Dealer oil change cost for diesel

[JCL]

Originally Posted by ard

Say, did you work on the team defending the tobacco companies against those pesky lawsuits about lung cancer that lacked hard "empirical data"?




There is almost no way to track engine damage due to under maintained oil. Ownership changes hands so many times, and there is really no record... how could one collect this data (ie lubrication failure data) given the fact there is no reporting? I've seen plenty of BMW motors with bearing failures- are these due to "adherence to the BMW recommended maintenance"? Of course it is impossible to say, so your proposition is a silly construct. (We've seen them fail, but we don't know why...)


I've seem more than a few UOAs with long oil change intervals.... I believe there is data to support avoiding the BMW recommendations, but I don't have the burning desire to wage that battle. Each of us needs to educate ourselves.

Just don't be so sure that the 'opposition' is 'wrong' and you are 'right'...




A

Naw, I think the tobacco executives should be locked up

When I said "we" I was referring to the community on this board, with hundreds of thousands of posts. I have certainly seen engines fail due to extended oil change intervals (often in off-road applications), going back over 30 years (I grew up in a family automotive service shop). I have worked since university (Mech Eng, certified P. Eng) in the engine business (23+ years). Got some exposure to oil analysis in our company lab, many years ago. Worked on extending oil change intervals in heavy duty diesels, and have used oil analysis equipment in the field to track lubrication problems on heavy equipment.

I tried to present a balanced view, which is that BMW has reasonable oil change intervals, some like to do it more often (which is fine for them) and others of us don't believe that is necessary except in severe service applications (which is fine for the rest of us). I do agree that some owners are into application conditions that justify severe service intervals as recommended by the manufacturers.

I haven't seen enough BMW bearing failures to be able to judge the impact of following the manufacturer's oil change recommendations. I do regularly hear though how following those recommendations will certainly lead to premature engine failure, and if you love your car and want to keep it you will give it a treat by giving it clean oil more frequently. My issue with that is that given the complexity of today's BMW vehicles, bearing and cylinder wear is unlikely to be the reason that a vehicle is junked in the future. I expect to see thousands of older X5s, years from now, with reasonable engines but with electronic sensor, software, transmission, and ancillary system failures that are so expensive it means the vehicles are only worth junking.

The UOAs I have seen are too often from consumer labs, promoting oil analysis (and the sale of those services) over reasoned conclusions. UOAs are valuable when trended, for example, but the number of times you see results of a single sample and a conclusion based on that one sample leaves me concerned about the integrity of some analysis labs.

Hope that helps expand the position, which was admittedly rather shortly summarized above. It is all good, if you want to change the oil more frequently then do so (as long as we still have enough of it in the world). For my part, I will keep the money in my pocket, and put it towards a newer vehicle sooner.

(But can we all agree to string up the tobacco execs?)

Jeff

[ard]

Originally Posted by JCL

Naw, I think the tobacco executives should be locked up

When I said "we" I was referring to the community on this board, with hundreds of thousands of posts. I have certainly seen engines fail due to extended oil change intervals (often in off-road applications), going back over 30 years (I grew up in a family automotive service shop). I have worked since university (Mech Eng, certified P. Eng) in the engine business (23+ years). Got some exposure to oil analysis in our company lab, many years ago. Worked on extending oil change intervals in heavy duty diesels, and have used oil analysis equipment in the field to track lubrication problems on heavy equipment.

I tried to present a balanced view, which is that BMW has reasonable oil change intervals, some like to do it more often (which is fine for them) and others of us don't believe that is necessary except in severe service applications (which is fine for the rest of us). I do agree that some owners are into application conditions that justify severe service intervals as recommended by the manufacturers.

I haven't seen enough BMW bearing failures to be able to judge the impact of following the manufacturer's oil change recommendations. I do regularly hear though how following those recommendations will certainly lead to premature engine failure, and if you love your car and want to keep it you will give it a treat by giving it clean oil more frequently. My issue with that is that given the complexity of today's BMW vehicles, bearing and cylinder wear is unlikely to be the reason that a vehicle is junked in the future. I expect to see thousands of older X5s, years from now, with reasonable engines but with electronic sensor, software, transmission, and ancillary system failures that are so expensive it means the vehicles are only worth junking.

