The famous one that was edited down is here:

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...nsmission.html

This was the thread running at the same time, which had an example of a sudden failure after changing the fluid (I know, n=1, just like your example).

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...hange-diy.html

This next one was by far the most entertaining, though. It had everything. Yes, it was titled engine oil, but it was about transmission fluid, analysis, faith, and by the end, rainbows and cupcakes. It also included mention of the replaced valve body, albeit edited.

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...sing-help.html

This one was good as well, it had a couple of BMW technicians participating.

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...intenance.html

I had an 01 Acura CLS. They had known bad 5ATs. Acura tried to blame it on everything form the lunar cycle to bad/corrupt fluids. My car had 182k when it left me and it's transmission never had a hiccup.

Bottom line fluids wear out. They reach an end of life and stop offering the protection for which they were designed. It seems counter productive to not replace potentially end of life fluid because it might cause issues from following a reasonable maintenance cycle.

I have always upon purchase of a new to me vehicle performed complete maintenance. I have no idea if/when the fluids were replaced, I got no records. I plan to do it anyway.

I am making no such claim. I am claiming no such evidence to support such a theory has been provided. Consensus is not proof.

That's not proof. Those are anecdotes.

Edit down? What does that mean? If you've got an accusation I've been deceitful through editing my posts then say it and prove it.

Still not seeing any supporting data. Just a bunch of spin from you.

Seriously JCL...I expected much better from you.

I probably shouldn't have waded back in again :rofl:

I provided the links immediately above for the reading pleasure of newer members who might not have seen this particular debate before. It is all the same information as this time around.

I was also told last time around that the burden of proof was all on me with respect to the claim that properly done automatic transmission fluid changes on healthy transmissions can precipitate failures due to the detergent levels cleaning out the transmission, and shifting the resulting sediment into the valve body, causing shifting problems. My anecdotes, combined with the anecdotes of two forum members who were BMW technicians, and others in the business, didn't weigh up to the trusted independent that does Sunny's work. We couldn't help Sunny in this case, but there was a large offline discussion going on at the same time, just discussing that particular thread. It was, as my daughter would say, epic. It is the third one in my post above.

I also asked about a particular claim that Sunny made, namely that no fluid is lifetime and by inference, that old fluid was contributing to transmission failures. There was no proof provided for that claim. Using the same logic (one would think that would be logical, burden of proof and all....) I asked Sunny for his proof. He said it was a fact, he didn't need to prove it. That's in the third link as well, post #177. Oh well.

Haha, this is just becoming funny. I believe you said, and I quote, "I don't mean to be negative but it's my opinion there is a problem with the transmission that the fluid change has just covered. Ultimately the transmission will require repair and this will turn into another example of how changing the transmission fluid is a bad idea." (Sunny5280), and "Anyway this is rehashing a discussion I exited in the interest of keeping peace on the forum. I would request you refrain from engaging in posts which serve no propose other than to rehash the subject. (Sunny5280)"

Hmmm... so looks like this discussion happened before. Again you mentioned burden of proof, but still had none of your own?

It is probably safe to say we agree to disagree. You go ahead and change your fluids. That is fine. But for myself and a lot of other members, we will keep it where it is. Nothing for nothing, reading those posts... you kind of sound like you want to battle the tranny issue out. That's fine. But if anything, you are be irresponsible by saying a fluid change is good; as a fact, when you yourself have made no proof.

And reading those posts, there really wasn't any spin. JCL has made notes of other discussions from other members besides himself that are all in conjunction of what we've been saying. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. But I'm done with this thread. I've seen the previous posts mentioned and seeing you've had this discussion previously and you didn't come out looking so rosey then, yeah... I'm good.

Nice finds JCL. I liked the last one. Didn't read that one.

Deceitful is a very strong word. I never said deceitful. In the posts under discussion, you were editing posts as you wrote, and we couldn't keep up the responses because posts were coming and going. There are references to a couple of your claims that were made and then removed, in one of my links above.

Why would you come to a discussion board for data? It is for discussions.

Sorry if I am disappointing you.

Again: I don't have to provide the burden of proof to disprove someone else's theory.

For example if I were to say: Every morning you kill a kitten you don't have to provide proof that you do not. It would be my burden to provide proof to support such a statement. You don't have to do a thing in order to disprove it. Same applies here.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am merely saying I have seen no supporting data to demonstrate changing the transmission fluid results in increased transmission failures. This is not the same thing as saying it is a good thing. Please learn the difference.

I looked just fine to people who understand logic and do not succumb to the "group think" (i.e. consensus) mentality. Do you still think the world is flat?

Apparently that's not the only thing you're not reading.

I didn't say you did. I said, and I quote:

"If you've got an accusation I've been deceitful through editing my posts then say it..."

Do you understand english? Is it not your native language?

What does this mean? Do you mean that I was deleting posts? Where are the references? Specifics please.

Because I expect people to support what they say when it goes contrary to common sense or other information I have. You've done everything BUT PROVIDE SUPPORTING DATA. You could easily clear this up by providing data. Instead you've opted to provide nothing but anecdotes and implications I have been dishonest through the editing / removal of my posts.

I'm not the only one you're disappointing.

I am interested in the argument against replacing old fluids that no longer provide protection.

Can someone please explain how it is better to leave it in than possibly dislodge unknown contaminants that may or may not be in the system.