FYI Some good Transmission tips

[HPIA4v2]

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

Thanks for passing on the advice!

The problem is, though, BMW specifies a lifetime fill of transmission fluid and the debates go on and on about the efficacy of changing the transmission fluid in our E53s. I wonder what your friend would say about the situation we face and whether he has any experience with E53s?

To me, looking at all fluids colors from the dirtiest/nastiest compare to virgin fluids (I did all these fluids at least twice so this is not based on lab tests but just looking at color)
1) trans fluid
2) PS
3) xfer case
4) brake
5) diff
6) coolant

I am not arguing you should change the trans but if you do the last 5 and think the first one is a waste, I need to hear some good reasoning.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by HPIA4v2

To me, looking at all fluids colors from the dirtiest/nastiest compare to virgin fluids (I did all these fluids at least twice so this is not based on lab tests but just looking at color)
1) trans fluid
2) PS
3) xfer case
4) brake
5) diff
6) coolant

I am not arguing you should change the trans but if you do the last 5 and think the first one is a waste, I need to hear some good reasoning.

Colour doesn't mean anything, unless it is an oil and is milky white (indicating water contamination). Lubricating fluids are designed to hold contaminants in suspension, so they get dirty looking by design. That doesn't mean they are worn out.

Your #4 should be done every two years, because it is a hygroscopic fluid. It gets contaminated with water, which can boil (soft pedal) and cause corrosion in the brake system ($$).

Your #6 can be checked for the level of conditioners it still has in it, but it is just as easy to replace it every four years or so.

Your #s 2, 3, 5 can be changed as you like, as there is no downside (other than cost). Clean fluid is generally a better thing. The fluids are unlikely to be worn out at 100,000 or whenever you do them, but since we all here tend to like cars and like working on them, we feel good when we change them. And since there is no downside, even a slight benefit is a good thing.

#1 is the only one on the list that has a possible downside to changing it. It isn't designed to be changed, so you can't get more than 40% - 50% of it out. If you change it several times in quick succession, you can get most of it changed, but that drives up the cost. It is a sealed system, so it doesn't get contaminated. The fluid gets thicker over time, and the transmission adapts to that (by monitoring clutch engagement). When you change it you introduce a new fluid that has a lot of detergent in it (by design). That new fluid is thinner, and the detergents tend to flush out the transmission. If there is any crud in there (and there will be) it can create a blockage in one of the small passageways or check valves in the valve body. It won't necessarily happen, but it is a risk. If there was a clear or measurable benefit to changing the fluid, then it would be worth evaluating the benefit over the risk. But since there is no measurable benefit other than the feel good factor, and there is a small but real risk of doing damage by changing it, many of us leave it alone. The way to avoid the risk of disturbing sediment is to decide that if you are going to change it at all, to change it early and often. If you went every 30,000 miles, for example, there would be very little risk of disturbing sediment. But it would cost a lot. And when you got to 150,000 miles and had done 5 changes ($$) you wouldn't necessarily expect to get any more life than if you had never touched it. Look at all the stories of failed sensors, wiring, solenoids, and mechanical parts that are not impacted by lubrication quality (like snap rings, or the common torque converter failures). Changing the fluid isn't going to buy you a pass on those issues. You may just get a failed transmission that you have spent $$ changing the fluid on. There are documented cases of transmissions that shifted fine, no troubles at all, then got a fluid change with the correct fluid, and failed soon after. I have experienced it myself. It isn't a myth, it can happen, including with the BMW transmissions. Some cases are documented on this board. Transmission shops clearly understand this failure mode.

For those that view this as a cost-saving issue, I see their point. But I would also comment that BMW and ZF service instructions say that if as part of a repair in a dealer shop you have to drop the transmission pan and thus drain the fluid, to reuse it. That actually costs them quite a bit, given the cost of labour. Why do they do it? Because the fluid that is worn in is actually better for the transmission than new fluid (as long as it is not burnt). They avoid the risk of fluid changes caused by adding high detergent fluids.

I listed all six points because I don't see them as comparable. Your transmission fluid has nothing in common with your brake fluid. And the failure mode of brake fluid is well understood. That is why it is a 2 year change cycle. It is the most cost-effective way to maintain your brake system. Just ask all those who had to rebuild calipers early.

That is the short version of why many of us who believe strongly in preventative maintenance, and who have worked with vehicles for years, won't change the transmission fluid in our BMW automatics. And there are others who believe the contrary position. That's fine, but since you asked, there are my own reasons.

[Ghost-Flame]

Originally Posted by JCL

....