The UOAs I have seen are too often from consumer labs, promoting oil analysis (and the sale of those services) over reasoned conclusions. UOAs are valuable when trended, for example, but the number of times you see results of a single sample and a conclusion based on that one sample leaves me concerned about the integrity of some analysis labs.

Hope that helps expand the position, which was admittedly rather shortly summarized above. It is all good, if you want to change the oil more frequently then do so (as long as we still have enough of it in the world). For my part, I will keep the money in my pocket, and put it towards a newer vehicle sooner.

(But can we all agree to string up the tobacco execs?)

Jeff

can't disagree with a thing you wrote.

I use a private lab and analysis service... I do get a kick out of the canned responses from some other the other services...and you are precisely right- trending is essential, as it getting data from THE motor in question, driven in THE environment in which it will used....

If I can summarize the point I think we agree on: the absence of evidence that long BMW change intervals causes damage or increased wear doesn't equal proof that it is OK.

You position - that you'll have a new motor/new wheels before those long change intervals come back to bite you- is a reasonable position, certainly rational. But you must admit that if we hold the discussion to the question of "is the BMW interval adequate with the target of optimizing long term motor life", one might have an alternative recommendation. Perhaps semantics: optimizing with an open end time horizon as compared to a cost versus likelihood of an issue over some limited time period.

Having danced the "oil thread" dance way to many times, I find the discussion ABOUT how to think and analyze oil 'information' to be more interesting, and instructive, than the actual 'hard recommendations'... It's like religion: give someone the tools and facts and let them go forth and find their own path.

Finally, we'll prolly go through 2-3 trannies per motor...and that's if we can survive all the electronics failure that will bleed us over the years.

A

PS BMW recommends 100k for the transmission ATF change. You good with that too?

[JCL]

Originally Posted by ard

PS BMW recommends 100k for the transmission ATF change. You good with that too?

My understanding of my last BMW automatic (2003 X5 3.0) was that no change interval was recommended. Having overhauled perfectly good transmissions that were only good up until a customer decided to change his transmission fluid, precipating a costly overhaul due to valve body contamination, I wouldn't touch it. It is very much like the oil change debate, there are people in both camps. Also similar to the oil change debate, I think the fluid life is not really the key issue. Transmissions can fail due to sensors as often as anything else (I think they get them from the same guy who builds the window regulators, and they are the common element between the GM and ZF transmissions). New fluid isn't going to help, and there is a small, but real, chance that a fluid change will cause a failure. Better to avoid it entirely IMO.

Then again, I really don't have to worry about it myself, because my BMWs all have manual transmissions. I had to wait 5 months for BMW to put a 6MT in a 2008 535i after the May '07 launch, and we had to special order the X3 with a 6MT (since my wife won't have an automatic either), but at least this is a debate I can pass on. The X5 was the only automatic in the household since the first year the Expedition came out, I believe in '97.

To the OP, sorry for the hijack.

[ard]

Originally Posted by JCL

My understanding of my last BMW automatic (2003 X5 3.0) was that no change interval was recommended. Having overhauled perfectly good transmissions that were only good up until a customer decided to change his transmission fluid, precipating a costly overhaul due to valve body contamination, I wouldn't touch it. It is very much like the oil change debate, there are people in both camps. Also similar to the oil change debate, I think the fluid life is not really the key issue. Transmissions can fail due to sensors as often as anything else (I think they get them from the same guy who builds the window regulators, and they are the common element between the GM and ZF transmissions). New fluid isn't going to help, and there is a small, but real, chance that a fluid change will cause a failure. Better to avoid it entirely IMO.

The oft repeated story of 'that fluid change caused the failure' is a powerful one...(and why were you charging for an "overhaul of a perfectly good transmission" when all you needed to do was drop the valve body and clean it?)


So I disagree- fluid life IS THE ENTIRE ISSUE! Wear components within the tranny contaminate the fluid, and wear accelerates as the fluid breaks down.

