Has anyone done a Transmission filter and fluid change and caused more issues?
 

I just took my car in yesterday to do a fluid and filter (x5 4.4i 200k) and the owner once opened opt not to replace the fluid as he has seen to many cars / suv's have total failure a month or two later down the road. Stated the worst is flushing the entire system? So he just swapped out the filter and threw in the old oil and topped it off. Ive read somewhere if you keep up with the fluid changes its ok to change out but if you haven't kept up with it its not recommended as the new fluids can cause issues.

Curious has anyone encountered total failure from replacing the fluids on a car that's never been done or at higher miles? The lifetime fluids BMW state is a joke. If I owned this from day 1 I would have done it in increments but since its new to me I figured it was never done.

I changed at 100K and so far no problems.
BTW, I've had trans failures on GM cars when I have changed fluid. Of course, it was many miles after the change...

Im sure at 100k the fluids aren't nearly as bad as 200k so Im sure your trans oil was better condition than mine. Plus since you are maintaining it regularly it will be even better! In my situation Im sure the owners never changed it. So in my situation Im pretty screwed. :(

Lots of threads on here that you're welcome to search and read.

In summary, two schools of thought:

- Change it regularly. If a problem does appear post fluid change, it was probably something that was going to occur anyway. A lot of people claim that a failure was caused by the fluid flush, but fail to mention that the reason they were changing the fluid in the first place was because they were experience issues.

- Don't touch it at all. If your transmission is shifting fine, leave it alone. This is line of reasoning is usually adopted by people who believe that flushing transmissions causes issues.

So, you decide which kool-aid you want to drink:
Preventative Maintenance is Best VS If it Ain't broke, Don't Fix it

My thoughts are,

If you are having no issues but can afford a new transmission tomorrow if things go bad, I'd flush it and hopefully it gets you many more trouble free motoring.

If you're having no issues but can't afford a new transmission tomorrow, I'd just leave it alone.

If you're having issues and can't afford a new transmission - flush it and hope it rectifies the issues.

If you're having issues and can afford a new transmission, decide whether you can afford to throw money at a possible fix (ie flush) vs a certain fix (reco'd trans).

I think that's a more rational approach than a bunch of anecdotal evidence!

Most trans suppliers to BMW recommends a fluid change for their trans.

I've done a drain/replace filter/fill on a 2004 3.0 GM trans at 45k and just did the same on a 2003 4.6is ZF with 40k.

Both shifted fine before the change. Both had dark fluid and magnets coated with gray stuff. No chunks of anything in the pan though, thankfully.

Seeing the condition of the fluid at that mileage I would definitely not follow the lifetime recommendation.

Better do not touch it.Many people complain failures occur after changing it.

Did those people that suffer failure after a fluid change use approve atf or use some other type of of ATF. ZF the maker of trans for V8 X5 warns of problems with their trans if non approved fluid is used. Wi t h the cost of the fluid from ZF many owners might have opted to use something cheaper.

I believe the shop took the correct approach in reusing the old fluid.

2002 X5 3.0 273,920 miles (Transmission has never been touched)
2004 325i 118,500 miles (Transmission has never been touched)

I see where you are coming from. Its just on the forums and outside its really hit and miss and I wanted to get a head count of people on here who did do it at a higher mileage with no problems or did have issues. I trust the shop that did mine as he's been in the business for years and he technically could have screwed me and made even more money on me by doing the drain, etc but didn't.

Reason I wanted to do it in the first place is at cold starts not warming it up for a few minutes and driving it I would get the slam into 2nd gear. Ive read that can be due to dirty filter or low on fluids. Only happens on cold starts when warm everything is fine! That's why I was looking into this. If not I would have just left it alone. As stated if Ive owned this earlier with lower miles I would have maintained it.

:iagree: The lifetime BMW claims is a joke! Good think about you is that you have lower miles so you should be in the clear. Im trying to find out if theres anyone on here with higher mileage who had any issues or not.

And that's what Ive read as well so I was just curious if anyone with higher miles had any failures after a change. I did get the filter changed out as he stated it was pretty dirty and so far from driving it home that day it did seem to have shifted better and smoother. Wasn't able to test cold starts yet but may be able to later today so will see if that cured that! Thanks for you insight! I think the tranny shop did a good choice on reusing the fluids and topping it off

Most people I know or have read even if its a Honda, Mercedes, BMW, etc... use approved or manufacture fluids in there transmissions and power steering. Ive seen power steering go bad because of wrong fluids.

But as for your question for the places Ive read were BMW specific and they stated they used BMW fluids and I think it was a few weeks or months later tranny failed completely. Miles ranged from 80k to 180k. So its hit and miss and is why I was just curious if anyone on here had any issues after change on higher mileage X5's.

Yea after thinking about it more and getting more info online I would have to agree with you and think he went the right route. Plus he's been in business for a pretty long time and specializes in transmissions and could have made more money on me changing out the fluids but he didn't and seemed pretty honest. Im just wondering if anyone else on here had any issues changing out the fluids at higher miles?

I see it this way.

1. Many owners flushing tranny fluid, hoping to fix a problem they are having. Of course, it is not always the case.

2. Flushing tranny fluid not done correct way. Just drain/refill -> nono. To do the job properly, not only having correct fluid is important, tranny filter should be replaced as well as drain/refill should be done at least 3 times to drain every fluid out from TC.

3. People usually post on internet AFTER they have problem. That's why you see 100s of posts "Tranny fluid flush gone bad", but not many success stories.

I've done mine at 120,000 miles last year and no problem so far.

That hard shift into second from cold could be a symptom of other problems with the trans. Here's a guy with a Jaguar with the ZF 5HP24 trans like the X and he had the trans service at 107,000 miles and it crap out on him at 113,000. 6000 miles later, but I kinda doubt it was the trans service, but the poor design/material used in the trans.

JagRepair.com - Jaguar Repair Information Resource

A hard shift into second from a cold start up could be a valve body issue.

Yes, it has happened. It hasn't happened to me personally with an X5, but it has with other (customer) vehicles. This has nothing to do with BMW, or ZF, or the X5. The failure mode is identical for all makes and models. My experience is based on working in a shop, not on DIYers in a driveway.

Still, if you want to focus on the X5, there are good detailed posts on here of some who have changed fluid, with the best of intentions, at higher mileages. They used the proper fluid and filter, and did not have problems beforehand. They had problems afterwards, most likely due to the high detergent levels in the new fluid (which are there by design) cleaning out the transmission of deposits that weren't hurting anything where they were, but were carried into the valve body, actuators, sensors, etc. Shifting problems result.

Coming from a service background, the reason why some shops won't touch a requested fluid change is consequent liability. It is a well understood reason for failure, it isn't some sort of urban myth. All they have to gain is the profit on the job, and the potential downside is a failed transmission, which owners tend to go after the shops for. Sure, they can get you to sign a release saying it is all at your own risk, but those rarely work out with all parties satisfied. I would trust a shop who is prepared to stand on their principles more than one who says no worries, it'll be fine, no risk, let's just throw it up on the hoist....

If you have shifting problems, and want to try new fluid before tearing the transmission open, just find someone who will do it. Use the correct (ZF) fluid, not a generic one. Use an OE filter from the dealer or ZF. It may help, and is cheaper than tearing open the transmission.

I know you were looking for info on how many failed. You won't find it. Remember, the plural of anecdote isn't data.

Jeff

I read a BMW service manual that specifically instructed technicians to drain and reuse the fluid when doing the repairs that BMW did support on the automatic transmission (sensors, harness, seals, etc). Even though that is more trouble than putting new fluid in.

I changed my fluid and filter after approx 130,000 kms. I used a genuine ZF filter and fluid. After changing it the trans shifted much smoother and overall was a nicer car to drive , my wife even noticed a difference in it (for the better) I am now about to change it again at 180,000 kms .

I guess that makes sense, if it's a warranty claim - that way BMW isn't copping the cost for replacement fluid on top of the parts required.

But for the same reason that people think the flush causes issues (it dislodges gunk and pushes it into areas that affect the shifting function) I would have thought tipping dirty fluid back into the transmission would do the exact same thing.

I'm keeping an eye on mine - it's starting leaking from the plastic electrical harness connector - so I'm likely going to be paying a shop to do a flush soon. I've got all the gear to do it myself but I'd rather it be flushed right rather than a 'drop and refill'.