#1 is the only one on the list that has a possible downside to changing it. It isn't designed to be changed, so you can't get more than 40% - 50% of it out. If you change it several times in quick succession, you can get most of it changed, but that drives up the cost. It is a sealed system, so it doesn't get contaminated. The fluid gets thicker over time, and the transmission adapts to that (by monitoring clutch engagement). When you change it you introduce a new fluid that has a lot of detergent in it (by design). That new fluid is thinner, and the detergents tend to flush out the transmission. If there is any crud in there (and there will be) it can create a blockage in one of the small passageways or check valves in the valve body. It won't necessarily happen, but it is a risk. If there was a clear or measurable benefit to changing the fluid, then it would be worth evaluating the benefit over the risk. But since there is no measurable benefit other than the feel good factor, and there is a small but real risk of doing damage by changing it, many of us leave it alone. The way to avoid the risk of disturbing sediment is to decide that if you are going to change it at all, to change it early and often. If you went every 30,000 miles, for example, there would be very little risk of disturbing sediment. But it would cost a lot. And when you got to 150,000 miles and had done 5 changes ($$) you wouldn't necessarily expect to get any more life than if you had never touched it. Look at all the stories of failed sensors, wiring, solenoids, and mechanical parts that are not impacted by lubrication quality (like snap rings, or the common torque converter failures). Changing the fluid isn't going to buy you a pass on those issues. You may just get a failed transmission that you have spent $$ changing the fluid on. There are documented cases of transmissions that shifted fine, no troubles at all, then got a fluid change with the correct fluid, and failed soon after. I have experienced it myself. It isn't a myth, it can happen, including with the BMW transmissions. Some cases are documented on this board. Transmission shops clearly understand this failure mode.

....

I never heard of that highlighted in red above. Hmmm, sounds like the original fluid gets better with age for that trans... hmmm. I'd like to see that rational in a BMW letterheaded service memo or BMW shop manual or the transmission builder offers this rational somewhere at BMW University and can be verified. Until I see that Then what you say is an opinion My transmission is not a ZF, it is an XE GM 5L40-E. They only say,as far as I have seen, that you shouldn't and you should rescue it and replace the old fluid during a repair... They don't say why and they never will.


I don't know what GM is telling their new customers who buy chevys etc. with these transmissions but, I know Ford is still suggesting 30,000 mile changes at least in my '05 explorer.

I clearly don't understand, If particulates are held in suspension how can sludge build up? If particulates are held in suspension then why am I not flushing them out when I drain and fill? If particulates are held in suspension then abrasives are constantly wearing on your mating surfaces with never a break, how can that be better than new fluid?

100,000 miles is the life of the transmission after it has been prematurely chewed up by dirty, micro gritty atf,that is left in by the Motor Werks. They like... no love... to take your 6,000 clams when THEIR dirty atf has ruiend the transmission before its time. when atf changes could have prolonged trans failure and the extraction of said $6000.

If the above old fluid theory was true then ... I don't know do I?

PS I have the next 33 bottles of atf ageing on a shelf in my garage... I rotate it and turn it every month... Orson Wells checks in occasionly to see what's up.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Ghost-Flame

I clearly don't understand. If particulates are held in suspension how can sludge build up? If particulates are held in suspension then why am I not flushing them out when I drain and fill? If particulates are held in suspension then abrasives are constantly wearing on your mating surfaces with never a break, how can that be better than new fluid?

100,000 miles is the life of the transmission after it has been prematurely chewed up by dirty, micro gritty atf,that is left in by the Motor Werks. They like... no love... to take your 6,000 clams when THEIR dirty atf has ruiend the transmission before its time. when atf changes could have prolonged trans failure and the extraction of said $6000.

If the above old fluid theory was true then ... I don't know do I?

PS I have the next 33 bottles of atf ageing on a shelf in my garage... I rotate it and turn it every month... Orson Wells checks in occasionly to see what's up.

The particulates that are held in suspension are not significantly abrasive. They are predominantly friction plate material. If they were abrasive, then your shifts would not be very smooth. They provide colour to the fluid, but do not change the fluid friction properties. They do change the viscosity, and the transmission adjusts for that within a predetermined range.

The sludge in the bottom of the pan is the stuff that didn't go through the strainer at the oil pickup (prior to the filter). It just sits in the pan, and doesn't hurt anything. It is on the dirty side of the filter, not the clean side. It does start to hurt things when it accumulates to the point where it blocks the filter.

The screen and filter are designed to separate out the particles that are large enough to do damage. That is why you want to use an OE filter, so that you don't buy a filter that has a larger micron rating that lets larger particles through. The ones that pass through the OE filter are of a size that they aren't considered critical. There aren't gritty metal particles circulating through the filter and abrading bearing surfaces. That is an exageration.

All that said, nothing is absolute, and that is why particles in suspension can get trapped in small passageways. There is not a significant flow through those passageways, they are more like dead ends. Over a long period of time, particles can collect there. Such is life.

I think you are considering the transmission fluid as primarily a lubricant. While it has that function, it is not a demanding lubrication requirement IMO, and the transmission fluid has many other functions. It is predominantly a heat exchanging medium, and it needs to be non-compressible as it is a hydraulic fluid. The lubrication function is so low on the requirements list that Dexron ATF, a 10 weight straight-grade mineral oil with few lubricating additives, can function for 200,000 miles while not breaking down. This isn't an engine, with high lubricating demands.

Hope some of that helps. I am not trying to change your mind on whether you should change your ATF, you have already made that decision and your inventory alone suggests you will keep changing it. Let me know what you think of the training materials I posted above.