The argument that 'it's those new-fangled electronic sensors' that causes tranny failure is, IMHO, specious. Again, you do not see perfectly normal trannies with just a bad sensor- you see worn and sludged transmissions. Yes, an occasional bad sensor- but you just replace that part and off you go.

But glad to hear this isn't an issue for your cars.

In the meantime, owners should change (not flush, change) ATF at reasonable intervals...not the irresponsible 100k mile interval that BMW recommends. (And while we are at it, how can BMW recommend it at 100k, and it is "safe" but doing it earlier- say 20 or 25k is, all of a sudden, a 'risk'???)

[Price]

Originally Posted by ard

In the meantime, owners should change (not flush, change) ATF at reasonable intervals...not the irresponsible 100k mile interval that BMW recommends. (And while we are at it, how can BMW recommend it at 100k, and it is "safe" but doing it earlier- say 20 or 25k is, all of a sudden, a 'risk'???)

No they shouldn't.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by ard

The oft repeated story of 'that fluid change caused the failure' is a powerful one...(and why were you charging for an "overhaul of a perfectly good transmission" when all you needed to do was drop the valve body and clean it?)

Yes, some transmission failures were not caused by a recent fluid change, but rather had a recent fluid change that simply didn't resolve the problem. I wasn't referring to those oft-repeated stories, but rather personal experience. Feel free to have another opinion, though.

And as a side note, and in defence of the shop where I worked, I wasn't "charging for the overhaul of a perfectly good transmission" as you suggest. I was charging for the overhaul of a transmission that was in need of an overhaul, and which incidentally was functioning perfectly up until the owner changed the fluid, precipitating a failure. Cheap shot. Reread my post. If the fluid is burnt, and the pan is full of band material, cleaning out the valve body won't work. In that case, a clogged valve body started the failure, but driving on it trashed the transmission.

[ard]

Originally Posted by JCL

Yes, some transmission failures were not caused by a recent fluid change,

Agree

Originally Posted by JCL

And as a side note, and in defence of the shop where I worked, I wasn't "charging for the overhaul of a perfectly good transmission" as you suggest.

Really? I thought I was quoting you...here:

Originally Posted by JCL

. Having overhauled perfectly good transmissions that were only good up until a customer decided to change his transmission fluid, precipating a costly overhaul due to valve body contamination, I wouldn't touch it.

Now you walk it back:

Originally Posted by JCL

I was charging for the overhaul of a transmission that was in need of an overhaul, and which incidentally was functioning perfectly up until the owner changed the fluid, precipitating a failure. Cheap shot. Reread my post. If the fluid is burnt, and the pan is full of band material, cleaning out the valve body won't work. In that case, a clogged valve body started the failure, but driving on it trashed the transmission.

I guess we need a transmission mechanic to opine: I say old, sludged fluid causes valve body fouling. You say perfectly clean new fluid somehow 'clogs' the valve body- just by virtue of being 'changed'- and it is this 'magic clog' that THEN causes the subsequent trashing of the transmission.


Finally, I agree that there is a point of "too risky to service" with ATF. The point, IMHO, is to change your fluid before it reaches the point wherein contamination in the fluid due to band/clutch breakdown and sludging has occurred.

IMO, manufacturers are not looking out for our "over 100k mile interests". They just want to avoid maintenance costs and warranty claims until after they are on the hook for them!


Oh, how is it intellectually possible to have a transmission with "lifetime" fluid- no service requirements at all?? A company that affirms such an unsupportable claim, has no engineering integrity- IMHO

A

[JCL]

Originally Posted by ard

I guess we need a transmission mechanic to opine: I say old, sludged fluid causes valve body fouling. You say perfectly clean new fluid somehow 'clogs' the valve body- just by virtue of being 'changed'- and it is this 'magic clog' that THEN causes the subsequent trashing of the transmission.


Finally, I agree that there is a point of "too risky to service" with ATF. The point, IMHO, is to change your fluid before it reaches the point wherein contamination in the fluid due to band/clutch breakdown and sludging has occurred.