This issue first came up for me on my 1999 MB E320 with 90,000 miles which was having very slight slipping. I took it to a transmission shop, who drained the fluid, and put it back in and told me I needed a $3,500 rebuild. I opted instead to have the fluid and it helped the very slight slipping. I did it again at 110,000 miles. I got 3-4 years of near perfect driving from those 2 fluid changes before I sold the car to my mechanic who says the car still drives great.

We bought the E53 in 2005 and changed the tranny fluid approx every 3 years or 30,000 miles. It it now at 90K+ miles, however we live in a hilly area of Los Angeles so there is extra wear & tear on the car. As a %, very little highway driving.

I'm in the camp that one should change the trans fluid on a regular basis. The reports of failure shortly after a change may be true, but the trans might have failed anyway.

Go to the ZF site and read what the manufacturer recommends.... Change the filter and fluid on a regular basis (at least every 100,000 kms or 60,000 miles).
Would you drain the engine and put the same dirty oil back in? The same principle applies to any mechanical component, regardless of 'dislodging built up deposits', which can happen at any time IMHO.

I do not know what they used but this is my observation and some people told me not to change mine and I tell you my experience on the topic.

I have yet to see any scientific evidence to support the argument changing the fluid increases the chance of having a transmission issue. Until then I consider it a wives tale.

This. Unless an RCA was performed (highly unlikely) people assume one caused the other. The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is applicable here.

I just believe these guys who are more experienced than me.And so far all is ok.

BMW is 100% correct that the fluid is 'lifetime'.

Because once the fluid goes bad or gets contaminated, that the end of the lifetime for your transmission.

My indy has worked on BMWs for 20 years and was service manager at a local dealer for 10. He told me not to pay him the $500 for a proper flush and filter change.. said he'd rather sell me a $5000 transmission in a couple years :-)

My 4.4 is going in tomorrow. I'm at 70K and mine shifts just a little harsher than I'd like. Even if the new fluid doesn't help, seems like cheap insurance.

HAH! My mechanic, who used to work at local BMW stealer, told me almost exactly same thing. "Lifetime" in their eyes is the life of the warranty. Back when the X5 was under the maintenence plan, I asked the SM and was told they won't even do a fluid change if requested by the customer.

Originally my E320 had the same lifetime trans fliud, but then later on MB put out a service bulletin to change it every 60K mile IIRC.

Similar thing from my indy who used to manage a BMW service department.

My transmission was changed under CPO warranty for the 2nd to 1st gear 'slam'. 30k miles later I did a fluid change with ZF Lifetime6 fluid. Smoother shifts were noticed by my wife (as well as me, but that could have been confirmation bias on my part). I'll do it every 30k miles from now on but it's easy for me as I have a lift in my garage.

Jeff's post, as usual, was complete and thoroughly thought out. I'd read it carefully.

BTW: What year/engine are we discussing (pro tip: signatures help eliminate people from asking this question...)? Mileage?

I did the drain and refil method on mine around 135k and am at 145k now. No troubles.

I have a personal belief that some of the bad experiences are from "power flush" using generic ATF. If the "flush" is less than $500, you know they aren't putting 15-20 liters of the right fluid through it.

His post may be well written but it lacks any statistical data to support the conclusion changing the transmission fluid can lead to failure of the transmission. Until such data can be provided it is nothing more than an urban myth.

Could that myth have been started by someone working at BMW? :yikes:

Been almost a year, mine is going fine.

It's a possibility. One I'm not in a position to say one way or the other.

The service and warranty booklet for my 2006 4.4i, on page 3 if you want to check me, says pretty clearly "Automatic Transmission Service: Change ATF every 100,000 miles." Does not say "lifetime". Does not say "flush".

So I did that - drain and change at 100k. At 140k now. No issues caused, smoother after change. Will do again, maybe at 150 or 160.

If reusing the original fluid, I would still run it through a fine mesh filter such as one for paint finishes, before pumping it back in to make sure there wasn't any loose debris in it. The important point is that you're not altering the "chemical" operating environment the friction components are accustomed to.

2002 X5 274,040 miles
2004 325i 118,500 miles

While not disputing some of the claims made here, I do find it interesting (some might say amusing) that other complex hydraulic mechanisms (in such things as excavators, hydrostatic drive units) have no such claims to "lifetime fluid". Our excavators - we would NEVER dream of running the hydraulic drive oil for more than a few hundred hours at most. Our large mowers - same thing. The hydraulic fluid is lifeblood to these machines, and we're not talking a few grand worth of transmission - we're talking tens of thousands of dollars worth of repairs if you have a hydraulic issue that contaminates the system.

I suppose though, since the X5 really is aimed at the general consumer market, they (BMW) can make the assumption that for the vast majority of purchasers there will never be an issue in the "lifetime" (ie economical repair life) of the vehicle, so the claim can be argued as valid.

Number one enemy of hydraulic fluid is heat, number two is dirt. Heavy equipment is far more likely to encounter those issues than a vehicle transmission with a small vent tube. Likewise, operating pressures of those systems are typically much higher than in a transmission, so any contaminants would be more likely to damage seals and sliding surfaces... which is why I do however, regularly change power steering fluid.

If I had arranged for shop performed flush & fills every 50,000 miles on my transmission as some other members do, I probably would have spent between $2000 and $2500 on that maintenance by now, and still have a unit with 274,000 miles of wear on it. Depending on whether or not it ever fails, a re-manufactured unit with a 3 year warranty and all new wear components can be installed for about $3000. I just think that's the more cost effective and less time consuming way to go. I guess we'll see as I continue to rack up 500 miles per week!

2002 X5 3.0 274,040 miles
2004 325i 118,500 miles

The ZF repair manual for the 5hp24 is at the link below. It effectively defines Lifetime as 10 years.

I read this to mean the fluid must be replaced every 10 years and there is no restriction on replacing it earlier. I am surprised they don't use a mileage criteria as well.

http://www.jagrepair.com/images/Auto...r%20Manual.pdf

By the time BMW pays a shop to catch the fluid, and refill it, it would likely be cheaper to put new fluid in.

The risk isn't tipping the fluid back in, but rather the higher detergent levels of the new fluid compared to the old fluid. When the amount of detergent changes, the fluid is more likely to scour out deposits that in many cases weren't hurting anything. If they make it to the filter, fine. If they lodge in the valve body in one of the many small orifices, that is when problems occur.

Actually, ZF published that they support BMW's factory recommendation.

But if you go to the ZF Service site (a group that doesn't make transmissions, but which is a division of ZF which sells service parts and fluids for them) they will happily tell you to change the fluid. Follow the money.

My career background was in heavy equipment service (yellow machines from Peoria). I think there is a fair bit of difference between an automotive transmission and a hydraulic circuit on a tracked excavator, for example. We used to look for metal particles by connecting up particle counters on the return lines, and extending/retracting boom and stick cylinders, till we found the spike. The metal came from the cylinders fairly often. Not a failure mode that transmissions see. We don't see metal particles, we see burnt fluid from overheating, when that does happen.

It is an economic, life cycle cost calculation, at the end of the day. And that refers to the transmission life. I believe that the transmission will more likely fail from some other cause, whether electronic sensor or wiring harness or whatever, before it fails due to fluid degradation. Not always, but frequently enough that replacing fluid is a questionable economic investment. If the fluid was overheated due to some other problem, sure. But now that we have lock up torque converters, and ECMs that back off the power during shifts, and have sufficient transmission cooling to tow 7700 lbs on 12% grades without additional coolers, the transmission is pretty much set. BMW is even warming the trans fluid on a cold start to reduce wear. None of these things existed in the days of 3 speed slush boxes that burnt their fluid every 30,000 miles.

There is lots of discussion on the risks of failure post-fluid-change. I contend that it is a real risk, albeit a relatively small one. It is just that I don't see the upside, the statistics on how replacing fluid has extended transmission life. No data whatsoever. But we do get reports of failures, apart from those where the wrong fluid or filter was used, or where there was already a problem. In the past decade, maintenance planning has moved into the science category, while some are still doing things and spending money just because they feel good. I'm all for feeling good, and if it feels good do it, but don't pretend that it is going to extend the transmission life unless there is some rationale other than "that's the way we always did it".

Fun topic. Even with sunny, who is still singing about old wives and urban myths. Same as last time around. :stickpoke

Likewise there are no statistics to demonstrate replacing the fluid increases the risk of transmission failure. No data whatsoever. Just anecdotes.

I'm happy to reconsider my position once you provide supporting data. Until then why would you think my position this is a wives tale would change?

Gotta love anecdotes :-) Unfortunately, there are always people who like to equate them to "facts".

