107 / 116 speedometer part number decoding

[CraigB]

Apart from maybe the EPC, are there any sources for working out what all the different part numbers are for with speedometers? I did some googling but can't seem to find anything and also a search on here. I'm sorting through parts (still!) and I have 6 (so far!) instrument clusters for W107 / W116, and every one of them is a different part number.

Visible differences are in the face the max gear change marking for 3 or 4 speed transmissions, different redlines on the tach, different rear shape of tach, with or without a clock in tach (I think 107 has central located clock and 116 its in the tach). Then I assume they are geared for different differentials perhaps (not the gear in trans for the speedo drive?) Anyway, below are the numbers I have and the features that help me guess what it came out of. It appears that 280 W116, with 3.69 rear end, have a part number starting with 107. The one in the 450SEL has a part number starting with 116. But of course on these old cars, the ones that are currently in cars, are not necessarily the original items and may have had something swapped in, either as cluster or individual guages.

107 542 01 01 - 4 spd trans, 6300 redline, didn't pull out because it is sitting in a 1972 350slc - 3.54 diff ratio - no clock in tach
107 542 13 01 - 4 spd, 6500 redline, fitted to 1976 280se, but not removed to check date. 3.69 - clock in tach
107 542 31 01 - 4 spd, 6500 redline, 12/77 date, clock in tach, flat back on tach (not round) - I'm guessing this came out of a 6 cyl W116 - 3.69 ratio? - but then why different part number to ... 13 01 above?
107 542 36 01 - 3 spd, 5800 redline, 1978 date, clock in tach, flat back on tach - so I would have though from a w116 450, but a 107 part number?
107 542 09 01 - 4 spd, 6300 redline, 11/73 on speedo and 9/72 on tach, round shape on back of tach, no clock in tack - So I would have said it was from a 350sl/slc, but then I thought they all changed to 3 speed in 1973. The only sense I can make of this is that the speedo part belongs to a W116 280, and it didn't have a tach, so they swapped in the clockless tach from the W107.
116 542 32 01 - 3 spd, Just a clock,no tach - in 450SEL ... which I thought would have come with a tach and so maybe the cluster replaced?

So I thought I would start here anyway and its a record anyway of some details. Not urgent and the tach parts are not that important - main thing is trying to work out what diff ratio matches the speedo and any significance to the difference in part numbers.

[brycedunn]

Here is another one:

107 542 17 01. This is from a 1977 450SLC - 3.06 LSD rear ratio. Have a full service history for the car so I am pretty confident it is the original speedo.

[CraigB]

There you go - looks identical to a 32 01 and a 36 01. and similar year and diff ration..... maybe they just made it up as they went along!

[brycedunn]

Just looking at a few cars for sale on car sales.

an import 1978 6.9 with the 170mph/270kmh speedo.

116 542 35 01

Another is an aussie spec 78 6.9, 260km/h speedo. Also two other 79 Aussie spec seen with this same one.

116 542 34 01

a 72 350SL with a four speed trans and a 160 MPH speedo

107 542 10 01

78 450SL 3 speed, 240km/h

107 542 36 01

74 280SE four speed, 240km/h

107 542 13 01

1982 380SL, four speed, 240km

107 542 42 01

1987 560SL, four speed, 260km/h

107 542 98 01

[CraigB]

Thanks Bryce - you have a keen eye!

Huge number of different part numbers.

Of course any of those cars advertised could have had a dodgy speedo at any point, went to a wrecker to get something that fits etc. But there could be a few clues in your investigation. Eg. multiple OZ 6.9's with 116 542 34 01. And then that might also support the theory that the V8 sedans used the 116 part number, like on my 450SEL with ...32 01, but with a different diff ratio to the 6.9.

The 74 280SE is a 'snap' on the number of my 76 280SE - maybe something in that.

The 78 450SL is a match on the unknown cluster i have, but that cluster has a clock in the tacho and I presume they still had the clock separate in the centre of the dash. So maybe my cluster is out of a sedan and had an SL tach swapped in, maybe the tach swapped.... maybe by the 450SL they didn't do the separate clock? But then interesting your SLC is 17 01.

[brycedunn]

Here is anotehr one. USA model 450SL 72.

8_e0f36034-2601-4225-9212-ae69f4279296.jpg

[brycedunn]

Thanks Bryce - you have a keen eye!

Huge number of different part numbers.

Of course any of those cars advertised could have had a dodgy speedo at any point, went to a wrecker to get something that fits etc. But there could be a few clues in your investigation. Eg. multiple OZ 6.9's with 116 542 34 01. And then that might also support the theory that the V8 sedans used the 116 part number, like on my 450SEL with ...32 01, but with a different diff ratio to the 6.9.

The 74 280SE is a 'snap' on the number of my 76 280SE - maybe something in that.

