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 sunny5280 (Post 1031231)

Well...no :D That's the problem. Lifetime is ambiguous. It's my opinion buyers definition of lifetime is considerably longer than the manufacturers. For example the manufacturer may consider the service life of the transmission fluid to be 100K miles. However we, as buyers, may consider it to be the entire length of time the vehicle remains operational.

I thought lifetime means until we are alive .

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 1031280)

You do understand that it is your previously (and frequently) posted position, right? That the one putting forth a premise has the burden of proof on them? And you certainly know where I got old wive's tales and urban myth from. Welcome to August 2013.

Sure do. None of this changes the fact your response was stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trader4 (Post 1031265)

If it's not in dispute and you accept it, then it would settle the debate
over whether or not to change the fluid. What he's saying is that he
believes BMW's position is that changing the fluid doesn't have a
material, worthwhile effect on extending the life of the transmission.
It would seem to me that a reasonable, real world defintion of lifetime
would be the point at which the device is no longer functioning
properly and it can't be rectified by a cost effective, limited repair. In
other words, you need a new tranny.

No, it doesn't settle the debate. JCL may very well be correct that changing the fluid doesn't extend its service life. However if there's no harm, aside from cost, to doing so why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trader4 (Post 1031323)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny5280 (Post 1031322)

Sure do. None of this changes the fact your response was stupid.

It's "you're" not "your". Don't you just hate it when you call someone
stupid and you can't even spell easy words in a one sentence reply?

So I should have written:

"None of this changes the fact you are response was stupid."

Is that what you're trying to tell me? With that said I have to mention something I heard from someone recently:

"Don't you just hate it when you call someone stupid and you can't even spell easy words in a one sentence reply?"

With that egg now all over your face I have one more thing to add: I didn't call him stupid. I called his response stupid. Learn the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bestvaluestore (Post 1031301)

I thought lifetime means until we are alive .

It does if we are discussing people. But not if we are discussing transmissions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trader4 (Post 1031345)

Yes, you're correct on the grammar. I guess it was too early and I didn't have enough coffee.

Perhaps this should teach you to avoid making snarky comments about spelling / grammar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trader4 (Post 1031345)

Regarding "stupid", I don't care if you called him
that directly or just what he said. The point the other poster made
regarding that is correct. I didn't see anything he said that was stupid,
it' not very productive and you still haven't given us your definition of what you think BMW means by lifetime.

It was a stupid comment. Or juvenile. It had the tone of "I know you are but what am I?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by trader4 (Post 1031343)

It's not so much that JCL is saying it. It's that BMW is saying it. And there have been threads here where people report having problems occur right after changing it. If there's no benefit, then why do it? And why do it if there's a chance of it shortening the life? That's the issue.

Why do it? In order to keep the transmission working as trouble free as possible. Every other fluid has a change interval...why not this one? Well, this one does have a change interval...10 years according to the document provided.

Today BMW is recommending the transmission fluid be changed at 100K miles. This change interval is in conflict with JCL's opinion. Yeah, he's trying to build some argument the transmissions specifications may have changed and therefore call for a different fluid change specification. However I'm not buying it...he's built the argument the transmission contains any number of small orifices and tight tolerance parts which could become clogged with small debris. Did BMW eliminate these specific conditions in the transmissions for which they're now recommending fluid changes? While I haven't investigated I suspect not.

As for failing transmissions again I have to say: Show me the data. I have no doubt some transmissions have failed right after having the fluid changed. However we don't have any data as to why. The failures could be any number of reasons...one being the transmission was already exhibiting signs of failure and the fluid was changed in the hope changing it would resolve the problem. Another could be the fluid change wasn't performed correctly. I've seen the procedure on how to do it and it's not as simple as draining and pouring in new fluid. The point is without an RCA we have no idea if the fluid changed caused the failure or if the failure was merely coincidental.