We change the (various) fluids in our construction and forestry equipment for very simple reasons - it's cheap maintenance. We can leave it, sure. And we can hope that the hydraulic systems will not suffer because of that. But since there is an awful lot of money that we frankly can't afford to gamble with wrapped up in the kit, we do what we can to hopefully reduce repair costs.

Personally, I see that as a very similar position to the ZF transmissions.

But hey, I'm just a simple bloke with some old fashioned ideas who is quite happy to spend a few dollars on preventative maintenance in the hope of avoiding something more serious down the track that I could very well have avoided.

Just makes me laugh how some of the "anti-fluid-change" brigade are so vociferous in their desire to convince others not to do it.

Well, where do people stand on changing other fluids? Transfer case & final drive for example?

I did the transfer case shortly after replacing the actuator, and final drive is next up.

I work for the same people, although I'm in marketing (ie the colouring book and crayons department).

Nowadays all fluids compartments on the machine are put through SOS testing (oil analysis). Not sure if there would be enough similarity between automotive transmissions and machinery transmissions to warrant testing, but I could get the lab to run a sample on the fluid that comes out of my transmission (when I flush it) to see what's in there? I've got 115k's on mine.

Personally?

Oil change prior to what the service lights call for, but usually by about 10% or so (last four vehicles). That means 24,000 km oil changes, including with the 535 twin turbo. Worked well.

Diffs if they get water in them (look for colour when checking levels).

Transfer case (x drive in my case) when the wear limits are reached (error code)

Water in the diffs? Maybe in Vancouver.... but in Los Angeles?
The fluid guide I downloaded from XOutpost in 2010 suggests every 30K miles.

Water in the diffs from water coming in the vents when fording creeks. Applies to all makes, and all locales (except during droughts......)

Edit: there isn't a downside to changing the differential fluid and the pre-xdrive fluid earlier, except cost. 30,000 seems early, but what does the service guide say for your model? if you have xdrive, be aware of the fluid monitoring the transfer case is doing and any resets that may be required.

I worked in the dealership SOS lab many years ago. Can't do much with ATF. They can test for water, but you could see that without a lab. They can test viscosity, but that isn't a critical ATF spec. They could run a mass spectrometry analysis, but that is telling you about the component, not the fluid. It only provides valuable info if you run multiple samples over time and compare the wear rates. Not worth doing with this component, IMO, and definitely not worth doing once.

The most critical things about ATFs are the fluid friction modifiers (additives) for the wet clutch packs which differentiate the various fluid specs. But they can't test for those.

Fording creeks??? Is that a euphemism for car wash? :rolleyes:

I suppose during a flash flood we might actually drive through a deep puddle when a storm drain get blocked.

Joking aside, I'm not very impressed by the systems that are supposed to warn service is needed. We've had brake problems and the brake sensor didn't trigger. The type of stop & go traffic, couple with hilly terrain make me a firm believer in changing oil more often than 15K.

But what I was really driving at is why trans fluid is lifetime, but none of the other gear fluids?

Those other components are very different. No pumps with pressure lubrication, no filters, hypoid gears, no valve bodies. Transmissions have a very low lubrication requirement, you aren't changing it to lubricate it better. Old fluid lubricates fine. You are changing it to refresh the friction modifier additive package, deal with fluid oxidation, etc.

I changed the fluid and filter using our signature series ATF and OEM filter and the transmission feels much better. Shifts great, I've definatly abused it a bit slamming the kickdown once in a while to rev the engine (I also use it alot to pass slow motorists). But that's just my experience doing it at 99k miles. As some of the others have mentioned if your not having issues then there's no point in messing with it. If it ain't broke don't fix it. But if you do decide to change it, we are running a sale on our synthetics ;)

I would be very interested in hearing the results of such an analysis.

Two things:

1. I do not believe BMW holds this position any longer.
2. What is the definition of "lifetime"?

The latter is really the crux of the discussion. When I think lifetime I think a really long time. However, as mentioned in a couple of previous posts in this discussion, BMW considers lifetime to be the warranty period (or something along those lines).

You sure lifetime means just within the warranty period?

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 posted a link to the ZF doc. They call lifetime 10 years

Is there a mileage number too? Or is it just a time period?

No mileage number. This is what it says.


Copyright 1998 all rights reserved and published by

ZF Getriebe GmbH, Saarbrücken



Important:

The transmission is filled with life-time oil.

The oil does not have to be changed until it has been in use for ten years.

The transmission may only be delivered with the oil type and oil amount specified in the corre- sponding parts list documentation (see ELCAT), otherwise there is danger of gearbox failure.

I have a 2004 X5 3.0 D Sport and I had the transmission (Gearbox here in the UK) Oil changed as the car is now over 10 years old an only having done 60k (yeah its not done much) but since having it done its less jerky in the gears, going down a steep hill it doesn't have a mad panic any more and shift down. It's just smoother on the up shift and on the down shift in traffic I can hardly notice it now.

That depends on your year and model. Many have a 100,000 mile change interval. Others are lifetime.

BMW didn't change their recommendation; they have specific recommendations for different transmission models and years.

Even better would be to consider it the entire length of time the component in question remains operational, without the fluid quality impacting the operation of that component.

If you are suggesting that BMW changed their position, then please provide something showing that.

I think you may be confused with BMW having specific recommendations for different models and years of transmissions. That isn't changing a position. Changing a position means issuing a service bulletin retracting previously published info.

JCL you would love my number plate (UK license plate) X111 JCL

Excellent point and potential wrinkle whether it is a ZF or GM unit! My unit is the GM 5L40E and it performs the same today as it did when I bought the X5 with 53,000 miles on it. Just rolled 274,200 miles this morning with no issues.

2002 X5 3.0 272,230 miles
2004 325i 118,500 miles

But that's not how they define it.

If we're to believe everything you've said about transmission fluid I'd have to conclude they changed their minds.

"Changing their minds" is an old wives tale. Or an urban myth, take your pick.

Your premise, burden of proof over to you ;)

I am not BMW, so I say for sure. But I can tell you how a typical design engineer would define it when specifying a fluid change interval.

It is not a person's lifetime, because there is no instruction to change it in the event of untimely death of the vehicle owner.

It is not vehicle lifetime, because there is no instruction to retain the old fluid and reuse it when changing a failed transmission out with a remanufactured transmission.

It is obviously transmission lifetime. However long that transmission may last. And a standard, frequent reason for not recommending changing a fluid during the component life (which is variable) is because of a lack of benefit of doing so in terms of extending the useful life of the component. That may or may not include negative impacts of the change procedure, but definitely includes a lack of positive effects from changing it.

Everything else approaches a conspiracy theory.

What a stupid response.

Has that ever been in dispute? Regardless that does nothing to define what lifetime is.

I'm trying to believe you, but having difficulty getting over the statement "Old fluid lubricates fine."

Part of the reason is my experience is similar to Lamby's:

On both the E320 and the X5, the shifts seems noticeably smoother after fresh trans fluid was installed.

I've read both sides of the argument, and I'm concluding that driving conditions may be the most important factor. For us (lots of hills w stop & go) it makes sense to change it, while someone who drives mostly highway and on mostly flat terrain might be just fine without a change.

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.

The first point is, that an oil never stops being slippery. The lubrication aspect, keeping the metal parts sliding, doesn't change. The metal particles that some measure with oil sampling are microscopic and don't impact lubrication, unless they are doing large particle counts. Particles that are large enough to impact lubrication are generally filtered out, until the filter is clogged. What is held in suspension is benign. Viscosity can change, sure, but modern transmissions compensate for that via electronic controls, up to a point.

Yet many who change fluid early do so to try and extend the life of their transmissions. Fair enough, but if you take the lubrication demand out there is less justification there.

What does change in an old transmission fluid is the amount of additives. Anti-foaming, anti-oxidation, and so on. If your fluid is foaming, or is oxidized, then shifting may not be smooth. But that doesn't wear out your transmission, it isn't a lubrication issue. The most important additives relate to friction modifiers that impact wet clutch engagement. These additives not being present is a frequent cause of poor shifting. See what happens when you put the wrong spec fluid in. The difference is due to these specific additives.

So if a transmission isn't shifting correctly, it is reasonable to change the fluid to see if that helps. The fluid may be out of spec. But that doesn't mean that a transmission that shifts fine will benefit from a fluid change. The paradigm that it is an oil just like differential gear oil or engine oil doesn't apply. The former has hypoid gears and high pressure; the latter usually breaks down from acids which are byproducts of combustion.

