Do you even understand my position? I don't think you do. You don't even know my qualifications.

My position applies to my vehicle, not yours. There isn't a right and wrong, as I pointed out at the very beginning of this thread. There is a balance of risk. Penguin refers to it as not being black and white. You seem to want to make it so. Anyone who doesn't agree with your mechanic is discounted.

I don't particularly subscribe to Miller's recommendations, so he doesn't influence me. I don't necessarily disagree with him, I just don't read him so can't really comment.

If I had a high mileage X5 with a shifting problem, I would change the fluid because I would have nothing to lose, just the price of parts. It would be a faint hope clause/Hail Mary kind of effort. If I didn't have a shifting problem, I wouldn't touch the fluid. I guess I disagree with Miller there, if I understand his position from the summar comments posted. If a fluid change didn't resolve the problem, I would take the transmission out and overhaul it myself.

Now, what I really want to know is, do you even acknowledge that a likely cause of your valve body failure was a fluid change prior to you buying the vehicle? And are you now changing the fluid hoping to avoid another valve body failure? Or was your valve body failure one of those many transmission failures not impacted in any way by fluid changes?

It is the other way around, you have it reversed. The fluid flush tends to cause the valve body becoming clogged. It isn't common for a valve body to fail for other reasons, but I am sure it could happen.

Please don't keep assigning beliefs to me that you have erroneously formulated from various comments.

I fully understand your position. You feel the benefit does not outweigh the risk. Is that or is that not correct?

I believe you stated your qualifications early in the discussion.

I agree. I fail to see why you continue to feel I am not aware of this. You and I have a different opinion on the risk/benefit.

What I disagree with is a correlation between changing the transmission fluid and subsequent transmission failure. I have repeatedly stated there is some risk and because of that risk I'm sure there are examples of where sediment became dislodged and caused a subsequent failure. However that does not translate into a correlation of fluid change = subsequent failure...as you would have us believe.

And yet you seem to have ignored this as potential reason why you may have observed transmission failures after a transmission fluid change.


So how about commenting on my valve body replacement? Do you think a fluid change may have averted my problem?

No, I don't acknowledge it as likely. There is no evidence to suggest the fluid was ever changed. It had 80K miles on it and came with a considerable number of service records and none of them showed the fluid had been changed. Likewise there was no indication the fluid had been changed when the repair was performed.

Will I acknowledge there's the possibility the fluid was changed and thus resulted in the failure: You bet. Though I think it highly unlikely (or, the inverse of that would be "slight"...a word we've seen before haven't we?).

That's part of it. But not the only reason. I had all the other fluids replaced as well because I want to start with a known baseline and I believe no fluid is lifetime.

This is possible too.

No, I don't have it the other way around. You just said the VB tends to fail because it becomes clogged. Assuming the fluid wasn't flushed, and there's no reason to think it had, do you feel flushing the fluid would have prevented the failure? Seems reasonble to me the flush would have removed the contaminant and possibly saved me a lot of money.

I'll keep this in mind should it ever happen.

Is there a risk, or is it urban legend? I still don't know where you stand. You can't have it both ways. One or the other please.

There is a risk and it is an urban legend. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Lets clean the slate and start over for a minute. What exactly is the point that you are trying to get accross in this thread?

I am saying there is no proof showing a correlation between transmission fluid changes and subsequent transmission failures. And that such a claim is nothing but an urban legend.

To help illustrate:

When changing the oil in a vehicle there is a risk the drain plug can be over tightend and strip the treads of the oil pan or plug. Just because this risk exists, and it has been known to happen on occasion, does not mean there is a correlation that changing the oil results in stripped oil pans or plugs. I would consider such a claim an urban legend even though the risk is there and I can point to examples of it happening.

OK, so would it be fair to say that you disagree with Mike Miller's, JCL's, etc. opinion that changing the fluid for the first time on an un-maintained, higher mileage (say 100,000 miles) automatic transmission comes with risk of failure due to the fluid? Keep in mind that I am not talking about someone using incorrect methods, techniques or fluids. I am talking about a perfect fluid and filter change with the propert parts.