The 78 450SL is a match on the unknown cluster i have, but that cluster has a clock in the tacho and I presume they still had the clock separate in the centre of the dash. So maybe my cluster is out of a sedan and had an SL tach swapped in, maybe the tach swapped.... maybe by the 450SL they didn't do the separate clock? But then interesting your SLC is 17 01.

Yes the variety is pretty big.
I think the 5 speed manual 280s would have a different one again.
and the USA 1980 had a 2.65 rear end.
Plus there was the 420SL, 300SL etc.

It seems a bit odd that some w116 use the 107 part number, but some use the 116.

[CraigB]

So far I haven't 'disproved' the theory that V8 sedans had 116 and 6 cyl sedans had 107. Its not unusual for them to carry and older part number on and maybe early 107's had 4 spd and all the 6 cyl cars had 4 spd... but then V8 107's were 3 spd so would have thought internals of those speedos the same. Very confusing!

I thought all the 6.9's had 2.65 and then many years later when they upped the HP in the late 560, they used that again. But I also saw how used in some w123 too.

[brycedunn]

yes, I understand all the 6.9s used 2.65.
The USA 450 used the 2.65 in 1980 only, but without the LSD.

[CraigB]

They must have been trying to make the car economical! I love the 'launch' and 'urgency' the 3.07 (or thereabouts 3.06?) gives my 450 - always amazed me they jumped to the 2.24 for the W126 500 - I guess the ratios were optional, but most I have seen have 2.24.

[brycedunn]

On the W126, they started out with a 2.82 for 1980 and at least some of 1981 for the 500.
The 380 was also 3.27.

Then in 1981, they had this 'energy program' initiative at Daimler Benz where they had a drive to increase the efficiency and fuel efficiency of the W126.
The 500 got the revised 2.24 rear end ratio. The 380 went from the large bore small stroke to the longer stroke smaller bore version, and the ratio was changed to 2.47. For one reason or another, the aussie 380 kept the 3.27. From all my research in technical data books, we were the only ones to do so.

I researched all this and wrote it up here:

https://www.classicjalopy.com/2018/11/w ... al-ratios/

At the time I bought my 560SEC, I was curious why the standad 560 had a 2.65, yet the 420 had a 2.47 and the 500 a 2.24. It all seemed quite back to front. And then of course the emissions 560 like we have, got the 2.47.

Bryce

[T-Modell]

...Then in 1981, they had this 'energy program' initiative at Daimler Benz where they had a drive to increase the efficiency and fuel efficiency of the W126.
The 500 got the revised 2.24 rear end ratio. ...
Bryce

Hi Bryce,
that's correct, including the R107. For my ute, the donor had this ratio too, i. e. third gear up to 220km/h. I was thinking about changing the diff to the one 1980/81 ... but it's useless imho. Even with the 2.24 the rear wheels don't get the power on the road in 1st gear, so I prefer the cruising with real low revs.

In German forums the "argument" of the 1908/81 500SL owners is, that above 220km/h it pulls better ... surely true, you can see it on my vmax video ... after shifting into 4th, it's a bit tough ...

Regards
Thomas

[brycedunn]

...Then in 1981, they had this 'energy program' initiative at Daimler Benz where they had a drive to increase the efficiency and fuel efficiency of the W126.
The 500 got the revised 2.24 rear end ratio. ...
Bryce

Hi Bryce,
that's correct, including the R107. For my ute, the donor had this ratio too, i. e. third gear up to 220km/h. I was thinking about changing the diff to the one 1980/81 ... but it's useless imho. Even with the 2.24 the rear wheels don't get the power on the road in 1st gear, so I prefer the cruising with real low revs.

In German forums the "argument" of the 1908/81 500SL owners is, that above 220km/h it pulls better ... surely true, you can see it on my vmax video ... after shifting into 4th, it's a bit tough ...

Regards
Thomas

I have always assumed this was one of the reasons why the 500 was not exported to countries like Australia, USA etc and we only got the 560. The 2.24 ratio would only make sense in countries where high speed driving is tolerated. As you are aware, minor speed transgressions are treated worse than actual crimes in this country so the cruising ratios make less sense. I guess they could have changed the ratio, but there was no point certifying both the 500 and the 560 for those markets where the emissions laws were specific.

When I was driving in Germany a couple of years ago I always remember the strange feeling of passing a police car at high speed and having to suppress the urge to slam on the brakes having seen it.

[T-Modell]

Hi,
afaik the 560 was introduced, because the catalyst "rules" were earlier in the US (and Oz?), so they could roughly get the power of the 500 (all out of my mind btw):

500 RÜF: 245 hp
500 cat: 223 hp
560 cat: 231 hp

...When I was driving in Germany a couple of years ago I always remember the strange feeling of passing a police car at high speed and having to suppress the urge to slam on the brakes having seen it.

Had this a few years ago with the AMG at night: empty Autobahn, my speed > 250, then a police car on the left lane (should have been right) with 220 ... hmmm flashing might not be a good idea, so I waited behind a while. After they noticed me, they move and I passed them.

Regards
Thomas