Why don't you add to the discussion by giving your opinion of what "lifetime" is instead of just barking and howling at JCL all the time? It's tiresome at best and not in the spirit of Xoutpost. :rolleyes:

I thought lifetime means until we are alive .

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

You completely misunderstand, or purposely try to misstate, my opinion. I have not recommended not following manufacturer's recommendations. I have helped people to better understand transmission fluids and why they matter, what failure modes we have seen, and so on.

This thread was started by a poster who was unclear as to why his independent mechanic didn't want to change his fluid. It didn't fit with what he believed about fluids. The usual reason, relating to subsequent failure, was explained. You said you didn't believe that reason.

If you want to be helpful, just post some failure analysis results for BMW transmissions that point to fluid condition as the cause of failure. Don't just say that all fluids are the same, because it shows your lack of understanding of the role of the fluid.

I think you're trying to move the goal posts since BMW has begun (if you want to call an 11 year old recommendation) to recommend changing the transmission fluid. I say this because you wrote:

"They had problems afterwards, most likely due to the high detergent levels in the new fluid (which are there by design) cleaning out the transmission of deposits that weren't hurting anything where they were, but were carried into the valve body, actuators, sensors, etc. Shifting problems result."

If this argument applies to the older models (2000 - 2003, I am unable to find the maintenance schedule for these model years) why would it not apply to the 2004 onward? Is the six speed in the 2004 that much different than the five speed in the previous years?

I do not as there has been no evidence to support it. All that has been provided is conjecture (see your quote above).

The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the one making the claim. Furthermore I did not say all fluids were the same. I clearly said:

"Every other fluid has a change interval..."

Having a change interval is not the same thing as saying all fluids are the same. Please don't misrepresent what I've written.

Of course it is a different transmission. It is a generation newer. Probably has a different filter, too. Definitely uses a different transmission fluid.

You suggested that all other fluids were the same in that they have a change interval.

Your conjecture is that BMW changed their minds, even when provided information to the contrary. You were asked, as the one making the claim, to show your proof. But you called that juvenile. It is hard to keep up with the spinning you are doing.

The new transmission lacks a valve body, actuators, and sensors?

I did no such thing. I stated they all had change intervals. That does not imply the fluids are all the same. It states they have some similarities. For example stating they're all fluids does not imply all fluids are the same.

Your response was juvenile.

I'm not putting much weight into it for the same reasons you detailed.

Sure thing. From page three of the 2004 model year (oldest model year for which I can find this documentation) BMW Service and Warranty Information booklet (Reference # 01 00 0 306 678) (I believe this booklet is included with the vehicle as someone earlier in the thread referenced it for his 2006 X5):

The following maintenance elements must
be performed at the mileage/time stated
(time intervals begin from the vehicle’s
production date):

– Brake Fluid Service: Change brake fluid
every two years.
– Oxygen Sensor Service: The oxygen sensor
deteriorates strictly on a mileage basis and
must therefore be replaced every 100,000
miles to maximize vehicle fuel economy
and minimize exhaust pollution. The
replacement of the oxygen sensor is
required under the terms of the applicable
BMW emission system warranties.
– Spark Plug Service: The X5 is equipped
with platinum-tipped spark plugs. These
allow a longer service life than conventional
plugs. Replace spark plugs every
100,000
miles.
– Automatic Transmission Service: Change
ATF every 100,000 miles.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV...wXkLr.RN6DPiM-

I've shown you mine, now you show me yours.

As for saying BMW is wrong do you follow BMW's 15K oil change interval?

And, given the 2002 model year uses the same transmission as the 2000 and 2001 model years a reasonable person would conclude BMW changed their minds regarding the lifetime fluid. Furthermore given BMW has recommended a fluid change since 2002 one would have to wonder why they would recommend something JCL says is known to cause transmissions failures.

Because the BMW department that wrote that book is playing the odds, and considering the balance of probabilities. Exactly what has been discussed for some time now.

Edit: I can't look up your service link because I get an unsafe link message. I can look at the online manuals posted on this site (US versions). The 2003 version states it was published in August 2002. The 2006 version states it was published in July 2005. Where is this change? It appears these manuals always stated 100,000 miles in the US.

I can't show you my 2003 Canadian service booklet, as I don't have the vehicle any more. And BMW Canada (who publishes different service books than the US) doesn't put theirs on line.

We don't have a 15,000 mile oil change interval in Canada, but we do use a 24,000 km baseline that is adjusted based on vehicle usage so that the service lights come on at different times. I follow the lights and also limit oil change intervals to 24 months or so, so I have gone up very close to 24,000 km. Works well.

Please don't damage your credibility any further with this line of "reasoning". It's quite evident to any reasonable person the whole risk you spoke of was nothing more than a wives tale.

The change comes from the fact the service interval changed from "lifetime" (I put that in quotes because the earlier manuals don't state it was lifetime...they're just silent on it) to 100K miles for the same transmission. Any reasonable person can see BMW's policy changed during the production. Or are you of the mindset BMW should have gone back and updated their warrant information booklet?

Please JCL...your desperation is making you look foolish. Just admit the position of transmission problems was nothing more than your personal opinion.

I do not know nor do I care what BMW Canada says for service intervals. My position has been that of BMW USA recommendations. However I do not see BMW Canada having different service intervals from BMW USA. Take the 15K mile oil change baseline. 24km is equivalent to 15K miles.

Or, to be precise, 14,616 miles, so rounded to two significant figures, 15k miles.

I think this topic is dead now.

The OP has either committed suicide after reading the tone of some of the posts, or moved on.

Somebody do us all a favor and lock this thread. :thumbup:

In summary the recommendation should be: If you own a 2002 or later model E53 then following the manufacturers recommendation (i.e. change it every 100K miles). If you own a 2000 or 2001 the manufacturer is silent on whether it should be changed (i.e. I didn't see anything in the service booklet which stated it was lifetime fluid) do what you feel is best for your situation. Since these model years use the same transmission as the 2002 - 2004 model years a change every 100K miles would be reasonable.

The point was not that it is 24,000 km or that it is 15,000 km. The point was that BMW does not recommend a fixed service interval, but rather uses a starting point that is dynamically adjusted based on the condition monitoring system. I thought that it was clear that BMW doesn't use fixed mileage intervals.

I think that the OP got the answer to his question some pages back.

I think this thread is dead, but in a year or so it will come back to life, as it always does. :thumbup:

This is all tangential. It's been shown BMW recommends a 100K mile transmission fluid change. They've been doing so for approximately 13 years. As you've previously stated you do not recommend not following the manufacturers recommendations (post 91):

"I have not recommended not following manufacturer's recommendations."

I can assume this is the last we'll hear about this wives tale from you.

The difference is this time the wives tale has been buried. Perhaps you'll resurect it in a years time. But we can always give the advice to follow the manufacturers recommendation (which you support). That means change it every 100K miles.

In your case I think the mechanic took the right approach since you were already having a problem. If the problem doesn't go away that should eliminate a dirty filter and low fluid.

I have changed the fluid every 50,000 mi. I think the key to changing fluid at any mileage is to do so before there are any symptoms of a problem. There aren't many things that go wrong with transmissions the a fluid change will fix. As far as flushing, I would never go that route.

Almost the entire discussion was tangential. The OP asked did anyone ever have a problem after changing transmission fluid. He was told yes, by people who had experienced it (ie not you). That was back in post #17. You said it can't happen, but didn't provide any evidence.

I certainly think following the manufacturer's recommendations for maintenance intervals is a good starting point, always have. And adjust the intervals based on experience, usage, condition, and inspection.

Been here since 2005. Not planning on going anywhere.

Uh no. No I did not. Can it happen? Sure. Is it likely to happen in any meaningful numbers to draw the conclusion changing it will result in transmission damage? No data has been provided to make such an assertion. Likewise I highly doubt BMW would recommend such a procedure.

Good. Then from now on, at least when it comes to 2002 - 2006 model year E53's we'll see you recommending 100K miles transmission change intervals. Yes?

actually I just got back from a trip and wasn't able to view these messages till now. Sorry I didn't mean to start a war with anyone I was just curious if anyone has encountered issues with a full flush at higher miles. :(

You said you considered it was untrue. Not that it couldn't happen, just that reports of it having happened were untrue and therefore to be discounted. I saved myself typing that much, but if you insist.

From your comment on nothing being in a service manual that has a risk, I suspect that you have never changed a tire on a split rim truck wheel. Lots more examples if you would like them.

