X5 4.4 - Sludge in engine and oil filter housing... help!

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by sunny5280

I am thinking this:

1. The manufacturer recommends the fluid be changed at 100K miles.
2. My mechanic recommends the fluid be changed. Though I don't know what his recommend interval is.
3. JCL and Mr. Miller both say there's slight/minimal risk.
4. I have seen no supporting data to show a correlation between changing the tranmission fluid and subsequent transmissions failure.

Did you actually read the Mike Miller quote I posted? Mike said he RECOMMENDS that the fluid be changed at least every 60,000 miles.

Mike also states:

"It is risky to drain a previously un-maintained automatic transmission with high mileage, even though if it were my car I would probably chance it."

I guess I don't understand why you are seemingly disagreeing with Mike Miller's advice.

Are you arguing that the AT fluid should not be changed?

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by JCL

I hear that there is a mechanic in Denver Colorado who is pretty good.

If I knew him personally, I might go with his opinion.

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Did you actually read the Mike Miller quote I posted? Mike said he RECOMMENDS that the fluid be changed at least every 60,000 miles.

I read the link provided by BMWvoid. I assumed it was the same information.

Mike also states:

"It is risky to drain a previously un-maintained automatic transmission with high mileage, even though if it were my car I would probably chance it."

I guess I don't understand why you are seemingly disagreeing with Mike Miller's advice.

Are you arguing that the AT fluid should not be changed?

I believe I've completely misunderstood your argument. Too used to seeing posts about Mr. Miller being used as support as to why the fluid should not be changed. I now realize you're using it in support of changing the fluid. My apologies.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by X5 Meister

If you take this advice, and I personally highly respect Mr. Miller, then you should also realize this is no drain and fill job. It needs to be done at the right temperature, in the right sequence, in a environment that needs to be far cleaner than for a basic jiffy lube oil change, the transmission must be cycled in a specific manner. It needs to be meticulously investigated for leaks, etc. This is no chip shot. Just an FYI.

When 50,000 miles rolls around, this is one task which I will most likely "bite the bullet" and have a BMW dealer do for me. Probably cost twice as much, but probably, in this case, worth it.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by sunny5280

I read the link provided by BMWvoid. I assume it's the same information

I think that's from 2002.

P.S. An interesting note... in comparing the 2002 document of Mike Miller with the 2009 version, it appears that, unlike your earlier contention that Mike "formed his opinion seven years ago," Mike has changed his position on changing ATF on a high-mileage AT transmission. In 2002 he said, "under no circumstances" would he do it, but in the latest document he says that while risky, he himself would choose to do it.

I think you owe Mike an apology more than me, as he clearly modifies his position over time when he feels it is appropriate.

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I think that's from 2002.

Looks like FSETH and JCL lost a major piece of support for their argument.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by sunny5280

Looks like FSETH and JCL lost a major piece of support for their argument.

Huh? I don't recall quoting Miller.

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by JCL

Huh? I don't recall quoting Miller.

My apologies if I got you confused with someone else.

With that said, given Mr. Millers qualifications and recommendation are you willing to consider that your position may be wrong?

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by sunny5280

Looks like FSETH and JCL lost a major piece of support for their argument.

You should e-mail mike and ask for the latest version to get the whole story. He is not "black and white" on the ATF high-mileage change issue. Basically, he feels there is a risk to the high-mileage ATF change; however, believes the balance is in favor of changing it. But you really need to read his words to understand the "grayness" of the area. I'd offer to e-mail you my copy, but it appears even the 07/09 revision is now out of date, and he seems concerned about old versions circulating on the net.

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by Penguin

You should e-mail mike and ask for the latest version to get the whole story. He is not "black and white" on the ATF high-mileage change issue. Basically, he feels there is a risk to the high-mileage ATF change; however, believes the balance is in favor of changing it.

I fully understand there is a risk in changing it. But I believe, as does JCL, the risk is slight.

The part where JCL and I disagree is if the benefit outweighs the risk. JCL believes it does not (because, as far as I can tell he doesn't believe it offers any benefit). I believe it does. Though recently it appears as if JCL believes there is some benefit based on the following statement he made:

"Valve bodies don't typically fail in normal use, unless they get clogged."

Very likely a fluid flush would avoid the valve body becoming clogged. I'm still waiting for his response to this.

But you really need to read his words to understand the "grayness" of the area. I'd offer to e-mail you my copy, but it appears even the 07/09 revision is now out of date, and he seems concerned about old versions circulating on the net.

And we can see why as someone was using an outdated copy to support this urban legend.