:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yup, that's probably it. So denial isn't just a river? It drove fine for 110,000 miles, then failed 50 miles after getting a fluid change. And that's never happened before.

It would be funnier, though, if the other poster didn't have to pay for a new transmission now.

We don't know the fluid changed caused the problem. You even acknowledge as much:

"It is worth checking to make sure the shop used the right fluid. Have they diagnosed the failure yet?"

That's the problem with this "evidence". Someone posts they had a transmission failure shortly after changing the fluid and the immediate conclusion of the anti-change the fluid crusaders is the fluid change caused the problem when it could, and most likely was, the result of other factors (such as the wrong fluid being used...using your example).

Of course I acknowledged it. It come from having taken courses in failure analysis.

What is funny is your use of the phrase 'urban legend'. Apparently you know that fluid changes have never caused a transmission failure in an otherwise healthy transmission before. That is simply wrong, and IMO irresponsible.

I am not an anti transmission fluid change crusader. I just think that people that do change the transmission fluid should acknowledge the risks of doing so.

Then why did you use it as evidence fluid changes cause problems? You don't know what caused the problem. Yet here you are presenting it as evidence fluid changes do cause problems.

To the contrary I've previously and continue to acknowledge they can lead to problems. You keep ignoring this in order to build your strawmen.

You act like an anti-fluid change crusader by having made the post you did.

Reagarding risk: There's always risk in most everything you do. You have yet to demonstrate there is a reasonable correlation between changing the fluid and transmission failure.

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.

yeah the only thing i know right know, is changing my transmission oil\filter with the update have me loving my x again..driven is fun once more....

flush and filter change can help. remove dirty oil, and particles that can get stuck somewhere and whatnot. its unadvisable to do that when the transmission is behaving, but when you are having problems go nuts. the new fluid can help slipping and such. best of luck. i know plenty of people who have gotten a flush and filter change after experiencing transmission problems and have had good luck.

again, most people agree that if the trans is working properly to not touch it.

Remind me of Shroud of Turin, former pope JohnII OKed the carbon dating by 3 acredited institutions and the result says most likely the shroud was from 14th century.
But the true believers say the sample was taken from the area that was fixed (stiched in by nuns in 14th) century, the sample was suppose to be taken from the center (yeah like the pope will alow you make a hole on that shroud).
So at the end let faith dictates what you want to believe. I believe in god as well as carbon dating and flushing trans won't hurt :D

I'm sorry, I thought you brought it up when you resurrected your infamous 'urban legend' claim. I always thought urban legends were, by definition, false. In order to support your claim of urban legend status, I was giving you another example of a transmission failure that potentially correlates with a fluid change.

PS: If you google 'urban legend transmission failure' one of the top hits is the thread that you don't want to resurect. Congratulations, you're famous! Any rehashing from me is not likely to be significant.

The key word being potentially. Until you have something concrete as to what caused this failure the example is essentially meaningless.

I was going to respond, but I can't keep up with your editing of your responses. What happened to the circular argument you posted about burden of proof? Did you see the flaw?

In the particular case under discussion, I think that the owner needs to confirm that the correct fluid was used, that the level was correct, that there were no leaks, and that the work was done properly. Then, I expect that during teardown a cause of failure will be found. If that failure relates to a hydraulic circuit that has debris in it, I think a reasonable hypothesis will be that the powerful detergents in the new transmission fluid acted as they are designed to do, and cleaned out the sediments, where they lodged in the small passages of the valve body. Cleaning out the valve body now may in fact restore the functioning of the transmission.

I don't think the example is meaningless, but for a reasonable conclusion to be drawn, I would expect something along the lines of the above. Is this the statistical proof based on a sample of 100,000 that you asked for? No, but it is how trained technicians work, and it is the best we have.