There is a lot more to recommending transmission fluid change intervals that the manufacturer's starting point, but it is a starting point. Did you tow? Then probably sooner, if you monitor fluid temperatures and know or suspect that it was overheated. Are you concerned about a failure after changing the fluid in a high mileage transmission? Then either do it more frequently, or leave it be. If you do it more frequently, and thus greatly reduce the risk of a problem after a fluid change, is there still an economic rationale for doing it over the component life? Questionable. But start from the 100k figure? Yes. Just don't necessarily stop at that one number, if you want to maximize uptime and minimize life cycle costs.

You didn't do anything wrong, it was a fair question.

You just re-ignited a debate that raged here for years, and had gone relatively quiet since sunny stopped posting on the topic in 2013.

Unless someone has done an RCA on a transmission failure after the fluid was flushed no one here can say definitively the fluid flush caused the failure.

I said it's a wives tale. An urban legend. And, until there is data to support such a causation, I maintain as much to this day. Given BMW doesn't even hold this position (as inferred from their recommended change interval) I'd say I'm in good company.

That was a whole lot of reading! My eyes are hurting now. Sorry to reignite an old topic on this. I was just wondering if it would have been worth just making him replace the fluids lost and not flush it but I just took his expertise advice and went with it.

Anyways a little heads up with whats going on since Ive been able to drive it. Ive been driving it this entire past weekend and the shifting issue still exists. :( Its only happening when the car is cold. First time start. Once its warmed up everything is just fine. Ive been told it could be as simple as it being under filled but you would think the shop would have confirmed that its properly filled up. If I remember reading right it states the car should be on and warmed up and to keep filling till its full and that should do it? Can anyone confirm. Ill probably make a call to confirm this was done or not. Since I don't know any history on this vehicle since Ive purchased it late last year at about 200k I don't know if its ever been changed or not. I understand the fact that new fluids have detergent in them that can free up things that could cause blockage, etc. I was just curious if possible if there was a good amount of success stories compared to unsuccessful.

Ill have to update my signature but since it was asked:
2004 X5 4.4i now with about 202k on odometer

IMO you did us all a favor. It has now been conclusively settled that, at least for model years 2002 - 2006, changing the transmission fluid should, per BMW's maintenance schedule, be done around 100K miles. Anyone saying otherwise will have their reasons but know it's in opposition to BMW's stated maintenance schedule.

From memory, the fluid temperature needs to be between 30C and 50C. If I've got that wrong I am sure someone will correct me.

Checking the level is a good thing to check with the shop.

Well at least we got that out of the way. :) Now that Im 100k over recommended maintenance schedule that leaves me with the question if I should or shouldn't! :dunno:

Thanks JCL. Ill probably give them a call and ask them how they topped off the fluids? Just to make sure Im not low.

Your choice. There's no reason not to.

There is no reason not to if it is free to do so, and you are going to rebuild the transmission anyway to fix the shifting problem you have when cold. Nothing to lose in that case. See if it helps. If it isn't free, ask your mechanic how much, and what he thinks the chances are of it being a fluid issue, with no underlying mechanical or electronic issues.

If you are not going to rebuild the transmission, but live with it, then evaluate the cost against your mechanic's evaluation of likely benefit.

Yes JCL...we all know you're grasping at straws now that I've proven you wrong. Reasonable people understand what was meant with "There's no reason not to."

Keep trying with the insults.

Not worth debating the owner's manual recommendations with you because you don't get it. The owner's manual does not replace failure analysis. I'll save the tech manual point for your next wave of hysterics.

But the OP asked about his fluid change, and told us about his shifting problem. Remember him? It is his thread.

The question is, what might be wrong with the fluid that it shifts fine warm, but not cold. The reason he took it in the first time. Could it be the fluid, with no underlying mechanical problem? Well, it could be that the fluid is too heavy, and if it thins out when it gets hot, that could explain it, just as an example. Or it could be something not related to the fluid. If his shifting problem is not related to the fluid then it doesn't sound like good advice to change it because that is what the owner's manual says, if he knows he is going to pull the transmission anyway.

The discussion centers on whether doing so, for whatever reason, will lead to transmission failure. Somehow the idea an E53 transmission will fail after a high mileage fluid change became a common belief and has continued to this very day.

IMO it has been resolved. It seems unreasonable to me BMW would recommend a regular service which is reasonably believed to cause transmission failure.

What's been resolved is the question: Will changing the transmission fluid lead to failure? Since BMW recommends changing the transmission fluid every 100K miles it's reasonable to conclude the answer is no, it will not lead to transmission failure (in that BMW is unlikely to recommend a service / service interval which will result in transmission failure). If you decide not to change it that's your choice. However that decision should be made on reasons other than the wives tale doing so will cause failure.

I fail to see why this remains an issue. The claim was changing the fluid would lead to transmission failure. However no supporting data has been provided. And no, it's not insulting to call it a wives tale. Again: I clearly have no doubt there are examples of transmission failures after the fluid has been changed. However unless there was an RCA performed on the failed transmission we cannot conclude the fluid change was the cause of the failure. To believe otherwise would be to believe BMW is recommending a service which leads to transmission failure. Do you believe they're doing so?

The BMW owner's manual for the first generation model I had, a 2003, clearly states that it is lifetime fluid. That manual is posted on this site under Online References, as a PDF. In the US Owner's Service Guide that sunny linked, it is stated that the fluid has a lifetime of 100,000 miles, or words to that effect. Conflicting information, and not very helpful.

I think BMW planned for it to be lifetime, and acknowledged that it has a life of 100,000 miles (without getting into severe service conditions, and so on). It isn't possible to draw more conclusions from the owner's documents provided, IMO, due to the lack of detail provided. If one is suspicious, one could say that they figured the transmission would last 100,000 miles, but that isn't directly supported by anything.

Now look at the BMW technical workshop service manuals. They don't just procedures on what to do, what not to do, and what the risks are related to the procedure. They are also an indicator of what BMW trained their dealers to do. They list every procedure for working on these vehicles, including some that are very basic and simple. When you look up the automatic transmission, under Maintenance, General Data and Information, there is only an item about the alignment dowels. Under Maintenance, there are procedures for changing practically every fluid on the vehicle. Differentials, transfer case, manual transmission, engine oil, brake fluid, brake fluid, etc. 65 detailed procedures. Including compartments that have designated lifetime fluids, like the diffs. But no procedure for changing automatic transmission fluid.

Under Repair Instructions, Automatic Transmission, there are procedures relating to the topping up the fluid level, safely handling transmission fluid, re and re of the transmission, and so on. But no drain and fill instructions. There is a sump re and re instruction (clean, replace sealing ring, follow torque specs, no mention of filter, use correct fluid). When replacing a transmission, it states not to fill the new one, as it comes pre filled as a reman. Interesting.

Under Technical Data, Automatic Transmission, it only lists capacities.

Incidentally, if we want to look into "did anything change?" as to service recommendations, all of the updated service recommendations are itemized in the technical manual. So we know if BMW changed their mind based on new data or test results, for example. No matter what some may say. The version I am looking at is dated 08/02/2013, so something may have changed further since then. As examples, the air filter change interval changed for certain models, the brake disk life recommendation changed for certain models, and so on. Nothing about transmission fluid recommendations changing.

In the absence of any procedure for changing the fluid, to claim that BMW see this as a safe procedure is nonsense. They may do so, but they don't recommend changing it. They suggest the fluid has a design life, and some see that as an endorsement of their own position that it is therefore safe, but it appears those people aren't familiar with BMW service procedures.

So this is exactly where we have been for several years now. No new info. BMW claimed a lifetime fluid, and acknowledged that fluid has a design life. They remained silent on "what to do". They don't appear to have developed drain/fill procedures or evaluated the risks of doing so, and they appear to have trained their dealers to do very little with automatic transmissions, to the extent of shipping reman exchange transmissions prefilled, which leaves the dealer out of that filling process. They insist that the correct fluid be used (in many spots in the manuals) but they don't talk about the filter, since they don't expect it to be touched. No wonder dealers don't want to change the fluid. They would be on their own, so to speak.

If you want to change it, I would follow the ZF instructions. Correct fluid, new filter, careful attention to fill level procedure. Or leave it alone. If it works fine, judge whether there is any benefit to changing the fluid. Make that judgement knowing that it isn't about the lubrication issue, but rather the other more critical properties of the fluid. If it has shifting problems, changing the fluid is always cheaper than a new transmission, but may or may not make any difference.

