M-100 Message Board
M-100 Message Board
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 M-100 Message Forum
 6.3
 K4B 050 Transmission
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

aplekker

USA
494 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  12:34:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Now I come to a real problem in the K4B 050 situation. An that is the valve body. As far as I know, there is not any documentaion available on how it is supposed to stick together.
Since MB produced only about 10,000 of these transmissions (2600 600's and 6500 6.3's) they probably never documented this valve body publicly. Here is what I know:
-the only document I have of the K4B 050 transmission has a chapter on the valve body and some lay outs. However, there are many differences in the valve bodies that I have taken apart compared to the manual.
-the two valve bodies that I have apart have some notable differences.
-according to my EPC, there were two part numbers for the 6.3 transmission: 109 270 09 01 and 109 270 14 01, with valve bodies 100 270 13 07 and 100 270 15 07.
-according to my EPC, there were four part numbers for the 600 transmission: 100 270 03 01, 109 270 09 01, 109 270 14 01 and 100 270 18 01.

So there were changes during production, and the 600 had some of it own unique versions. What it looks like to me is that the 600 started with it's own version (which is probably on mine, #248), then the 600 shared the same transmission with the 6.3, and than after the 6.3 production ceased the 600 got a newer version once again.

Questions:
-am I right about the above?
-does anyone know about any factory documentation about the valve bodies?

Since it is unlikely that there is any documentation, I decided to document these valve bodies myself, and base it all on what I know and find out in the future. I own the following transmissions:
- 600 #248, very likely the original transmission.
- a spare transmission that came with my 600 purchase along with a 600 and a 6.3 spare motor. In storage right now.
- 6.3 #38??, in storage as parts car, have no idea about the transmission.
- 6.3 #0347, in my garage, probably with original transmission
- 6.3 #5745, on the lift, transmission apart. I do not know of this is the original transmission, but I know it was rebuilt in the past, with errors (see earlier posts in this thread regarding clutch line ups).
- a transmission I bought, a rebuilt by MB. Hopefully this is my best example of a correct transmission. Is apart right now, and will be documented.
- the transmission that is still connected to motor #00029, a very early 6.3 engine.
- the transmission I got on EBay last year. Haven't even opened the box yet.

So that is a total of eight, which I could look at in some point in the future.

Of the two I have apart right now I have completely documented the valve bodies. Both valve bodies have been taken apart, pictures have been taken of every step while disassembly took place, every part has been cleaned, every part has been measured and photographed, and has been stored in a plastic case.
I have taken measurements of all pistons and springs. The pistons have been measured with the following scheme: all over length, diameter of each machined piston part, lenght of each machined piston part. The springs: all over lenght, diameter and wire diameter.
Then there are pictures of where each of these pistons and springs belong in the valve body. Pictures were taken of each spring and psiton in detail, and all springs and pistons have been stored according to their designation number in the MB manual.

Examples:
Line up bottom part valve body:






Line up top part valve body:






Line up middle part valve body:






Then there are detailed pics of these line ups:






And pics of each part:










A complete set of valve body internals:










Plus details of the body castings, like this:






I have found differences in the two bodies I have apart. Please, please, if anyone has more info, let me know.
If anyone is interested in all details and pictures, I could be persuaded to share.



1965 600 SWB #248
1968 6.3 #0347
1971 6.3 #5745 Euro
1979 6.9 #6857 Euro
1979 450SLC 5.0 EURO
1981 300SD
1989 560SEL
2003 CL600 Brabus T12 570HP

Edited by - paul-NL on 08/31/2017 13:23:28
Go to Top of Page

paul-NL

Netherlands
4288 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  13:26:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Albert,

according my elder EPC there are several numbers for that part for the 6.3

You found :
"-according to my EPC, there were two part numbers for the 6.3 transmission: 109 270 09 01 and 109 270 14 01, with valve bodies 100 270 13 07 and 100 270 15 07.
-according to my EPC, there were four part numbers for the 600 transmission: 100 270 03 01, 109 270 09 01, 109 270 14 01 and 100 270 18 01"

In additon I found for the 6.3 the numbers 100.270.11.07 and 100.270.07.07 and 100.270.05.07.

According my EPC 100.270.13.07 = the same as 100.270.15.07 plus the part 100.270.00.98 together.

For the 600 I have no EPC and must check my partsbook, which is an elder one, so not all numbers and changes will be mentioned in that older partsbook.

