Do people say ";MB manuals suck"; just b/c its the ";thing"; to say?
because I just don't understand it AT ALL.<br>The 6 speed in my C240 is just as good, or better, than any of the manual transmissions in the numerous BMWs and Porsches I have owned in the last 20 years.<p>What is the supposed "complaint"? Exactly WHY does the MB manual transmission suck? I really am curious. Because mine shift very smoothly, quietly and perfectly. As an owner, I can't see how it could be improved in any way, or how it is any worse than a BMW, etc. manual transmission.<p>If you (as a NON-owner of an MB manual transmission) can explain to me why my transmission (that I drive every day) "sucks" I'd sure appreciate it.<p><p><br>: Besides the tranny MB offers really sucks.<br>They have the best slush box around though.<p>Vince<p>
I own an MB manual, please explain to me why it is so bad. Because I find it to be perfect, and have not complaints. Its just as good as the BMW manual transmissions I have owned in the past 20 years, and far better than Porsche manual transmissions. See my post above.<p>"Speedshift" is not better than any manual. "Speedshift" is nothing more than a standard slushbox automatic with a gimmicky way of shifting, no different that the BMW Steptronic, Lexus, etc.<p>Transmission choice is all about parts availability and marketing. MB could develop a strong enough manual transmission if they felt their market demanded it. It doesn't. People that want a SPORTS sedan that will see occasional track use, hard street driving, etc. buy a manual transmission M3. People that just want to "look sporty" on their way to work or dinner buy the C32 slushbox.<p>: try out an MB manual and see how bad it is. AMG's reasoning is that their new "Speedshift" is actually a lot better than any manual.<p>
I also have had my share of BMWs and MBs, my last one being an M3 and I currently still have my 300CE.<p>Now the manual trannys on those cars were crisp and smooth.<p>I'm still waiting for my new c class to arrive but I also own a 5 spd SLK 230. The shifting points are too short, too abrupt. I wish I could be able to adjust it a little bit. I've heard from owners of the 6spd that it is better than the 5spd tranny and gets better with age. <p>I should've been specific and mentioned the 98-up 5spd MT. I haven't tried the 6spd yet but if it's as good as they say it is then great but I've come to the conclusion that MB's MT is really bad.
trick/slick it is) only?<p><p>The reason is, that in America, the request for an auto vs manual tranny is 10:1, ie. bottom line = sales = profits. <p><p>You are wrong. C240 gets manual tranny just<br>because they have to cut the price on<br>something. And 2.4 V6 versus 3.2 V6 with<br>only different head is not the best thing to<br>cut the price on. Talking about 10:1 ratio,<br>i can only tell you that it was not intended<br>for american market. In europe, where over<br>50% of cars still are bulit with manual trannies,<br>2.4 is manual, 3.2 is auto. Surprised?<br>Remember that: MB no longer *builds* cars for<br>US. They *export* them to US. <br>
Ok now i am really confused, that just sounds like the autostick thing in the c32? dosent the c32 have an autostick or is it just the plain ass automatic?<br>
Not that strange. These are German cars. In Germany, manuals are for entry level cars: everyone drives a manual. Only expensive cars have automatic transmission. <br>
The C 32 has a plain automatic transmission with torque converter, 5 speed. Mercedes may make a version of this automatic 5 speed autobox available with steering wheel mounted shift buttons (a la BMW Steptronic).<p>But don't confuse that with the Sequentronic 6 speed sequential manual.<p>The 6 speed Sequentronic (sequential manual transmission) is only available on the C 230K Coupe, C 240 and lesser-engined cars. Not on the C 320 and certainly not on the C 32. Because the Sequentronic is basically the regular 6 speed manual, it cannot handle the torque of the C 32.<p>Did that help?
(sequential manual transmission) is only available on the C 230K Coupe, C 240 and lesser-engined cars. <p>So you're saying the sequentronic is no better than the standard auto?
<p>So you're saying the sequentronic is no better than the standard auto?<p>No, I am just trying to explain the difference between the Sequentronic MANUAL-based 6 speed gearbox (without a power-sapping torque converter) and the AUTOMATIC 5 speed gearbox (with a power-sapping torque converter) that is fitted to the C 320 and C 32.<p>Because the Sequentronic is in effect a manual gearbox, the acceleration and fuel economy should be better than an equivalent car with the 5 speed automatic. In fact, in performance, a Sequentronic car should be faster than a regular 6 speed manual, as its computer-controlled clutch and shifts are way faster than a human driver could do (according to M-B).<p>I've no idea whether Sequentronic is a more pleasant gearbox to use, or how smooth or rough it may be if you let the Sequentronic ECU do all the gear shifting for you ("automatic" mode). It seems to me that in "automatic" mode (where the driver does not touch the sequential shift lever), the 6 speed Sequentronic gearshifts should be more coarse and unrefined than the 5 speed automatic, as there's no torque converter to soften the shifts. The Sequentronic may also shift more coarsely tha a well-driven manual gearbox. I don't know, I live in Canada and I've not been able to test drive a Sequentronic car yet.<p>I am not judging one gearbox over the others, simply trying to point out the differences between them.
Linear Mode