Jeff

The fact remains you have provided no data to support a causation between transmission fluid changes and transmission failures. None. Zero. Nada. Zip. Just anecdotes. Until you provide something other than anecdotes it will remain a wives tale. Especially when it goes against BMW's stated service interval from 2002. Why you continue to argue there's a causation is puzzling.

That is my issue with sunny. He doesn't appear to understand that it is insulting. Maybe he does, and wants to be insulting.

Of course people have changed fluid in a vehicle exhibiting transmission shifting problems and not seen improvement. Irrelevant. Discount those samples. People have also changed fluid incorrectly, or used the wrong fluid, and seen problems. Irrelevant. Discount those samples. The examples I am referring to are when the fluid was changed properly, with the correct fluid, at higher mileage, and a subsequent problem arose. If a failure analysis was then done, and debris was found in the valve body, then it is reasonable to conclude that the fluid change contributed. If the problem is caught right then, and the valve body removed and cleaned, it can be all good again (examples posted here). If the transmission is driven in a slipping mode, to the point of failure, then it is toast (been there).

If you have been personally involved in the above, and sunny calls it an old wive's tale, ie untrue, then to me he is calling the poster incompetent or a liar.

This usually turns into armchair experts debating what BMW meant in non-technical documents like owner's manuals, and trying to make their case. It is usually possible to tie those armchair experts into knots, although it would be better if they knew when it had happened.

But they don't recommend a procedure. Details posted above. They list a fluid life (100,000) and the word lifetime, in two separate documents.

From the technical service manuals, they don't have a procedure. Why do you persist in believing they do?

I have never claimed so. Some might have.

I claimed that it could lead to transmission failure, not that it would. The difference is that if it was claimed it would always happen, one anecdote of it not happening would disprove it.

I called it a small chance, but a likelihood nonetheless. Please don't misquote to try and make your case.

The question isn't about whether BMW recommends a change procedure. The question is whether changing the fluid leads to subsequent transmission failure. Again you have provided no proof to show causation. Just anecdotes. If you have some data let's see it. Otherwise it remains a wives tale.

You just spent innumerable posts trying to prove they recommend a procedure.

Your entire basis for claiming that there is no potential of damage after a high mileage fluid change is that BMW wouldn't recommend a procedure that has a potential for causing damage.

Wait for it....


That is some knot you tied yourself in.

Learn the difference between the words "service" and "procedure". I have used the former...you came up with the latter. Regardless BMW clearly recommends changing it. END OF STORY. Your pedantic wordplay not withstanding.

Likewise would you stop with the "no potential to cause damage" strawman? I've never said nor do I maintain such is the case. I thought I had made myself clear about this yesterday in post # 111.

Now will you please stop with the dishonesty?

If the fluid is lifetime, then why is there a drain plug? Some cars have a change interval for the A T F, but no drain plugs. If BMW didn't want people to change the fluid they could had spec zf to delete the drain plug. After all zf had to provide a bell housing that would mate their trans to the various car manufacturers that uses that trans.

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.

Wordplay? Service is a noun and a verb. When you do a service on your transmission, you complete service work. The steps you follow to do that work are called a service procedure.

Sorry, I thought you were familiar with service procedures. It is a pretty common term in shops and service management.

BMW acknowledged that the fluid could be changed, or should be changed. But they left themselves out of that service (procedure) discussion from that point forward.

Nice knot.

Seems you knew what a procedure was a few pages back. :rofl:

Pedantic wordplay indeed

Yes, word play. I've saying service interval. You used the word procedure. Now you're attempting to find fault in what I've said by attempting to attribute your wording to me. I would appreciate it if you would argue what I've written...not what you're attempting to attribute to me. Better yet argue the spirit of the discussion and not the words used to convey it.

Yes, pedantic word play. If you go back and re-read my posts you can see where I've repeatedly used the word(s) service / service interval. Perhaps I may have used the word procedure when I meant service / service interval...big whoop. If this is the best you can do in defense of your position then don't even bother. It's as stupid as someone attempting to argue the incorrect use of the word "your" instead of "you're". But if it's all you got...well, so be it.

WOW this is a HOT topic.....I only read a few pages. No one should single anyone out because they believe they are absolute. That's what sparks ridicules back and forth attaches on fellow BMW enthusiasts.

Now the monkey wrench.......My dealer will not do a trans service on my car. They told me it's for life and will touch it and say it opens up a can or warms with problem. Any Indy will change it for you though.

Can we talk about what oil is the best to use next! or what color X5 is the fastest :D

We are all BMW addicts, some worse then others....be kind to all your fellow brethren.

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.

If your E53 is model years 2002 - 2006 point them to the references warratny and service booklet which clearly states the fluid should be changed at 100K mile intervals.

Then it's your opinion BMW is wrong with their 100K mile change interval?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

^ what he said! Sort of...

ZF are a development partner in the design and validation process. They know what parameters the transmission is operating within, because they are tasked with providing a transmission to operate within those parameters. But those parameters also include the service and maintenance conditions specified by BMW for that transmission in the vehicle specified. Basically ZF knew what they were getting into.

But effectively, yes you're right - BMW set the bar.

No, I was not. You found one statement out of how many posts where I used the word procedure instead of change, service, interval, replacement, etc. Anyone following this thread can clearly see I was talking about replacing the fluid, not how to replace it:

"...replacing the fluid..." (post #44)
" Every other fluid has a change interval..." (#90)
"...this one does have a change interval..." (#90)
"...BMW is recommending the transmission fluid be changed..." (#90)
"This change interval..." (#90)
"...call for a different fluid change specification..." (#90)
"...for which they're now recommending fluid changes..." (#90)
"...to recommend changing the transmission fluid." (#92)
"...I am unable to find the maintenance schedule..." (#92)
"Having a change interval ..." (#92)
"...BMW has recommended a fluid change since..." (#98)
"...the service interval changed ..." (#101)
"...nor do I care what BMW Canada says for service intervals." (#102)
"...I do not see BMW Canada having different service intervals..." (#102)
"...i.e. change it every 100K miles..." (#104)
"...the manufacturer is silent on whether it should be changed..." (#104)
"...BMW recommends a 100K mile transmission fluid change." (#107)
"That means change it..." (#108)
"...you recommending 100K miles transmission change intervals." (#111, same post where I used the word procedure)
"...as inferred from their recommended change interval..." (#116)
"...changing the transmission fluid should, per BMW's maintenance schedule..." (#118)
"...it's in opposition to BMW's stated maintenance schedule." (#118)
"...BMW would recommend a regular service..." (#128)
"Since BMW recommends changing..." (#130)
"...BMW is unlikely to recommend a service / service interval..." (#130)
"...believe BMW is recommending a service..." (#132, the post you responded to, in post #136) where you used the word procedure)
"...when it goes against BMW's stated service interval ..." (#134)

I think it's very clear my position was on changing the fluid, service interval, and service recommendation. The fact I mistakenly used the word procedure once, and not even the post you responded where I corrected you, does not demonstrate my inability to understand the difference.

Please stop with the juvenile comments / responses. You built a strawman.

This is approaching the point of ridiculousness.

I'm having a lot of difficult separating the actual informed information from the bickering.

You've both made your views clear, lets move on.

You mean like JCL? Several of his posts towards me are hostile, derogatory, and juvenile. Another poster being petty and arguing over the word "you're" versus "your"? Yet somehow I'm the bad guy? JCL just needs to admit he was in error and move on.

So what? BMW is the one who provides the recommendations for service on their vehicles.

It's amazing how desperate people are to continue to defend this urban legend. It's is absolutely amazing.

The definitive answer was already provided. BMW states the transmission fluid should be changed every 100K miles. This isn't my opinion. This isn't some mechanics opinion. This is BMW's specification.

:iagree:

Might doesn't make right. You can post your position a thousand times. You can scream and throw a tantrum, stomp your feet and threaten to run away. A flawed position is not going to be accepted.

I'm done, you are in too deep. The desperation is yours. You can do nothing but continue to be defensive and that never works.

Can a moderator please close this thread - it's becoming rather passe and leaning towards vitriolic diatribe now...

I tend to agree.

I would share an experience. Back in 1998 it came down to a MB E320 and 5 Series. We bought the E320 and enjoyed it for 15 years.

Originally it came with "lifetime" trans fluid.

I asked one dealer (MB Santa Monica) who said it never gets changed. Another dealer, MB Beverly Hills, told me they draw some fluid at every major service and if it turned brown, they recommend customer change the fluid.

Years later, MB put out service bulletin to change it every 60K miles.

In the end, it's up to the owner.

