Has anyone done a Transmission filter and fluid change and caused more issues?

[StephenVA]

Originally Posted by upallnight

I think the correlation between a drain plug and your previous statement for service of the trans is more coincidental than a drain plug designed to drain the trans sump to refresh the fluid. A drain plug for the engine sump is mainly used for the removal of the oil from the sump. The removal and replacement of engine oil is a scheduled service.

Anytime a manufacturer can cut the cost on a product it just add to their bottom line. Adding a drain plug adds to the cost of manufacturing the sump pan, eliminating item such as the door lock on the passenger side door or to the tailgate take away cost from the cost of the final product. I would rather they take away the drain plug and give me back the second door lock to the car. I would think that most car buyers would rather have the second door lock instead of a drain plug.

+1
I can live with oil stained shirt once in the life of ownership in order to gain the door/hatch locks. I can not wait until someone in marketing decides to remove all locks as newer models now only use the key fob transmitter to open and start the car. Wait until that battery dies....

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Might doesn't make right. You can post your position a thousand times. You can scream and throw a tantrum, stomp your feet and threaten to run away. A flawed position is not going to be accepted.

Which is exactly why I do not accept JCL position. It's been shown BMW recommends a transmission fluid change at 100K mile intervals.

With that said I'm willing to keep an open mind. If JCL can provide data to support his argument I am willing to review it and, depending on what it says, change my mind. Until then it's a wives tale. He can repeat it ad nauseum but, as you said, it will not make it true.

Originally Posted by bcredliner

I'm done, you are in too deep. The desperation is yours. You can do nothing but continue to be defensive and that never works.

What defense? I have nothing to defend. I'm not making any statement. I am merely asking someone to support their statement. A statement which is directly at odds with BMW's published service schedule. Given this why do you find such a request unreasonable?

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by E53inLA

In the end, it's up to the owner.

It always has been up to the owner. The owner needs accurate information in order to make an informed decision. In this case some people are giving information which goes contrary to the manufacturers published specification. IMO if they're going to do that they should provide data to support their position.

[JWMich]

You know, nobody really gives a s*** about you guys and your stupid pissing match. Or what Bentley says, or what can be inferred from a drain plug, or dealer service manuals, or whether BMW went and changed some "position" sometime between the initial models and later models, or any of the rest of your inane rant.

If you changed your transmission fluid and it caused you a problem, how about you say so?

My owner manual says change it at 100,000. So I did. Apparently so do other years, as has been stated. The rest of this exchange has been a pant-load of juvenile crap.

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by JWMich

You know, nobody really gives a s*** about you guys and your stupid pissing match. Or what Bentley says, or what can be inferred from a drain plug, or dealer service manuals, or whether BMW went changed its position sometime between the initial models and later modes, or any of the rest of your inane rant.

It's not a pissing match. I am pointing out the manufacturers published service interval is 100K miles. This is not my opinion. This is not what some random mechanic said. This is what the manufacturer has published. If someone has an objection to this then their objection is with the manufacturer and not the messenger.

[Johnny_5]

Wow I thought we all made peace and was moving on? I wasn't trying to get technical with BMW / Manufactures standards but just was more curious if any other members had issues after a full flush or drain and fill? I understand the how the fluids works and can loosen deposits and so that's why I went with the recommendations of the shop. I do understand the concept "if its not broken don't fix it" but I do also believe in preventative maintenance as well. My only problem is that if I had the car through most of its lower maintenance I would be inquiring about the process.

As for the filling process we were talking about in the earlier posts they did confirm that they had it running and temp was where it needed to be and filled it until it started to spill out. Im supposed to leave it over night so they can verify whats going on so Ill post what they figure out.

Lets try to keep the replies peaceful and readable to others who were curious as Im sure Im not the only one. It probably is just me but you get the point.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by sunny5280

Which is exactly why I do not accept JCL position. It's been shown BMW recommends a transmission fluid change at 100K mile intervals.

With that said I'm willing to keep an open mind. If JCL can provide data to support his argument I am willing to review it and, depending on what it says, change my mind. Until then it's a wives tale. He can repeat it ad nauseum but, as you said, it will not make it true.