For knowing if your 600 or 6.3 still has the original gearbox, you have to check your datacard on which the number of the gearbox will be mentioned.

Until now I have not seen any documentation about these gearboxes or parts.
Go to Top of Page

Chris Johnson

USA
3751 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2010 :  13:34:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Albert,

Some basic comments: I believe the early 600 transmissions used the 300SE valve body, i.e. the 112 part number. I have five different editions of the 112 trans parts books.

There are three fundamental versions of the 112 transmission, the "300SE", the "300SE-E" and the "300SE-EH". Note that the 300SE transmission is the very first version of the Benz four-speed automatic.

I have a service book for these transmissions. Each version of the transmission is discussed, and there is a good amount of detail about precisely what is different between each of the versions (mostly valving component changes). There is also what is refered to as the "standard" transmission. Either I've missed it, or it is assumed to be understood, but I don't know 100% which transmission this "standard" reference applies to. I assume that the "standard" transmission is the last version: the 300SE-EH unit.

The transmission in the 600 is virtually identical to the W112 unit, with the obvious exceptions of strength and size. The 600 trans was first put into production in 1963, while the W112 cars were still getting the "300SE" transmission. Since we know that there are two major revisions to the 300SE trans after that point, it is reasonable to assume that the 600 trans saw some of these same changes. Taking this a step further, it may be true that the changes documented in my book might apply to the 600 trans as well. Some quality time spent with your K4B-050 parts book and the 300SE trans parts books may bear this out.

Regarding the different part numbers for the 600 and 6.3 transmissions, these might be representative of very minor changes. For example, the two different 6.3 trans part numbers refer specifically to the external shift arm. The first part number is for the early cars that have "park" located at the rear end of the shift gate on the tunnel, and the other number is for later cars with "park" at the forward end of the gate. The only difference between these two transmissions is the external arm on the trans to the linkage attaches to.

There is also a subtle little difference on the 600's transmission compared to the 6.3's. This transmission has a little feature that I wish all of them had. On that same external arm, the 600's transmission has a longer nub for the bushing to slide over, and this nub is drilled so that a washer and cotter pin can be installed after the bushing goes on so that if the bushing fails, the shift rod cannot fall of the arm and leave the car dead in the water. Since it was already there, I cannot imagine why this wasn't included on the 6.3 trans. All these little differences require different part numbers.

That said, I think I remember that the gear ratios in the 600 trans and 6.3 trans are also different (don't hold me to this). As it relates to the valve body, the K4B-050 parts book (Edition A, 1968) shows almost zero differences between the two units except for some end plates.

The Edition A and B (May, 1965) parts books for the 600 do include the entire parts lists for the transmissions, and would document the state of the early transmissions well. I am not aware of any publication that covers these transmissions between the 600 Edition B parts book in May 1965 until the K4B-050 Edition A parts book in May 1968.

If you have time for it, and would like to get into it, I would be happy to loan out the various books I have on the subject. It is a rather hairy subject, and could sure use some in-depth research.

Chris Johnson
If you aren't constantly impressed with your car, then it needs fixing.
100.012-12-000790
100.012-12-000867
www.300SE.org

Edited by - Chris Johnson on 01/19/2010 13:38:29
Go to Top of Page

aplekker

USA
494 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2010 :  11:13:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Chris,

As far as I know the 112 transmission has three clutches instead of the two in the K4B 050, and the latter also has the one way clutch. If that's true, the valve body has to be significantly different.

I do have the parts book for the K4B 050 transmission (thanks to a good friend in Colorado), but unfortunately the valve body is not shown in detail. Take a look at page 26 of the 10153 parts book. it shows a total of three springs and one piston on the top part, 5 springs and two pistons on the middle part, and two springs and one piston on the bottom part of the valve body. And as you can see in my pics, there are many more. The closest documentation I have is the K4B 050 rebuild supplement, as shown here:














But these are in more than one case not correct to what I have found in my two valve bodies. If you have any thing like the pics above on the 112 transmissions, I would be glad to compare that to what I have found.

I am 99.9999% sure that the gear ratio's in the 600 and 6.3 transmissions are the same. I think the big difference is that in the original K4B 050 that was installed in the 600 the clutch plate line up was different. As of 600 #1199 and transmission #1391 MB introduced a new clutch plate line up, which was carried over in the 6.3. I think that coincides with the introduction of the 109 part number transmissions in the 600, as per my EPC. Then, when the production of the 6.3 was done, thet K4B 050 was installed again in the 600 with a 100 part number. There must have been some updates...

