Has anyone done a transmission oil change yet

[VAMike]

You are wasting time, money and effort on changing the transmission fluid in my opinion

And, probably, making problems more likely rather than less likely.

Sponsored

 

[DavidR]

Again, because it isn't needed. In general, manufacturers don't spend money on things that aren't needed.

It isn't because it's not needed. It is needed, just at a longer interval then previously.

I did more research and it's actually a complicated issue. To a big degree, it's the manufacturers protecting themselves against the combination of users who aren't careful combined with changes in transmission design.

The main issue is that transmissions have become much more complex, they are designed with tighter margins and have less tolerance for things being out of spec. As a result, they have become much more sensitive to things like fluid type and fluid level. 25 years ago, on an A4LD, using the wrong oil, or a bad additive, or over/under-filling would cause symptoms like slightly rough shifts or slow shifts, but now, mistakes like that can cause actual damage, and getting *all* the bad oil out is not easy since each draining only removes 1/3 of the oil. Combined with 60,000 mile power train warranties it has become a big issue for the manufacturers. Old habits die hard and many people are complaining about the missing dipsticks and difficult access to the fill port, but the industry's "answer" is that with newer, more complex transmissions, they have been finding that more problems have been caused by user error than by inherent flaws.

So, as @P. A. Schilke said, the trend has been to design for extremely long service intervals, especially for the transmission, and make access intentionally much more difficult. Unfortunately, it's a case where the 98% of people who have no business sticking their heads under the hood have made things more difficult for the 2% who are more careful and capable. Fine, I get that.

So, what's the compromise? While I get that transmission and transmission fluid designs have improved a lot, I think a lot of people might not feel comfortable waiting 150,000 miles for the first change despite what the manual says, especially people who tow a lot or otherwise have heavier than normal use. The user manual doesn't seem to indicate that such usage should decrease the transmission oil change interval, but the manufacturers are ignoring the "peace of mind" factor that many people will have in waiting 150,000 miles for a trans oil change.

So, yeah, it's not 1965 (I never said it was), and I never said there was a need to change the fluid every 10,000 miles, but I don't think 50,000 or 60,000 would be unreasonable, especially if you tow a lot and are willing to spend a few bucks every 4 or 5 years for some extra peace of mind.

So yes, old habits die hard, and I agree people will need to get used to not needing to check these things as often for peace of mind purposes. It's all still there, it's still possible to do a DIY fluid change following the procedure in the service manual, it's just harder to get to. I'll probably still take a look every time I do an engine oil change, at least for oil quality if not for level (the level check is more complicated, and not really needed if there are no signs of leaking).

 

[Hounddog409]

It isn't because it's not needed. It is needed, just at a longer interval then previously.

I did more research and it's actually a complicated issue. To a big degree, it's the manufacturers protecting themselves against the combination of users who aren't careful combined with changes in transmission design.

The main issue is that transmissions have become much more complex, they are designed with tighter margins and have less tolerance for things being out of spec. As a result, they have become much more sensitive to things like fluid type and fluid level. 25 years ago, on an A4LD, using the wrong oil, or a bad additive, or over/under-filling would cause symptoms like slightly rough shifts or slow shifts, but now, mistakes like that can cause actual damage, and getting *all* the bad oil out is not easy since each draining only removes 1/3 of the oil. Combined with 60,000 mile power train warranties it has become a big issue for the manufacturers. Old habits die hard and many people are complaining about the missing dipsticks and difficult access to the fill port, but the industry's "answer" is that with newer, more complex transmissions, they have been finding that more problems have been caused by user error than by inherent flaws.

So, as @P. A. Schilke said, the trend has been to design for extremely long service intervals, especially for the transmission, and make access intentionally much more difficult. Unfortunately, it's a case where the 98% of people who have no business sticking their heads under the hood have made things more difficult for the 2% who are more careful and capable. Fine, I get that.

So, what's the compromise? While I get that transmission and transmission fluid designs have improved a lot, I think a lot of people might not feel comfortable waiting 150,000 miles for the first change despite what the manual says, especially people who tow a lot or otherwise have heavier than normal use. The user manual doesn't seem to indicate that such usage should decrease the transmission oil change interval, but the manufacturers are ignoring the "peace of mind" factor that many people will have in waiting 150,000 miles for a trans oil change.

