. Pictures have subsequently ended up all over the world in obscure forums and when searching for 716.6 and M104 information... well, let's just say cross-references are poor and not always correct.

Now back to the story; My 2nd 722.5xx auto failure happened back in 2013, and the car was parked in my mates workshop in CBR, deep inside next to his AMG coupe. It sat there in company and we kept looking for information specifically to use a single mass flywheel, and OEM clutch parts. But the urgency of the drivable vehicle situation saw a brand new Renault Sport Megane RS 8:08 trophy in my driveway within about 2 weeks of the 722.5 dying, so subsequently the 124 was demoted on the priority list. Missus was elated though. She had a lovely new car as a shopping trolley and commuter bus.

What was the stumbling block that caused this huge unwanted spend?

The Flywheel. More specifically, retaining the CIS-E and wanting a single mass flywheel. 
AND
Gearbox choice - Let me extrapolate on the gearbox for a bit.

This is where the original 'what gearbox to use' discussion got railroaded. Clayton was building his 201, I had a 16v, a spare 717.404 and the auto in the 124 was giving me the shits. Clayton wanted a 6 speed. 

In preface to this even, MB's here in australia very very rarely come with a manual gearbox. 99.9% of them have autos. Essentially, where a manual is available, it's generally a grey market import. So that makes finding ANY MB gearbox here a difficult task.

It just so happens that we had 2 reference points - a 201.034, with the 717.404 and a 124.051 AMG3.4 Coupe, with a 717.452.  This gives us the single mass flywheel, clutch and pressure plate specs for an m102 and a dual mass flywheel, clutch and pressure plate for an M104.980.

What it did not do, was help Clayton - because Like myself, he had ideas of a single mass flywheel with a 240mm clutch, mated to the 716.620. It was an unknown at the time. Relatively speaking it still is. It's also why I am making this post, in the hope it will alleviate some common misconceptions.

back to the gearbox....

In a fit of depravity, Clayton decided to dump the m104 and the 716.620. I ended up with the box obviously, because he asked me if I wanted it, but not the engine - and all of this was happening because he was not a believer in extracting power from the m104 - in hindsight he admits it was a mistake but the toyota 1GZ v12 was an interesting swap at the time.

So what about that railroad?  Well I had a spare 717.404, waiting to be installed in my 16v. I also now had the 716.62 and I could not make up my mind what to install behind what vehicle. In the end, the sensible thing occurred and the 717.404 went into the 16v as it should. Mostly because the 716.6 had an overdrive, the 717.404 final drive is 1:1 and the differential in the 300 coupe is 3.69:1 as opposed to the 3.07:1 ASD diff in the 16v....   Which obviously still left me without a flywheel 'plan' for the 716.6xx

Ages passed, nothing happened.

FAST FORWARD  to Thursday last week. - yes almost 3 years since the auto crapped out and nearly 6 years of a gearbox sitting waiting for it's day..

Finally, there is room in the CBR workshop to undertake the 716.620 manual swap into the coupe and take more definitive exacting measurements. The 722.5 came out, and the front was pulled. It did not look pretty. We did this in case we had to refit the auto. When we found damage to the front piston we called it a day and went ahead with the manual swap regardless.

I had an opportunity cross my path a while ago - and purchased a new genuine MB dual mass m104 flywheel. 

The purchase was based on my calculations that the 716.62's 8mm input shaft protrusion from the bellhousing flange would mean that a dual mass wheel was required -  It was not a definite 'known', but the gamble soon paid off. At the time no-one on any forum had a clue as to what worked, so I was flying blind. I wanted it fitted up asap... but instead the car sits.... 3 years.

back to the 'now' and We installed the FW, with brand new pilot bearing (I needed to use a press to do this! WTF) and the gearbox. Imagine, when looking up through the bellhousing inspection opening that the input shaft was a perfect fit lengthwise. *relieved*

Unfortunately, it also meant I now had to purchase a new pressure plate and clutch disk. 

*HALT*

Yes, that is correct. We couldn't gamble on just purchasing a DMF clutch disc and pressure plate, without confirming the box would fit. Why? because it was a potential $800 of wasted funds, that's why!
So now looking into performance-oriented solution and unsure if the 717.452's 240mm 124 dual mass clutch/pressure plate is the same as the SLK's 240mm SAC style clutch & pressure plate, as used in 203/210 also.  Gambling on the older one being the most correct here.....

Research continues, and despite the Schaeffler techdoc publication naming all manner of OEM part numbers for repsets and the like, not a single bit of confirmation on what exact MB part numbers can be referenced or used has cropped up on the internet.

