OK I did transmission fluid flush on my 02 4.4i

[JCL]

The famous one that was edited down is here:

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...nsmission.html

This was the thread running at the same time, which had an example of a sudden failure after changing the fluid (I know, n=1, just like your example).

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...hange-diy.html

This next one was by far the most entertaining, though. It had everything. Yes, it was titled engine oil, but it was about transmission fluid, analysis, faith, and by the end, rainbows and cupcakes. It also included mention of the replaced valve body, albeit edited.

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...sing-help.html

This one was good as well, it had a couple of BMW technicians participating.

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...intenance.html

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by JCL

The famous one that was edited down is here:

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...nsmission.html

Edit down? What does that mean? If you've got an accusation I've been deceitful through editing my posts then say it and prove it.

Originally Posted by JCL

This was the thread running at the same time, which had an example of a sudden failure after changing the fluid (I know, n=1, just like your example).

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...hange-diy.html

This next one was by far the most entertaining, though. It had everything. Yes, it was titled engine oil, but it was about transmission fluid, analysis, faith, and by the end, rainbows and cupcakes. It also included mention of the replaced valve body, albeit edited.

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...sing-help.html

This one was good as well, it had a couple of BMW technicians participating.

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...intenance.html

Still not seeing any supporting data. Just a bunch of spin from you.

Seriously JCL...I expected much better from you.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by sunny5280

Edit down? What does that mean? If you've got an accusation I've been deceitful through editing my posts then say it and prove it.


Still not seeing any supporting data. Just a bunch of spin from you.

Seriously JCL...I expected much better from you.

Deceitful is a very strong word. I never said deceitful. In the posts under discussion, you were editing posts as you wrote, and we couldn't keep up the responses because posts were coming and going. There are references to a couple of your claims that were made and then removed, in one of my links above.

Why would you come to a discussion board for data? It is for discussions.

Sorry if I am disappointing you.

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by JCL

Deceitful is a very strong word. I never said deceitful.

I didn't say you did. I said, and I quote:

"If you've got an accusation I've been deceitful through editing my posts then say it..."

Do you understand english? Is it not your native language?

Originally Posted by JCL

In the posts under discussion, you were editing posts as you wrote, and we couldn't keep up the responses because posts were coming and going. There are references to a couple of your claims that were made and then removed, in one of my links above.

What does this mean? Do you mean that I was deleting posts? Where are the references? Specifics please.

Originally Posted by JCL

Why would you come to a discussion board for data? It is for discussions.

Because I expect people to support what they say when it goes contrary to common sense or other information I have. You've done everything BUT PROVIDE SUPPORTING DATA. You could easily clear this up by providing data. Instead you've opted to provide nothing but anecdotes and implications I have been dishonest through the editing / removal of my posts.

Originally Posted by JCL

Sorry if I am disappointing you.

I'm not the only one you're disappointing.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by sunny5280

I didn't say you did. I said, and I quote:

"If you've got an accusation I've been deceitful through editing my posts then say it..."

Fine. I didn't say it. You suggested I implied it. That better? For the record, I didn't imply it either. I simply noted that back when the previous discussion was going on, there was editing happening. It made it hard to follow the discussion at the time. The reason I remember is, there was at least one side conversation going on on private messages, with dicussion and comments about your approach. You were engaging in a debate with half a dozen or so forum regulars, some of whom had trouble following your logic. It just stuck in my mind.

Originally Posted by sunny5280

Do you understand english? Is it not your native language?

Seriously? You want to insult every person who has English as a second language? Sí, Inglés es mi idioma principal. Sí, lo entiendo. Es la reparación de vehículos su primera profesión? No need to answer that.

Originally Posted by sunny5280

What does this mean? Do you mean that I was deleting posts? Where are the references? Specifics please.

Yes, it means you were deleting or modifying messages. Here is one specific example: See the thread http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...nsmission.html. Your post #29. It was long. I wrote a detailed response. I had quoted you, so I had a copy of the long text. The flaw was that you used a circular argument in describing your burden of proof point. When I posted, I got a system error. It turned out that you had deleted the long text while I was typing, and left only a short response. Probably a good thing, because you had dug yourself a hole. My response in post #30 was my reminder. Is that all specific enough for you?