The most significant difference I have found is in piston #4 (see above pics). This is the one in the MB rebuild transmission:





And this is the same piston in my 6.3 #5745 transmission:






A big difference, but I have no idea what the result of this change is nor if it is correct or someone screwed up. At this moment I have the tendency to go with the MB rebuild. I also might opt for taking tranny #3 (my EBay purchase) apart and see what's inside that.

I will take you up on your offer of comparing parts books and rebuild manuals if you have something more detailed than I have.
In the mean time, I will keep documenting what I have, and if there is interest, I could put all the pics and sizes on a CD or post them on this board. However, there is a lot of parts inside these valve bodies...

1965 600 SWB #248
1968 6.3 #0347
1971 6.3 #5745 Euro
1979 6.9 #6857 Euro
1979 450SLC 5.0 EURO
1981 300SD
1989 560SEL
2003 CL600 Brabus T12 570HP

Edited by - paul-NL on 08/31/2017 13:31:18
Go to Top of Page

Ron B

Australia
11633 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2010 :  16:34:22  Show Profile  Visit Ron B's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The manual for the DB automatic in the W111 has the missing details for the 6.3 (etc ) trans. The valve body has lots of differences but as i have found ,the later 722 trans had 600 different modifications over 10 years.I would image that the DB trans is no different.
Normally a workshop would use the W111 manual to provide information and the various upgrades would be incorporated into the manual as they arrived from Stuttgart. Also the guy doing the trans would have been trained to fix them so would understand how to work with the manual and the supplements. The 600-6.3 trans manual is basically a supplement to the original W111 manual . I may have some info on the valve body amongst my stuff here and i'll forward on what i have,If I have it. I do know however that the valve body is comprised of two layers,quite unlike later types .I do remember that there is plate with legs that secure the valve body to dismantle it.


quote:
12-14-2004, 11:49 PM #8
Tom Hanson
MBCA Member

What the heck, try to stuff a MB 6.9 liter V8 in it. What a machine that would be..
__________________
Tom Hanson
Orange County Section

Edited by - paul-NL on 08/31/2017 13:32:17
Go to Top of Page

mpmorris

USA
1368 Posts

Posted - 02/03/2010 :  21:43:48  Show Profile  Visit mpmorris's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Albert/Chris/Ron

In reading your combined documentation on the '050 regarding reaction valves (great tool you made there), you mention the operation of the reaction valve -are they pressurized via the tube you must remove to extract the reaction valve or is that dump-off pressure? I ask for I just installed an '050 that has no engagement of gears except 1st gear which does not engage enough to move the car. This is a commercially rebuilt trans -just-. I was hoping it has a rolled servo seal or something so I pressurized the servos which work as designed. The reaction valves do nothing except bypass fluid -no restriction at all (and my memory is faulty) Is this correct?

I'm sure I'll have to remove it and ship it back -I'd rather waste a couple of hours and determine the fault.
Thanks in advance

mpmorris

Go to Top of Page

Ron B

Australia
11633 Posts

Posted - 02/03/2010 :  22:32:36  Show Profile  Visit Ron B's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Mike,how is the line pressure ? .It sounds like stuck valve is dumping the pressure i.e ,idle bypass pressure. The reaction valves get thier pressure from the valve body. I would say that when a spindle valve moves past a port to send pressure to a band piston ,the residual pressure is sent to the residual valves to lock the band increasing the pressure.

quote:
12-14-2004, 11:49 PM #8
Tom Hanson
MBCA Member

What the heck, try to stuff a MB 6.9 liter V8 in it. What a machine that would be..
__________________
Tom Hanson
Orange County Section

Edited by - paul-NL on 08/29/2017 20:47:15
Go to Top of Page

mpmorris

USA
1368 Posts

Posted - 02/03/2010 :  23:16:54  Show Profile  Visit mpmorris's Homepage  Reply with Quote
add-on
I answered my own question by checking a spare '050 -same -no resistance -I guess that is a nominal value.