But come on man! When was the last time you changed your vitriol, and was it required by the manufacturer? Or was the change simply a part of your diatribe?

:rofl:

I think the correlation between a drain plug and your previous statement for service of the trans is more coincidental than a drain plug designed to drain the trans sump to refresh the fluid. A drain plug for the engine sump is mainly used for the removal of the oil from the sump. The removal and replacement of engine oil is a scheduled service.

Anytime a manufacturer can cut the cost on a product it just add to their bottom line. Adding a drain plug adds to the cost of manufacturing the sump pan, eliminating item such as the door lock on the passenger side door or to the tailgate take away cost from the cost of the final product. I would rather they take away the drain plug and give me back the second door lock to the car. I would think that most car buyers would rather have the second door lock instead of a drain plug.

That is what I am talking about.Thank you:).:iagree:

+1
I can live with oil stained shirt once in the life of ownership in order to gain the door/hatch locks. I can not wait until someone in marketing decides to remove all locks as newer models now only use the key fob transmitter to open and start the car. Wait until that battery dies....

Which is exactly why I do not accept JCL position. It's been shown BMW recommends a transmission fluid change at 100K mile intervals.

With that said I'm willing to keep an open mind. If JCL can provide data to support his argument I am willing to review it and, depending on what it says, change my mind. Until then it's a wives tale. He can repeat it ad nauseum but, as you said, it will not make it true.

What defense? I have nothing to defend. I'm not making any statement. I am merely asking someone to support their statement. A statement which is directly at odds with BMW's published service schedule. Given this why do you find such a request unreasonable?

It always has been up to the owner. The owner needs accurate information in order to make an informed decision. In this case some people are giving information which goes contrary to the manufacturers published specification. IMO if they're going to do that they should provide data to support their position.

You know, nobody really gives a s*** about you guys and your stupid pissing match. Or what Bentley says, or what can be inferred from a drain plug, or dealer service manuals, or whether BMW went and changed some "position" sometime between the initial models and later models, or any of the rest of your inane rant.

If you changed your transmission fluid and it caused you a problem, how about you say so?

My owner manual says change it at 100,000. So I did. Apparently so do other years, as has been stated. The rest of this exchange has been a pant-load of juvenile crap.

It's not a pissing match. I am pointing out the manufacturers published service interval is 100K miles. This is not my opinion. This is not what some random mechanic said. This is what the manufacturer has published. If someone has an objection to this then their objection is with the manufacturer and not the messenger.

Wow I thought we all made peace and was moving on? I wasn't trying to get technical with BMW / Manufactures standards but just was more curious if any other members had issues after a full flush or drain and fill? I understand the how the fluids works and can loosen deposits and so that's why I went with the recommendations of the shop. I do understand the concept "if its not broken don't fix it" but I do also believe in preventative maintenance as well. My only problem is that if I had the car through most of its lower maintenance I would be inquiring about the process.

As for the filling process we were talking about in the earlier posts they did confirm that they had it running and temp was where it needed to be and filled it until it started to spill out. Im supposed to leave it over night so they can verify whats going on so Ill post what they figure out.

Lets try to keep the replies peaceful and readable to others who were curious as Im sure Im not the only one. It probably is just me but you get the point.

Great attempt at diversion to JCL. If my post was about JCL I would have addressed it to him. I didn't say anything about defend. I wrote that you are being defensive.

In your terms, if you have nothing to defend, or are not making any statement why do you bother asking for anyone to support their statement. There is no statement that is supported even BMW is inconsistent.

You base your position on no one has supported their position. I change my transmission fluid every 50,000 miles whether it needs it or not. I can't support that is the reason that I have never had a transmission problem in 114,000 miles on a 4.6 with many mods. The same has been true on several other vehicles over the years.

What I would like to hear about is anywhere an 'expert' on BMW transmissions says never, under under any circumstances other than U change the transmission fluid. If you do V will happen with in W miles. Or---- Change the transmission fluid every X miles or Y will happen in Z miles.

If it were possible to get 500 people to endorse any position it would not be a sample to base any conclusion on being as there have been hundreds of thousands of E53s built.

Just for clarification it is --old wives tale.

I see no reason to close this thread. Anyone that doesn't like it doesn't have to read it. Jumping in with judgmental scolding rather than topical input is just as questionable as anything anyone has posted.

I find these dick dances to be entertaining. I always think of SNL sketch. Watch Weekend Update: Jane, You Ignorant Slut From Saturday Night Live - NBC.com

We need as virtual Go Go bar on this board, when two members dig their heels in and go at each other for their believes the virtual Go Go bar should open, you hang out and both leave happy :p:

In this post everyone's comments are right...they are.

Well, I thought the thread was dead twice now, but it keeps going. I think it is fair to keep it going (just don't read it if you don't want to) but let's keep personal attacks out of it.

I think the reason it became a pissing match is confusion over the evidence provided, and frustration. This is long, but hopefully will summarize the positions previously stated.

As posted way back in post #17, there are different recommendations for different BMW transmissions (even within the E53 family). For the ZF and GM transmissions in X5 models up to 2003 (5 speeds) BMW published that it is a lifetime fluid (owner's manual, clip shown above). They put a similar sticker on the transmission. I owned a 2003 model. And in the US Service and Warranty booklet, they include a line that says change it at 100,000 miles. I don't recall that in my Canadian service booklet, but I don't have it any more so can't confirm. So there is conflicting information, always has been, and any claim that it is only one or the other seems a little silly to me. For the 2004 models onward (6 speeds) I don't believe BMW used the phase lifetime transmission fluid any more on the E53. That is the basis of the discussion about different models that use different fluids having different recommendations. I don't know what the sticker on the transmission says for those years, but the owner's manual no longer said lifetime. We also know that if the recommendations change, BMW publishes service bulletins and links them to the technical manuals. Those manuals show changes in recommended service intervals for non-related components during the years in question, but not for the transmission fluid. I think we can fairly conclude the recommendation didn't change. Take a look in the service manuals to confirm.

As to whether any member has experienced this, the answer is yes. I said so near the beginning of the thread. It wasn't my own personal vehicle, and it wasn't an X5. It was a customer's vehicle in an independent shop I worked in. But it was still personal experience. I saw the transmission and laid hands on it. The assertion that that means that the wrong fluid was used, or that the job was therefore done incorrectly, is what sparked much of the debate. That is an accusation of incompetence. The failure analysis we performed found particles in the valve body. There was a lot of buildup in the transmission. There are more examples, but I am thinking of one specific one here. A ZF transmission at 100,000 miles may or may not have that degree of buildup. Certainly, that specific transmission I described above used an older spec fluid, which wouldn't have helped. And it was pre-electronic controls, so there was no protection in the transmission.

Many accept the above failure mode as being possible. That is why some who decide to change their fluid, for valid reasons, do it earlier than recommended. They are reducing the risk of their being any buildup significant enough to elevate the risk of subsequent problems. Also, the fluid is newer so it is still keeping the transmission cleaner.

There is a lot of fear expressed on boards of transmissions blowing up if the fluid is touched. I don't think there should be fear. There should be rational discussion. On one side, there is a risk. On the other side, there is a benefit of fresher fluid. That is a risk/reward calculation. As to the risks, I personally think they exist. I don't think they are so high that fluid should never be changed. But shops with experience doing transmission work have seen sufficient examples, in some cases, that they don't want to touch it. They buy the theory, and they want to avoid the risk. Fair enough. That is how this particular thread started. And if the shop is trusted, and can actually lay hands on the component, then their opinion trumps keyboard diagnosis, IMO. Others think the risk is non existent, and so they are happy to change the fluid without a further thought. Fair enough. It is perfectly OK to have our own opinions, and do our own risk analysis.

The number of failures in the above scenario is not a big percentage. It is enough to be noticed, but when people change their fluid and say they got lucky, I think they weren't, they were in the norm. Most don't fail. They shouldn't be surprised it is fine afterwards, most will be.

Now to the benefits. If people are changing due to concerns about oils wearing out (wrt lubrication properties) then I suggest that isn't a compelling reason. Lubrication is low on the list of what matters to a transmission fluid. What does matter is that the fluid viscosity is within the range that the transmission can adapt to. That the fluid level is correct. That the fluid doesn't foam. That it doesn't have water in it. That it isn't burnt. That the friction modifier additives are still there in sufficient quantity to enable the precise engagement characteristics that ZF designed for when they designed the transmission (and eliminated a torsional damper, relying on clutch slip to damper torsional vibrations, from memory).