I have been thinking about something. Your reference for best practices on maintaining a BMW automatic transmission is an ex BMW dealer employee. Let's assume he knows all about BMWs. Now, how would he know anything about automatic transmissions built by ZF or GM? BMW doesn't train their dealer techs on those transmissions. They don't provide parts through their dealer system, so rebuilds are very unlikely at a dealer. Dealers are offered exchange transmissions in the event of transmission failures. And the BMW service instructions included in at least one case, instructions to drain the fluid and reinstall it, if a dealer tech had to go inside the pan. Yet an ex dealer employee is presented as an expert witness, so to speak. Doesn't seem like a logical conclusion.

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by JCL

Fine. I didn't say it. You suggested I implied it.

I didn't suggest it. I said it:

"I'd appreciate it if you'd keep any implications editing of posts was done to deceive others."

Originally Posted by JCL

"That better? For the record, I didn't imply it either. I simply noted that back when the previous discussion was going on, there was editing happening.

That's an implication.

Originally Posted by JCL

It made it hard to follow the discussion at the time. The reason I remember is, there was at least one side conversation going on on private messages, with dicussion and comments about your approach. You were engaging in a debate with half a dozen or so forum regulars, some of whom had trouble following your logic. It just stuck in my mind.

You're going to have to provide proof I ever did such a thing. It's easy to say something but you need to back it up. I won't hold my breath. Thus far you've failed miserably when asked to provide proof. All you've offered is "trust me because I said it".

Originally Posted by JCL

Seriously? You want to insult every person who has English as a second language? Sí, Inglés es mi idioma principal. Sí, lo entiendo. Es la reparación de vehículos su primera profesión? No need to answer that.

How is what I wrote an insult? I asked you if you understood english and asked you if it was not your native language. I asked these questions because you appear to have a poor grasp on the language given you're having such a difficult time understand the simple concepts I've written. There's nothing insulting about that.

Originally Posted by JCL

Yes, it means you were deleting or modifying messages. Here is one specific example: See the thread http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...nsmission.html. Your post #29. It was long. I wrote a detailed response. I had quoted you, so I had a copy of the long text. The flaw was that you used a circular argument in describing your burden of proof point. When I posted, I got a system error. It turned out that you had deleted the long text while I was typing, and left only a short response. Probably a good thing, because you had dug yourself a hole. My response in post #30 was my reminder. Is that all specific enough for you?

No, there's nothing there to support I had done any deleting / editing / modifying of my post to CYA. Again: Because I said so isn't proof. This seems to be a difficult concept for you.

Originally Posted by JCL

I have been thinking about something. Your reference for best practices on maintaining a BMW automatic transmission is an ex BMW dealer employee.

I am not referring to it as a best practice. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by JCL

Let's assume he knows all about BMWs. Now, how would he know anything about automatic transmissions built by ZF or GM? BMW doesn't train their dealer techs on those transmissions. They don't provide parts through their dealer system, so rebuilds are very unlikely at a dealer. Dealers are offered exchange transmissions in the event of transmission failures. And the BMW service instructions included in at least one case, instructions to drain the fluid and reinstall it, if a dealer tech had to go inside the pan. Yet an ex dealer employee is presented as an expert witness, so to speak. Doesn't seem like a logical conclusion.

The point being he has not observed a correlation between changing the transmission fluid and subsequent failures of those transmissions. This is not to say you should change it. Or that it's a best practices. Just merely if you do decide to do it there doesn't appear to be an increased risk of failure as a result. This is a very easy concept...why are you struggling with it?

With that said you can easily put this to rest by merely providing the requested information (i.e. reliable data supporting your point of view). I entered this discussion because TwinTurboGTR said:

"There is a consensus from other members and former techs on this forum that support you don't touch the tranny if it has hit 100k and has never been cracked open before."

It was not my intent to begin discussing this topic yet again. It was to merely say consensus doesn't prove anything. Ironically he also said:

"...the topic has been beaten to death."

Right before he said ...the consensus is... If it's been beaten to death there's obviously no consensus.