What defense? I have nothing to defend. I'm not making any statement. I am merely asking someone to support their statement. A statement which is directly at odds with BMW's published service schedule. Given this why do you find such a request unreasonable?

Great attempt at diversion to JCL. If my post was about JCL I would have addressed it to him. I didn't say anything about defend. I wrote that you are being defensive.

In your terms, if you have nothing to defend, or are not making any statement why do you bother asking for anyone to support their statement. There is no statement that is supported even BMW is inconsistent.

You base your position on no one has supported their position. I change my transmission fluid every 50,000 miles whether it needs it or not. I can't support that is the reason that I have never had a transmission problem in 114,000 miles on a 4.6 with many mods. The same has been true on several other vehicles over the years.

What I would like to hear about is anywhere an 'expert' on BMW transmissions says never, under under any circumstances other than U change the transmission fluid. If you do V will happen with in W miles. Or---- Change the transmission fluid every X miles or Y will happen in Z miles.

If it were possible to get 500 people to endorse any position it would not be a sample to base any conclusion on being as there have been hundreds of thousands of E53s built.

Just for clarification it is --old wives tale.

I see no reason to close this thread. Anyone that doesn't like it doesn't have to read it. Jumping in with judgmental scolding rather than topical input is just as questionable as anything anyone has posted.

I find these dick dances to be entertaining. I always think of SNL sketch. Watch Weekend Update: Jane, You Ignorant Slut From Saturday Night Live - NBC.com

[Rockit]

We need as virtual Go Go bar on this board, when two members dig their heels in and go at each other for their believes the virtual Go Go bar should open, you hang out and both leave happy

In this post everyone's comments are right...they are.

[JCL]

Well, I thought the thread was dead twice now, but it keeps going. I think it is fair to keep it going (just don't read it if you don't want to) but let's keep personal attacks out of it.

I think the reason it became a pissing match is confusion over the evidence provided, and frustration. This is long, but hopefully will summarize the positions previously stated.

As posted way back in post #17, there are different recommendations for different BMW transmissions (even within the E53 family). For the ZF and GM transmissions in X5 models up to 2003 (5 speeds) BMW published that it is a lifetime fluid (owner's manual, clip shown above). They put a similar sticker on the transmission. I owned a 2003 model. And in the US Service and Warranty booklet, they include a line that says change it at 100,000 miles. I don't recall that in my Canadian service booklet, but I don't have it any more so can't confirm. So there is conflicting information, always has been, and any claim that it is only one or the other seems a little silly to me. For the 2004 models onward (6 speeds) I don't believe BMW used the phase lifetime transmission fluid any more on the E53. That is the basis of the discussion about different models that use different fluids having different recommendations. I don't know what the sticker on the transmission says for those years, but the owner's manual no longer said lifetime. We also know that if the recommendations change, BMW publishes service bulletins and links them to the technical manuals. Those manuals show changes in recommended service intervals for non-related components during the years in question, but not for the transmission fluid. I think we can fairly conclude the recommendation didn't change. Take a look in the service manuals to confirm.

As to whether any member has experienced this, the answer is yes. I said so near the beginning of the thread. It wasn't my own personal vehicle, and it wasn't an X5. It was a customer's vehicle in an independent shop I worked in. But it was still personal experience. I saw the transmission and laid hands on it. The assertion that that means that the wrong fluid was used, or that the job was therefore done incorrectly, is what sparked much of the debate. That is an accusation of incompetence. The failure analysis we performed found particles in the valve body. There was a lot of buildup in the transmission. There are more examples, but I am thinking of one specific one here. A ZF transmission at 100,000 miles may or may not have that degree of buildup. Certainly, that specific transmission I described above used an older spec fluid, which wouldn't have helped. And it was pre-electronic controls, so there was no protection in the transmission.

Many accept the above failure mode as being possible. That is why some who decide to change their fluid, for valid reasons, do it earlier than recommended. They are reducing the risk of their being any buildup significant enough to elevate the risk of subsequent problems. Also, the fluid is newer so it is still keeping the transmission cleaner.

