Well written JCL.

The only part I ponder is a risk/reward calculation because it is always after the fact. Seems to me to be Monday morning quarterbacking. As an example, if I don't change the fluid and the transmission fails at 150,000 mile I can calculate the cost I would have invested in fluid and filters against the cost of the transmission repair though I won't be able to quantify the reason for the failure was the fluid. If I change the fluid every 25,000 miles and it goes at 200,000 miles I still don't know if the fluid was the reason for the additional miles. Further, the calculation will be based on transmission repair cost which will vary by what failed, labor cost, etc.

Risk/reward is an interesting approach. I have given input and evaluated engineering test parameters of the years. I think I could buy into a risk/reward test if done in a controlled lab environment but without much thought it seems to me the test parameter considerations are so vast it would not still not resolve the issue. Right or wrong I can't help but fall back on the basics -- if something is new it looks better, smells better, feels better, it works closest to it's full potential and that's the way I want it to stay as long as I can. I know it's a risk, I don't have a clue if there will be reward but damn I feel good about myself.

__________________
X5 4.6 2002 Black Sap, Black interior. 2013 X5M Melbourne Red, Bamboo interior
Dallas