Xoutpost.com - Has anyone done a Transmission filter and fluid change and caused more issues?

Xoutpost.com (https://xoutpost.com/forums.php)

- X5 (E53) Forum (https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/x5-e53-forum/)

- - Has anyone done a Transmission filter and fluid change and caused more issues? (https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/x5-e53-forum/100115-has-anyone-done-transmission-filter-fluid-change-caused-more-issues.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 1031882)

For completing repairs inside the sump. After which the fluid is reinstalled, either the original fluid or new fluid.

We don't know if BMW wanted people to not change the fluid.

We just know that they didn't want to be involved if people did change the fluid, because they didn't develop a service procedure to do so.

Fluid can be drained without a drain plug. Most U.S. designed/made cars don't have drain plugs for the trans sump, but you would loosen the bolts to the sump and drain it from the lowest point of the sump. Most U.S. cars have a ATF replacement schedule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upallnight (Post 1031901)

The evidence, at least for the 2002 - 2006 model year E53's, is quite clear BMW recommends changing the oil at 100K mile intervals: It's in the warranty and service booklet. Since JCL stated he recommends following the manufacturers recommendations I fail to see why he's still trying to argue the notion changing the transmission fluid leads to transmission failure. It's baffling.

Sunny, you need to chill. Your approach comprises your position. Hard to think much of what you post just because of the way you go about them. FYI-I would say there is quite a difference between the use of your and you're----your car---you are car. I get your intention but not a good analogy.

Anyone could have the correct answer on this issue. Until the designer of the particular BMW transmission weighs in there is no way to be sure of what to do or why to do it.

Since there is no definitive answer, I bank on years of experience running many different types of transmissions in performance vehicles. I have always changed the fluid and filter on some reasonable interval. Worked then works now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1031904)

It's not an analogy...it happened (see post #83). My approach has been the result of people who can't argue their point so they resort to foolish tangents such as wording.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1031904)

Anyone could have the correct answer on this issue. Until the designer of the particular BMW transmission weighs in there is no way to be sure of what to do or why to do it.

The manufacturer has weighed in...in the warranty and service booklet that comes with the 2002 - 2006 model year E53's. Links were provided (see posts 96 and 97). Given this I fail to see why this is still an issue. It was resolved many posts ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upallnight (Post 1031901)

Absolutely true. The drain plug is simply a convenience, reducing the chance of spilling fluid all over the shop floor. It is a more complete (and expensive) design. I would say it is a better design.

If we go back in time, no automatics from years back that I recall (with the exception of a Borg Warner in a Rover 3500 that I remember working on, although I am sure there were others) had drain plugs. Those transmissions made a lot of heat, primarily due to the torque converters not having a lock up mode, but also due to clutches slipping (no electronic controls, feedback loops, etc).

The old fluids were low tech, and usually were good for 30,000 miles or so, due to that heat.

Since the automatic is a North American led invention and adoption, I think the above statements apply more accurately to older transmissions than to American transmission.

I think the correlation between drain plugs and fluid change requirements is coincidental, and even if there is one, I wouldn't say it is proof of anything except the manufacturer's willingness to spend some money including a drain plug. And there are lots of reasons to drain the fluid other than as a preventative maintenance step, which is really the only instance of a fluid drain that is being debated. You still have to drain it to work on anything behind the sump pan, and probably want to if removing the transmission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldskewel (Post 1031895)

JCL, I commend your patience, politeness, and rational behavior throughout all this. Thanks for your measured and cautiously factual contributions to this controversial topic. I expect I'm speaking for many other relatively silent readers on this list, but won't be so bold to claim that I do.

Your approach shows that you have a technical background and experience with solving real problems with real consequences.

4 months ago I bought a 2001 3.0i with 169k miles on the 5L40-E/GM5 (A5S 390R) 5-speed auto transmission made by GM. Expecting (turned out I was right) that the ATF was original, I read everything I could about the issue, paying extra close attention to your posts, which seemed the most balanced and rational.

Although having read many first-hand reports out there of AT failure soon after ATF change, seemingly most done by professionals, I decided to do it myself very carefully. I did, with excellent immediate results. Extremely dirty fluid came out, very fine debris covering the pan and magnet. Smoother shifting, all good. 400 miles later, I did it again (another new filter, another 7 qts of Dexron VI).

So here's a data point ...

Upon close inspection (I was in engineering experiment mode throughout this - I had cut open the original filter to inspect it, etc.) I noticed in the pan upon removal a pea-sized greasy glob of stuff. This was entirely unlike anything seen the first time I changed fluid (uniform, fine, microscopic debris). I also saw a tiny shard from a gear tooth - not enough to cause problems, visible only because it was so shiny, but again, unlike anything seen on the first change.

So to me, this supports the theory / legend / wive's tale of new fluid with new additives breaking down old goop and setting it free in the system. Being as cautious as I am, I drove the truck like a granny throughout this period, hoping that if anything broke loose, the light load would give it more of a chance to work its way out safely.

In particular, I thought about the comments JCL made about how broken-loose deposits would get into the valve bodies and ... catastrophic damage. One question I still have about that is why catastrophic and irreversible damage occurs so frequently. I.e., are things really so delicate that a glob of goop in the wrong spot will cause self-destruction before it dissolves? (I guess they must be)

Anyway, I'm now probably 1k miles since that second change. Fluid was still extremely dirty, and I'll probably change again towards the end of the year. Car is running great.

