Sheesh. This used to be a helpful, informative thread.
Let's stick to the newer 722.6+ transmission, which was the initial point anyway, right?
I'm glad that someone thinks the MB fluid is snake oil. And as I have said since one of my earliest posts, the great thing about owning a car is that YOU get to decide how to maintain it. Heck, pour vegetable oil in the tranny if you want, run non-detergent motor oil and no filter at all (hey, why even bother changing the engine oil?), pump the cheapest regular gas you can find, basically apply a Yugo mentality to a premium car. But to suggest to others that they might follow your example is very poor form indeed. The simple fact that you have some hands on experience with a previous product is factually and logically irrelevant when applied to newer and different technology. Continuing in this theme, the 1964 Chevrolet 283 engine I rebuilt some time back originally was recommended ND 30 for the first 500 miles, then SA grade detergent 30-weight in the winter and 40 in the summer. So what the heck? That was good enough then, it's good enough now. Don't snowball me with any of your new multi-vis advanced forumlation snake oil, just gimme the red-top wax-cardboard can of Valvoline and get outta my way. SA is just fine for my 2006 Denali, it's still a small-block V8. That SD, SG, SH, SI, all those grades are just a bunch of hogwash. Speaking of which...
Originally Posted by Musikmann
Agreeing with Jayhawk here. I don't believe the hogwash answer they gave Dumokie's wife (electronic??), but the quart bottles that say MB on them have to be pretty good to measure up to the MB standards.
Idea: We could pool our resources, buy a few different types of ATF and have some lab test them. I have no idea what to ask them for specically, but they should know what to test for anyway.
Why waste the time, MM? I mean seriously, whatever differences they show, what is that going to mean to someone that simply doesn't believe it in the first place? Let's jump over to the same argument that has been peppered throughout the forums about motor oil. MB has a spec for their post MY 1998 engines that is based upon a synthetic base pack they designed and specify, which is geared towards the design of their engine and it's parts that need lubrication. The motor oils that meet the spec thus include that base pack. Those that don't meet the spec don't have the base pack. No need to test to see if Mobil1 0W40 is different than Castrol Syntec 10W30, we KNOW it is. But just like with the ATF, there are those who will simply ignore that MB has a spec that they design both for and against, and will instead buy Mobil1 5W30 at Costco or Sams because it's cheaper. Good for them. Will it matter over the course of 15, 20 or 50,000 miles? Most likely, no. But over 100,000, 150,000, 200,000, 250,000 or more? My money says "you betcha".
Originally Posted by mlfun
You mean I have to do a statistical study to support my statement.
Let's try do a poll.
How many of the transmission failures occur by 50K / 100K /150K when the owner has not
changed the fluid ? Here is the result so far : 1/0/0 so there 100% as stated.
I don't see the need. We're not talking about statistics, per se, we're talking about maintenance. Initially MB told MM that there was no need to change fluid; that and an independent analysis are the cornerstones of this thread. (Since that time they have changed their tune and now recommend it.) Reality: even snake oil (HA!) breaks down over time, clutch packs degrade, metal parts wear, and all of that junk is flowing through pressure passages, valve bodies the torque converter, gears and the filter. Hey, it may not happen by 50,000 miles (statistically
speaking, that's exceedingly
rare). And it may not happen by 100,000 miles (still very, very rare). But that's not the point. The point is that the longer you continue to drive the car with filthy, degraded fluid in the transmission the faster you accelerate the damage that will absolutely occur; at what point that starts we don't know precisely, but we DO know that there IS such a point. So if you take two cars and drive them identically from day one, with one having regular ATF changes every 50,000 miles, and the other one not having one until 125,000 miles, in the long run the first transmission will far outlive the other one because it never got the damage in the first place. Turning this example to us humans: take two identical twins, same house, same diet, etc. When they turn 15 one decides cigarettes are the coolest thing ever so she adopts a 2 pack habit. At 40 light dawns and she quits. Even though both are now being "take care of the same", which one is going to die first? The damage has already started and absent an unusual supervening circumstance, the non-smoker is going to outlive her sibling by many, many years.
And Jayhawk, I think mlfun is actually trying to prove the point that maintenance should be done. He's found some cars that the transmission failed before 50K. The posts are cryptic, I'll grant you that, but I think that is the point.
My last comment...when I was searching for an independent shop I would trust to change my fluid, the guy ran my VIN to pull my transmission specs before determining that he would use MB's fluid and not Mobil1 ATF in my transmission. His explanation was that with the newer ones, he was not convinced it was the equal, and he wasn't going to take a chance on his customers' cars by putting in the non-MB fluid. That means a bit more to me than someone who has rebuilt a handful of transmissions and has concluded that there isn't any difference between Dex-4, BrandX and MB spec.
Take care and enjoy the ride,