Not that it matters, but I would have liked to have that information  - the idea being that I could use those part numbers to confirm whether an uprated specification belleville spring from Sachs could be used in a Sachs PP  - or via Spec clutch etc, and use a kevlar band / ceramic puck dual sided solid centred clutch disc for both flywheel longevity and good clamping force on the pressure plate (no slippage)  

I already have this type setup in the 16v, and it bites good, and yet still allows some minimal slip if you learn to feather it correctly. Unfortunately the 16v single mass fw requires a sprung clutch disc to enable the bite to be less severe on the gearbox, but the solution is good, so I am seeking to replicate it on the DMF arrangement in the 124 coupe.

Also, the front propshaft requires extending 145mm which is a lot, considering the original 722.5 auto is longer than a 722.3/4 which was the normal w124 box - , but the 717.4xx boxes already have a 4" longer front propshaft section available for the manual box fitments...  so proving the 716.620 is shorter yet again, despite having 6 speeds. So the propshaft in the 124 needs a huge extension to the front shaft section to cover this.  My local driveshaft guy has done an awesome job before, and so I'm not insanely concerned about the length of the front shaft. I've already spoken to him about a special thickwalled front section and he's got some DOM 5mm wall 1026 which can be used. Should be strong enough for anything that comes near it.

There are some additional modifications required:

1. reverse lockout switch
2. speedo drive (electronic on 716.62 /w202/3/210)  for which I have an electric speedo cluster from a v8 w124.
3. transmission crossmember - 716 uses the later style trans mount with 2 bolts  (same as 722.6) angled 15 deg from horizontal, and not the single vertical bolt through rear of box (717.4xx & 722.3/4/5) type on pre 95 models.
4. cruise control brake switch modifications - rewiring of the second NO contact on the pedal switch to disable cruise when clutch is in and a new clutch switch is also req'd.
5. drive yoke on the 716.620 is a 90mm dia. The propshaft yoke for an m104 with 722.5 is a 100mm dia yoke. So a change is required.
6. A brand new standard M104 (1993-) DMF clutch & pressure plate set (sachs 3000 318 001 - includes pilot bearing) will be used.
This post was last modified: 08-30-2016, 05:35 PM by JoeB.
JoeB
07-29-2016, 08:51 PM #14

(Post edited with updated information)

OK,

A Bit of thread revival here.

My 124051 722.509 suffered a 2nd reverse failure, and because this was the 2nd box it happened to within 3 months of dropping huge $ on the rebuilt auto, I made a decision to swap in a manual.

There were a number of reasons for this, and the gearbox choice.  To understand the reasoning, one must go back to 2009/2010, when Clayton (aka Bahaimus) & I were discussing the 5 & 6 speed manual transmissions used in 201/202/203/124/210's - or to put it another way, M102,103.104,111, OM602,603,605,606.

In another post on this same subject on this forum, referrence was made to the 190rev thread topic containing the images of this exact gearbox - which was originally posted on ozbenz.net - same topic, same people, same time, same information. Pictures have subsequently ended up all over the world in obscure forums and when searching for 716.6 and M104 information... well, let's just say cross-references are poor and not always correct.

Now back to the story; My 2nd 722.5xx auto failure happened back in 2013, and the car was parked in my mates workshop in CBR, deep inside next to his AMG coupe. It sat there in company and we kept looking for information specifically to use a single mass flywheel, and OEM clutch parts. But the urgency of the drivable vehicle situation saw a brand new Renault Sport Megane RS 8:08 trophy in my driveway within about 2 weeks of the 722.5 dying, so subsequently the 124 was demoted on the priority list. Missus was elated though. She had a lovely new car as a shopping trolley and commuter bus.

What was the stumbling block that caused this huge unwanted spend?

The Flywheel. More specifically, retaining the CIS-E and wanting a single mass flywheel. 
AND
Gearbox choice - Let me extrapolate on the gearbox for a bit.

This is where the original 'what gearbox to use' discussion got railroaded. Clayton was building his 201, I had a 16v, a spare 717.404 and the auto in the 124 was giving me the shits. Clayton wanted a 6 speed. 

In preface to this even, MB's here in australia very very rarely come with a manual gearbox. 99.9% of them have autos. Essentially, where a manual is available, it's generally a grey market import. So that makes finding ANY MB gearbox here a difficult task.

It just so happens that we had 2 reference points - a 201.034, with the 717.404 and a 124.051 AMG3.4 Coupe, with a 717.452.  This gives us the single mass flywheel, clutch and pressure plate specs for an m102 and a dual mass flywheel, clutch and pressure plate for an M104.980.

What it did not do, was help Clayton - because Like myself, he had ideas of a single mass flywheel with a 240mm clutch, mated to the 716.620. It was an unknown at the time. Relatively speaking it still is. It's also why I am making this post, in the hope it will alleviate some common misconceptions.

back to the gearbox....