Thanks for your post.

The fine deposits you found are most likely clutch disk material. The fluid is designed to keep them in suspension, where they don't hurt anything. the viscosity changes, but modern transmissions adapt to that with feedback on engagement times, slip, etc. Some of the material will fall out of suspension in the pan, where again, it doesn't hurt anything.

The detergents in new fluid will act as a cleaner. Those deposits in suspension wouldn't be my primary concern; I would look for hard particles that were baked on to the internal surfaces over time, like a varnish coating, and then released. The same idea as combustion chamber deposits cleaned up by an engine oil additive. Trans fluid makes a great combustion chamber cleaner.

If anything moving through the transmission with the fluid makes it to the filter, it is fine. The filter will do what it is supposed to do. If you change a filter on a repeat drain and fill, soon after the first, and notice anything in it then you know that there was something there to be filtered out. If it is spotless, then the transmission was clean inside.

If a check valve or spool valve or orifice or actuator becomes blocked, it can cause a shifting problem. If that is an actuator required to drive, bad luck. If that is a nuisance slow shift, fine. But if there is any slipping and significant heat generation, you want to get it resolved before the heat causes subsequent problems. The much discussed particle, in and of itself, doesn't hurt the transmission. And it isn't that the transmission is being affected by the lubrication of the new fluid, it is being affected from the new fluid not being able to act as a hydraulic fluid, its most important role (well, that and carrying heat out)

One poster here that I corresponded with did a fluid change, and then had problems soon after. He removed the valve body, found contaminants, cleaned them out, and put it back together. All good to go.

I don't think we should state that new fluid will cause problems, or will cause problems most of the time. It isn't most of the time, it is infrequent. But it is often enough that shops (like the OP's shop) get worried about doing a change, and decline the work, which seems strange given they are in business. For whatever reason, they see a downside of some type.

Cheers

Jeff

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny5280 (Post 1031903)

That is the right word, they have a change interval.

I recommended starting with the manufacturer's recommendations, always a good idea.

So if I go to BMW and ask them for the procedure to actually do the fluid change at that change interval, they say no dice. That is inconvenient. If they had a procedure, they would discuss how to do it, the nuances, the risks, and so on. They have a procedure for all other fluids in the vehicle, even battery acid. Even the lifetime compartments, like differentials. But not the transmission. That tells us something.

All we have is two conflicting lines in the owner's documentation, one saying lifetime fluid and one saying 100,000.

So they don't recommend changing the transmission fluid, or how to change it, or any details. They recommend it somehow be changed. By someone else, presumably. Tough to use them as a reference for a completely safe procedure under those circumstances.

And it won't lead to transmission failure, as has been pointed out many times now. It may lead to transmission failure. Maybe that is why you are baffled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 1031917)

That is the right word, they have a change interval.

Please leave the juvenile remarks built off of your strawman out of the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 1031917)

All we have is two conflicting lines in the owner's documentation, one saying lifetime fluid and one saying 100,000.

There's nothing conflicting about it at all. BMW states the service lifetime of the transmission fluid is 100K miles. After that it's lifetime is over and it needs to be replaced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 1031917)

And it won't lead to transmission failure, as has been pointed out many times now. It may lead to transmission failure. Maybe that is why you are baffled.

Changing the oil in my car may lead to engine failure. That doesn't mean we shouldn't follow best practices and do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny5280 (Post 1031918)

Please leave the juvenile remarks built off of your strawman out of the discussion.

There's nothing conflicting about it at all. BMW states the service lifetime of the transmission fluid is 100K miles. After that it's lifetime is over and it needs to be replaced.

Changing the oil in my car may lead to engine failure. That doesn't mean we shouldn't follow best practices and do it.

You were struggling with the words service and service procedure. I think we solved that. You're welcome. Here, I honestly and sincerely pointed out that you are now using the correct term for what BMW has published, which is a service interval. That isn't juvenile.

BMW (at least for the vehicles up to 2004) stated both. The owner's manual says lifetime. Still does. 2003 version shown. You are quoting the service and warranty booklet, which calls for a 100,000 mile interval. We discussed this. You keep focusing on one document, and ignoring the other.

We have discussed how there are few similarities between engine oil and transmission fluid requirements. You are trying to deflect by focusing on the words transmission fluid and not on the words will and may, such confusion being the basis of your own strawman.

Why did you completely skip the point of the post, which was that BMW has not published a service procedure for something that you say you are sure they have looked at and are completely fine with? You just lost your reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny5280 (Post 1031907)

It's not an analogy...it happened (see post #83). My approach has been the result of people who can't argue their point so they resort to foolish tangents such as wording.

The manufacturer has weighed in...in the warranty and service booklet that comes with the 2002 - 2006 model year E53's. Links were provided (see posts 96 and 97). Given this I fail to see why this is still an issue. It was resolved many posts ago.

You scare me! How long ago did you stop taking your medication for passive aggressive behavior? Do you have any guns?

As you have used the comparison it is a simile type analogy. That's the facts, Jack.

BMW is not the mfg. of the transmission used in an E53. There is no definitive answer to this issue unless we had input from the designer of the transmission. That's the truth, Ruth.

It is obvious why you fail to see this as an ongoing issue. It requires logical thinking.. I suggest it would be good idea if you put yourself to bed, Ted.