rear axle questions

[Ron]

Hi,

I have a non running 1966 230SL, euro version, delivered in Munich.  What axle ratio should it have?  It now has 4.08 as per the stamp on the pumpkin.  A search of the site has turned up conflicting opinions on this.  When I get the car running, I will be able to see how the speedo behaves and maybe determine if this is correct for the car.

The number listed for the axle on the data card is:  613130, but stamped into the axle is: 285317.  This number is in the 1 o'clock position on the pumpkin rear, when viewed from rear looking forward.  Does this mean this is a replacement axle?  From the lower number, it is from an earlier car, correct?

This car has iron brake drums.  Just sold on eBay was a set of "composite" drums, that is Al and iron drums.  Are these the correct ones for the car, the composites?  I'm guessing this axle came from a non SL car, correct?

Thanks for any answers.  Ron

[jameshoward]

Ron,

I don't know about whether it was the correct axle, but I have a late 230SL sold in the US (built Nov 66 first registered Feb 67) and this has its original 4,08. I haven't heard of too many European cars that had this gearing (I haven't heard of any, actually, but all I've done now is set myself up to be shot down in flames by those in the know).

I am not a huge fan of the 4,08 and have a 3,46 to change it to when I get around to rebuilding it - which is my winter project. However, I've done quite a few miles on long tours with the 4,08 and it's not too bad. It allows the car to accelerate superbly. You'll also read a lot about drum vs discs on the site if you've done all the searches I did. I can understand the preference for discs, but well set up drum brakes are perfectly good - they still put them on cars today. My brakes are superb. I wanted to keep the drums (because all the stuff is new when I re-did them 18 months ago) but I've been advised against the hassle of the change over.

Hope you get the answer you seek on originality. (I'm going to look at my data card again as I thought - obviously wrongly - that the ratio was there. I must be confusing that with some other paperwork).

JH