There is a lot of fear expressed on boards of transmissions blowing up if the fluid is touched. I don't think there should be fear. There should be rational discussion. On one side, there is a risk. On the other side, there is a benefit of fresher fluid. That is a risk/reward calculation. As to the risks, I personally think they exist. I don't think they are so high that fluid should never be changed. But shops with experience doing transmission work have seen sufficient examples, in some cases, that they don't want to touch it. They buy the theory, and they want to avoid the risk. Fair enough. That is how this particular thread started. And if the shop is trusted, and can actually lay hands on the component, then their opinion trumps keyboard diagnosis, IMO. Others think the risk is non existent, and so they are happy to change the fluid without a further thought. Fair enough. It is perfectly OK to have our own opinions, and do our own risk analysis.

The number of failures in the above scenario is not a big percentage. It is enough to be noticed, but when people change their fluid and say they got lucky, I think they weren't, they were in the norm. Most don't fail. They shouldn't be surprised it is fine afterwards, most will be.

Now to the benefits. If people are changing due to concerns about oils wearing out (wrt lubrication properties) then I suggest that isn't a compelling reason. Lubrication is low on the list of what matters to a transmission fluid. What does matter is that the fluid viscosity is within the range that the transmission can adapt to. That the fluid level is correct. That the fluid doesn't foam. That it doesn't have water in it. That it isn't burnt. That the friction modifier additives are still there in sufficient quantity to enable the precise engagement characteristics that ZF designed for when they designed the transmission (and eliminated a torsional damper, relying on clutch slip to damper torsional vibrations, from memory).

Whatever the risk/reward calculation, it shifts left or right depending on the operating characteristics at the time. If the transmission has failed mechanically, it is obviously a losing bet to throw new fluid at it to see if the fluid fixes a leaking seal, a broken retaining clip, or whatever. But if the transmission is experiencing shifting problems that could be explained by a fluid being out of spec, then I think it is reasonable to change the fluid and see if it helps. If the fluid is the only problem, then new fluid will resolve the issue.

If we go back to a transmission that isn't experiencing problems shifting, and the risk/reward calculation, then it should come down to an economic life cycle analysis. Does changing the fluid extend the useful life of the transmission? I agree that the fluid wears, and that eventually, it will lead to transmission failure. That isn't in dispute, I don't think. The discussion centres on whether that will occur before or after the transmission would have failed from other (non fluid related) causes. Those with maintenance planning backgrounds (look at the posts by srmmmm) run economic analysis calculations that compare the cost of three or four changes to the life extension. His transmission is proof of how long transmission fluid can last in an E53, not a guarantee, but a challenge to those who simply say the fluid is worn out at 100,000 or whatever. He appears to have come out ahead. And n=1. Also, most of the discussion has been about ZF, and I think he may have a GM transmission in a 3.0, IIRC.

The entire discussion about what BMW recommends for intervals, in this thread, was initiated to support a contention that there can't be any significant risk, that it is a myth, because if there was then BMW wouldn't specific that change interval, even in error (because they contradicted themselves in two owner's books). Significant hasn't been defined. I don't think BMW have weighed in on whether there is a contamination or mechanical risk to a high mileage fluid change; they appear to be silent on the issue. They don't appear to be worried about fluid wearing out, as they instruct technicians to reuse fluid. I think they are basing their recommendations on life cycle cost analysis that shows a lack of evidence that changing the fluid will extend the transmission life. For all the service procedures that BMW has created, analyzed, tested, documented, done risk analysis on, etc, the respective procedure is listed in the service manual. And there isn't one for changing transmission fluid. So they presumably saw no need to develop one, for whatever reason. Infer what you will, but they certainly haven't said it is safe or there is no potential impact. They are silent on the issue. In my own opinion, the risk reward calculation may be close enough to balanced that they don't have a single opinion.

For my part, I start with the manufacturer's recommendations for service. If I did not have any severe service/duty operation I would go with 100,000 if I bought a new vehicle today (unless it had a different interval recommended). If I towed a large trailer (we are considering it now) I would think about testing the fluid several times to establish a trend, or just change it early. If I had a higher mileage vehicle that had never been touched, I would leave it alone. But that is all just me.

I think it is an interesting topic, and regret that it sometimes descends into personal attacks.

Jeff

[bcredliner]

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.