Back together, check the running and modulation pressures and then I guess I'll be pulling it back out. We'll see.

mpm
Go to Top of Page

mpmorris

USA
1368 Posts

Posted - 02/03/2010 :  23:27:31  Show Profile  Visit mpmorris's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Thanks Ron.
Before pulling the valve body I simply cracked a cooler hose to be certain I had a front pump working and it seemed acceptable -the trans did fill from dry in very short order so it was a surprise to have nothing but partial engagement of 1st gear.
I'm going to pop the valve body back in and get back to basics by checking line pressure -should have done that first.
I'll accomplish this before I go home tonight.
mpm
Go to Top of Page

mpmorris

USA
1368 Posts

Posted - 02/05/2010 :  14:01:06  Show Profile  Visit mpmorris's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Hello

Does anybody out there know if step pressure can be measured without turning (driving)the output shaft, ie; engine at idle in gear?

mpm
Go to Top of Page

Ron B

Australia
11633 Posts

Posted - 02/05/2010 :  17:20:31  Show Profile  Visit Ron B's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I am sure it can only done with the shaft driving. could you try it with the prop shaft disconnected? .Is the gasket between the top and bottom of the valve body in the right way?

quote:
12-14-2004, 11:49 PM #8
Tom Hanson
MBCA Member

What the heck, try to stuff a MB 6.9 liter V8 in it. What a machine that would be..
__________________
Tom Hanson
Orange County Section

Edited by - paul-NL on 08/29/2017 20:47:40
Go to Top of Page

mpmorris

USA
1368 Posts

Posted - 02/06/2010 :  16:06:49  Show Profile  Visit mpmorris's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Ron

good call on the valve body. All mechanical of the trans is in good order. short of removing the drums, I've been thoroughly through the transmission -less the valve body because I specifically requested to leave it alone as there were no shift faults, never over-heated, no debris, routinely serviced, etc, etc, -only a snapped band (should have done the job myself). Well, after being told thursday that the valve body had not been disassembled and then calling them back Friday after no faults were found in the mechanical assembly of the trans and again asking them to reverify the valve body was virginal, found that in fact it had been violated. So now the valve body is on my bench waiting for Sunday to open 'er up -without interruption- and find what the dickens is the fault. Last night, before going home, I did pop open the bottom shift sleeve to ascertain if the primary and secondary check valves and springs were in place -yes indeed. I did not look at the gasket -so, will have a look see.

thankx, mpm

footnote: question about step pressure was that not having engagement, the output shaft doesn't turn and i had zero step pressure. (front pump is correctly assembled, rear pump pressure regulator and step pressure pistons/springs/shims are correct, modulator is correctly assembled).

Edited by - mpmorris on 02/07/2010 17:18:42
Go to Top of Page

mpmorris

USA
1368 Posts

Posted - 02/07/2010 :  15:55:46  Show Profile  Visit mpmorris's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Swapped out valve bodies with a know working unit and now have forward gears -no reverse. Checked reverse piston in the lower sleeve -it's free, checked B3 servo and band adjustment -ok; rechecked B2 brake servo ok; then I noticed that the output shaft turns both directions with very little resistance -not good-, so I've concluded there is an assembly problem with the gear set as the K1 assembly moves freely in both directions --out the trans comes -again!
mpm

Edited by - mpmorris on 02/09/2010 19:25:40
Go to Top of Page

mpmorris

USA
1368 Posts

Posted - 02/08/2010 :  02:36:33  Show Profile  Visit mpmorris's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Albert
This is such a great post -so my Freilauf is at fault, maybe. I initially checked clutches/clutch clearance for K1 (1mm out of specs (.95 +/- .25), now I've pulled the drum set out and will check free-wheeling clutch F in the morning
mpm

Edited by - mpmorris on 02/09/2010 19:18:53
Go to Top of Page

Ron B

Australia
11633 Posts

Posted - 02/08/2010 :  17:49:51  Show Profile  Visit Ron B's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mpmorris

Swapped out valve bodies with a know working unit and now have forward gears -no reverse. Checked reverse piston in the lower sleeve -it's free, checked B3 servo and band adjustment -ok; rechecked B2 brake servo ok; then I noticed that the output shaft turns both directions with very little resistance -not good-, so I've concluded there is an assembly problem with the gear set as the K3 assembly moves freely in both directions --out the trans comes -again!
mpm


You can say that again! . Generally reverse locks and even a car with a broken band can driven backwards. So if the forward gears are working,there is a major problem with reverse. I would be camped out side the trans rebuilder while they fixed it.

quote:
12-14-2004, 11:49 PM #8
Tom Hanson
MBCA Member

What the heck, try to stuff a MB 6.9 liter V8 in it. What a machine that would be..
__________________
Tom Hanson
Orange County Section

Edited by - paul-NL on 08/29/2017 20:48:10
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
M-100 Message Board © 2002-2015 International M-100 Group, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.56 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.06