Whatever the risk/reward calculation, it shifts left or right depending on the operating characteristics at the time. If the transmission has failed mechanically, it is obviously a losing bet to throw new fluid at it to see if the fluid fixes a leaking seal, a broken retaining clip, or whatever. But if the transmission is experiencing shifting problems that could be explained by a fluid being out of spec, then I think it is reasonable to change the fluid and see if it helps. If the fluid is the only problem, then new fluid will resolve the issue.

If we go back to a transmission that isn't experiencing problems shifting, and the risk/reward calculation, then it should come down to an economic life cycle analysis. Does changing the fluid extend the useful life of the transmission? I agree that the fluid wears, and that eventually, it will lead to transmission failure. That isn't in dispute, I don't think. The discussion centres on whether that will occur before or after the transmission would have failed from other (non fluid related) causes. Those with maintenance planning backgrounds (look at the posts by srmmmm) run economic analysis calculations that compare the cost of three or four changes to the life extension. His transmission is proof of how long transmission fluid can last in an E53, not a guarantee, but a challenge to those who simply say the fluid is worn out at 100,000 or whatever. He appears to have come out ahead. And n=1. Also, most of the discussion has been about ZF, and I think he may have a GM transmission in a 3.0, IIRC.

The entire discussion about what BMW recommends for intervals, in this thread, was initiated to support a contention that there can't be any significant risk, that it is a myth, because if there was then BMW wouldn't specific that change interval, even in error (because they contradicted themselves in two owner's books). Significant hasn't been defined. I don't think BMW have weighed in on whether there is a contamination or mechanical risk to a high mileage fluid change; they appear to be silent on the issue. They don't appear to be worried about fluid wearing out, as they instruct technicians to reuse fluid. I think they are basing their recommendations on life cycle cost analysis that shows a lack of evidence that changing the fluid will extend the transmission life. For all the service procedures that BMW has created, analyzed, tested, documented, done risk analysis on, etc, the respective procedure is listed in the service manual. And there isn't one for changing transmission fluid. So they presumably saw no need to develop one, for whatever reason. Infer what you will, but they certainly haven't said it is safe or there is no potential impact. They are silent on the issue. In my own opinion, the risk reward calculation may be close enough to balanced that they don't have a single opinion.

For my part, I start with the manufacturer's recommendations for service. If I did not have any severe service/duty operation I would go with 100,000 if I bought a new vehicle today (unless it had a different interval recommended). If I towed a large trailer (we are considering it now) I would think about testing the fluid several times to establish a trend, or just change it early. If I had a higher mileage vehicle that had never been touched, I would leave it alone. But that is all just me.

I think it is an interesting topic, and regret that it sometimes descends into personal attacks.

Jeff

Well written JCL.

The only part I ponder is a risk/reward calculation because it is always after the fact. Seems to me to be Monday morning quarterbacking. As an example, if I don't change the fluid and the transmission fails at 150,000 mile I can calculate the cost I would have invested in fluid and filters against the cost of the transmission repair though I won't be able to quantify the reason for the failure was the fluid. If I change the fluid every 25,000 miles and it goes at 200,000 miles I still don't know if the fluid was the reason for the additional miles. Further, the calculation will be based on transmission repair cost which will vary by what failed, labor cost, etc.

Risk/reward is an interesting approach. I have given input and evaluated engineering test parameters of the years. I think I could buy into a risk/reward test if done in a controlled lab environment but without much thought it seems to me the test parameter considerations are so vast it would not still not resolve the issue. Right or wrong I can't help but fall back on the basics -- if something is new it looks better, smells better, feels better, it works closest to it's full potential and that's the way I want it to stay as long as I can. I know it's a risk, I don't have a clue if there will be reward but damn I feel good about myself.

So basically took 19 pages and a thesis to say what I said in post 4 on page 1:thumbup:.

If you are having no issues but can afford a new transmission tomorrow if things go bad, I'd flush it and hopefully it gets you many more trouble free motoring.

If you're having no issues but can't afford a new transmission tomorrow, I'd just leave it alone.

If you're having issues and can't afford a new transmission - flush it and hope it rectifies the issues.

If you're having issues and can afford a new transmission, decide whether you can afford to throw money at a possible fix (ie flush) vs a certain fix (reco'd trans).

I think that's a more rational approach than a bunch of anecdotal evidence!

FWIW, I'm taking mine to an indy next month to get the transmission flushed. If the world ends, blame me.

So I talked to the owner earlier today he wasn't able to keep the car over night to try it tomorrow morning and the problem wasn't reoccurring but after explaining the issue to him he's stating its most likely a sticky valve. He stated fixing it would cost around $1000 to $1200. Does that sound about right in pricing a bit high? Because if I remember right I think to rebuild the transmission completely would be about $2500. Im supposed to bring it by tomorrow after work and hes going to verify fluid level.

I volunteer to determine the definition of "lifetime" as it pertains to the 2002 E53 with the GM 5L40-E. I refuse to change my fluid until the transmission fails. And I will continue to use it as my primary tow vehicle for an average of 3000 miles per year.

2002 X5 3.0 274,400 miles
2004 325i 119,000 miles

Fair enough. I've been giving some thought to the definition of "lifetime of an E53" and I'm thinking that maybe what BMW intended was "until XX common items on the car fail". I think at 98K miles, we've had every common failure from the Aux Fan up front, to the brake light carrier contacts on the rear, and numerous parts in between :rolleyes:

My wife loves the E53, what more can I say? CCV and valve cover gasket are next up on the to-do list...

Is there a way to update the trans firmware by myself? Or an Indy or does it have to be a stealer? Im reading that some even that cured the issue. Im up for it but would like to know whats needed for me to do it if even possible.

Yes, the software can be updated. And sometimes that will cure a problem. To the best of my knowledge that is done by the dealer.

Interesting how the tag is worded. WARNING means to me that if you change the fluid or top it off something bad is going to happen. I take the word necessary as I don't have to change the fluid but it doesn't indicate to me that something bad is going to happen if I do. May be a language thing.

It's easy to see why the debate never ends especially when this same tag is not on all transmissions. Not unusual to lump all E53 transmissions into one bucket adding to the confusion of the debate.

I always follow the fluid and oil debates for entertainment and to watch for a new contribution that puts an end to differences of opinions.

I decided to call an expert at IPT Performance Transmissions. They are a will know builder of ZF performance transmission as well a host of others. I have spoken with John before about a high stall speed performance transmission which is on my list of future mods.

(The following is a paraphrase of my conversation with John which means may have misunderstood something he said) In addition to the article link he said the ZF valve body is highly taxed and old fluid will contribute to wear similar to valve lapping compound. He also mentioned that German fluids are different. He uses Febi fluid as it is the same formulation as BMW fluid. He said fluid is much better than the old days so the change interval is longer but since old fluid suspends abrasive material a flush and new fluid is beneficial to the transmission life.


Article Source: Transmission Flush Myths - Busted!

Here is the sticker on the 5L40-E/GM5 (A5S 390R) on my 2001 3.0i.

It seems very clear to me, although I changed the ATF. BTW, googling for that part number, following only official sources, etc. I ended up that Dexron VI is now the BMW approved ATF for these transmissions. So yes, BMW changed their story since the cars were manufactured.

I also found official BMW sourced documents that say that the old oil is to be replaced if the pan needs to be dropped.

BTW, my reading of "lifetime" is to mean the lifetime of the component - the AT. Similar to suspension components that have grease in them but no zerk fitting to add more. The joint should wear out before the grease stops working.

BTW, excellent point about the GM vs. ZF transmissions - I consider them to be very different, which is why I always make it clear in my posts which one I have.

I don't expect the IPT input to resolve the debate. Some minds won't accept a change in belief and someone will probably find another expert that will disagree.

I feel very comfortable accepting IPT conclusions verses our interpretations of BMW tags, assumptions we make, our personal experience with one ZF transmission or even, if it were ever possible, a consensus of opinion on this forum.

For those of us that are not ZF transmission specialists, regardless of what we stout, it is prudent to bow to one with years of experience with transmissions, especially when their knowledge has resulted in high performance improvements to the ZF and a wide range of other transmissions.

Hey Guys
Newbie here to the X Family..I've had my 04 3.0 for 3 weeks and I'll be posting a few obeservations...

I've always used Mobil 1 ATF in all my Bimmers, Audis and Rovers..never an issue. Just did my 3.0 and swapped 3 quarts. I will do another flush in a couple of months.

The fluid on my 04 3.0 came out pitch black..The truck shifts a lot better with Mobil synth ATF.