Oh, how is it intellectually possible to have a transmission with "lifetime" fluid- no service requirements at all?? A company that affirms such an unsupportable claim, has no engineering integrity- IMHO

A

You aren't reading the posts, or you are being disingenous. I'll walk you through it again. In my example, a Torqueflight 727 transmission (from memory) that is functioning well, no apparent problems, gets a fluid change. It is "perfectly good, up until the point at which the customer decided to change the fluid" to quote my post. No, I didn't contradict myself. Read it all. The new clean fluid does not cause damage to the valve body, that would be silly. Clean fluid is always better, in principle. It is the act of changing it that introduces the failure mode. When you drain it down, the passages are devoid of fluid, in general. Then you put new clean fluid in. Then you run the transmission through every gear, filling up the servos, actuators, and valve body. When you get that first clunk in each gear, that is the fluid filling up all the actuators. Bingo. That is your risk point. If you could get the new fluid in without going through the act of changing it, that would be ideal. Trouble is, you can't. If you don't have proper actuation of the clutches and bands, they slip. You don't need sludged fluid, you just need one blocked or restricted orfice in the valve body. That is when you reduce flow, modify the shifting characteristics, burn the fluid, and get a catastrophic failure. With the above in mind, go back and read my posts. I think you will find them logical.

You have transmission mechanics on here, you just don't believe them. To be fair, some believe in changing the fluid. Others don't. Apart from my posts, Weasel wrote a good post on it, if you search. It was based on his experience working in a transmission overhaul shop. My experience is frolm a general automotive repair shop, and experience since then in a related industry.

In your scenario, you change the fluid regularly. Every time you open up a sealed system, you introduce new opportunities for contamination.

You opine that sludged fluid, when taken away, leaves a healthy transmission. It doesn't. The clutches and bands are still worn, they just have clean fluid.

I think that the best way to change transmission fluid is to pull the transmission. Clean it out, inspect it, and put new fluid in. Makes perfect sense. Seems like too much trouble to me, but it is the best of all worlds - totally clean and new fluid besides.

Why do you find the concept of lifetime fluid intellectually dishonest? Lots of systems have lifetime fluids. Thermometers, shock absorbers, hydraulic dampers, etc. First point is they are usually sealed systems. Oils actually never wear out, they never stop being slippery, they just get contaminated and they lose their additive packages through excessive heat, thus modifying the friction characteristics. They can also change viscosity. You have a filter in the transmission, and you don't have a source of combustion, which is the most common source of contamination in engine oil. So, heat is the most common enemy. If the transmission cooling system is in good order, the fluid will last as long as the transmission life. Not your life, not the vehicle life, but the transmission life. Times have changed since we used to do semi-annual transmission fluid changes and 3000 mile oil changes. It has been quite a while since I added fluid to shock absorbers as a scheduled maintenance step (they were lever-type), or used a wheel cylinder hone, or since I installed points and capacitor, or recurved a distributor, or ...well, you get the point.

I don't support your BMW conspiracy theory, but then we don't prepay for our service work to the extent that US customers do. To paraphrase one of your quotes above, the interest by BMW in reducing maintenance costs during the warranty period doesn't equal proof that they want transmission to fail outside the warranty period.

You are very welcome to your opinions on transmission fluid changes, and I respect them. I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine. That's cool. Many times, a transmission fluid change causes no problems. However, a transmission fluid change can cause a failure that otherwise would have happened much later. Telling people to change their fluid every 25,000 miles, while not alerting them to a potential downside risk, is irresponsible in my opinion, more so than letting people follow the manufacturer's recommendations.

Have a great day. Perhaps we could move this discussion to a separate thread and not continue to hijack the OP's question on the cost of an oil change, or at least put Off Topic warnings in the subject line.

[GoVols!]

Im the original poster and am enjoying this thread. Interesting and entertaining. Feel free to continue.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by GoVols!

Im the original poster and am enjoying this thread. Interesting and entertaining. Feel free to continue.

Hey, we're here all week. Glad to be able to provide the entertainment.