[MBZ] CA-spec '85 300D transmission?

[Kaleb C. Striplin]

yep, thats the part Im not sure of.  But I am thinking that the 60x is 
slanted, but the bolt holes to mount the tranny wouldnt be at the same 
slant, they would have to be offset so the tranny would be mounted 
straight behind the engine.  So in other words, if you had a 60x and a 
61x sitting rear end to rear end with the 60x sitting at its angle and 
the 61x sitting straight up, if you lined up the bolt holes at the back 
the ones on the 60x would line up with the other engine if you cocked 
the 60x at the proper angle it would normally be sitting in the car. 
Make sense?

Marshall Booth wrote:

> tom savage wrote:
> 
>>Kaleb C. Striplin wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, the CA uses the 722.4, and I THINK, but am not sure, that you can 
>>>use one out of a 190.  In any event, the 85 version 722.3 can be used in 
>>>place of the CA 722.4
>>
>>Oh really?  This is good to hear.  So an OM60x has the same bellhousing 
>>as an OM 61x?  Does the 201 transmission need to be from a turbo?  If 
>>so, I guess a 124 trans might work, too.  Interesting to note that the 
>>722.3 transes had 040 torque ratings (or whatever) while the .4 units 
>>are 020.
> 
> 
> As I recall the transmissions from an OM60x engine WILL NOT bolt up to 
> an OM61x engine! If they would, it wouldn't be so very difficult to get 
> a 5 speed to fit into a 123 300Dt. An OM61x engine is vertical, an OM60x 
> is slanted at 15 degrees.
> 
> Marshall

-- 
Kaleb C. Striplin/Claremore, OK
  91 300D 2.5 Turbo, 90 420SEL, 89 560SEL, 87 420SEL, 87 300SDL,
  85 380SE, 85 300D, 84 190D 2.2, 83 300TD, 81 300TD, 81 240D,
  76 240D, 76 300D, 74 240D, 73 280SEL 4.5, 72 250C, 69 250
http://www.striplin.net