In a fit of depravity, Clayton decided to dump the m104 and the 716.620. I ended up with the box obviously, because he asked me if I wanted it, but not the engine - and all of this was happening because he was not a believer in extracting power from the m104 - in hindsight he admits it was a mistake but the toyota 1GZ v12 was an interesting swap at the time.

So what about that railroad?  Well I had a spare 717.404, waiting to be installed in my 16v. I also now had the 716.62 and I could not make up my mind what to install behind what vehicle. In the end, the sensible thing occurred and the 717.404 went into the 16v as it should. Mostly because the 716.6 had an overdrive, the 717.404 final drive is 1:1 and the differential in the 300 coupe is 3.69:1 as opposed to the 3.07:1 ASD diff in the 16v....   Which obviously still left me without a flywheel 'plan' for the 716.6xx

Ages passed, nothing happened.

FAST FORWARD  to Thursday last week. - yes almost 3 years since the auto crapped out and nearly 6 years of a gearbox sitting waiting for it's day..

Finally, there is room in the CBR workshop to undertake the 716.620 manual swap into the coupe and take more definitive exacting measurements. The 722.5 came out, and the front was pulled. It did not look pretty. We did this in case we had to refit the auto. When we found damage to the front piston we called it a day and went ahead with the manual swap regardless.

I had an opportunity cross my path a while ago - and purchased a new genuine MB dual mass m104 flywheel. 

The purchase was based on my calculations that the 716.62's 8mm input shaft protrusion from the bellhousing flange would mean that a dual mass wheel was required -  It was not a definite 'known', but the gamble soon paid off. At the time no-one on any forum had a clue as to what worked, so I was flying blind. I wanted it fitted up asap... but instead the car sits.... 3 years.

back to the 'now' and We installed the FW, with brand new pilot bearing (I needed to use a press to do this! WTF) and the gearbox. Imagine, when looking up through the bellhousing inspection opening that the input shaft was a perfect fit lengthwise. *relieved*

Unfortunately, it also meant I now had to purchase a new pressure plate and clutch disk. 

*HALT*

Yes, that is correct. We couldn't gamble on just purchasing a DMF clutch disc and pressure plate, without confirming the box would fit. Why? because it was a potential $800 of wasted funds, that's why!
So now looking into performance-oriented solution and unsure if the 717.452's 240mm 124 dual mass clutch/pressure plate is the same as the SLK's 240mm SAC style clutch & pressure plate, as used in 203/210 also.  Gambling on the older one being the most correct here.....

Research continues, and despite the Schaeffler techdoc publication naming all manner of OEM part numbers for repsets and the like, not a single bit of confirmation on what exact MB part numbers can be referenced or used has cropped up on the internet.

Not that it matters, but I would have liked to have that information  - the idea being that I could use those part numbers to confirm whether an uprated specification belleville spring from Sachs could be used in a Sachs PP  - or via Spec clutch etc, and use a kevlar band / ceramic puck dual sided solid centred clutch disc for both flywheel longevity and good clamping force on the pressure plate (no slippage)  

I already have this type setup in the 16v, and it bites good, and yet still allows some minimal slip if you learn to feather it correctly. Unfortunately the 16v single mass fw requires a sprung clutch disc to enable the bite to be less severe on the gearbox, but the solution is good, so I am seeking to replicate it on the DMF arrangement in the 124 coupe.

Also, the front propshaft requires extending 145mm which is a lot, considering the original 722.5 auto is longer than a 722.3/4 which was the normal w124 box - , but the 717.4xx boxes already have a 4" longer front propshaft section available for the manual box fitments...  so proving the 716.620 is shorter yet again, despite having 6 speeds. So the propshaft in the 124 needs a huge extension to the front shaft section to cover this.  My local driveshaft guy has done an awesome job before, and so I'm not insanely concerned about the length of the front shaft. I've already spoken to him about a special thickwalled front section and he's got some DOM 5mm wall 1026 which can be used. Should be strong enough for anything that comes near it.

There are some additional modifications required:

1. reverse lockout switch
2. speedo drive (electronic on 716.62 /w202/3/210)  for which I have an electric speedo cluster from a v8 w124.
3. transmission crossmember - 716 uses the later style trans mount with 2 bolts  (same as 722.6) angled 15 deg from horizontal, and not the single vertical bolt through rear of box (717.4xx & 722.3/4/5) type on pre 95 models.
4. cruise control brake switch modifications - rewiring of the second NO contact on the pedal switch to disable cruise when clutch is in and a new clutch switch is also req'd.
5. drive yoke on the 716.620 is a 90mm dia. The propshaft yoke for an m104 with 722.5 is a 100mm dia yoke. So a change is required.
6. A brand new standard M104 (1993-) DMF clutch & pressure plate set (sachs 3000 318 001 - includes pilot bearing) will be used.

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Users browsing this thread:
 2 Guest(s)
Users browsing this thread:
 2 Guest(s)