So, yeah, it's not 1965 (I never said it was), and I never said there was a need to change the fluid every 10,000 miles, but I don't think 50,000 or 60,000 would be unreasonable, especially if you tow a lot and are willing to spend a few bucks every 4 or 5 years for some extra peace of mind.

So yes, old habits die hard, and I agree people will need to get used to not needing to check these things as often for peace of mind purposes. It's all still there, it's still possible to do a DIY fluid change following the procedure in the service manual, it's just harder to get to. I'll probably still take a look every time I do an engine oil change, at least for oil quality if not for level (the level check is more complicated, and not really needed if there are no signs of leaking).

You are just being stubborn. Changing at 50k is a waste of time, money, and oil.
Just to feed your phobia.

A ford design engineer gave you the details and facts, and you are being too stubborn to believe him.

Do you think any OEM would dictate 150k life if they thought 50k was better or just made better sense? Hell no is the only answer. This tranny is not new. Used in the f150 for awhile. And no problems with documented intervals. Proven real life 50-60k is a waste.

Come on man.

 

[DavidR]

You are just being stubborn. Changing at 50k is a waste of time, money, and oil.
Just to feed your phobia.

A ford design engineer gave you the details and facts, and you are being too stubborn to believe him.

Do you think any OEM would dictate 150k life if they thought 50k was better or just made better sense? Hell no is the only answer. This tranny is not new. Used in the f150 for awhile. And no problems with documented intervals. Proven real life 50-60k is a waste.

Come on man.

Then we can agree to disagree, hopefully without calling each other names like phobic.

I've been an engineer for 45 years and have designed and specified many products. Not in automotive, but in many areas of electronic and mechanical equipment.

I ABSOLUTELY believe that Ford engineers are good, or I wouldn't have bought one of their products. But I've also worked in many production environments and I know that often things get stretched a bit for competitive and cost reasons. And NOT necessarily by the engineers, but due to pressure from the marketing, sales, and other departments in the company. I'm sorry but this is not a phobia, it's from direct experience. I've seen products have issues because of it. I hope we can disagree or debate things without calling each other names like that.

I have been on projects where the engineers have PUSHED BACK and LOST because the company thought any possible consequences were worth the marketing advantage. Direct experience on that issue. Maybe Ford are different than every other company out there, but I highly doubt it. The automotive industry is very competitive. Most products have dozens of these "marketing" tradeoffs, vehicles probably have hundreds.

Does that mean that that I think EVERY maintenance interval is inappropriately stretched? Not at all, but it means that I can't be 100% sure of any given one and there is no harm in adding some extra safety margin. Many others do this as well, just look at all the threads about oil changes. Are we all phobic because we don't plan to religiously follow the recommendation of 10000 miles or whatever the computer might say? Or do some of just want a little extra safety margin knowing that sometimes companies push things a bit? We can argue ad nauseam about how much safety margin would be good to add, and I will gladly agree that that it's possible that 50-60K might be too much, but unless it's extreme, like suggesting trans oil changes every 10K miles or something like that, it's not accurate to call it a phobia.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Then we can agree to disagree, hopefully without calling each other names.

I've been an engineer for 45 years and have designed and specified many products. Not in automotive, but in many areas of electronic and mechanical equipment.

I ABSOLUTELY believe that Ford engineers are good, or I wouldn't have bought one of their products. But I've also worked in many production environments and I know that often things get stretched a bit for competitive and cost reasons. And NOT necessarily by the engineers, but due to pressure from the marketing, sales, and other departments in the company. I'm sorry but this is not a phobia, it's from direct experience. I've seen products have issues because of it. I hope we can disagree or debate things without calling each other names like that.

I have been on projects where the engineers have PUSHED BACK and LOST because the company thought any possible consequences were worth the marketing advantage. Direct experience on that issue. Maybe Ford are different than every other company out there, but I highly doubt it. The automotive industry is very competitive. Most products have dozens of these "marketing" tradeoffs, vehicles probably have hundreds.

Does that mean that that I think EVERY maintenance interval is inappropriately stretched? Not at all, but it means that I can't be 100% sure of any given one and there is no harm in adding some extra safety margin. Many others do this as well, just look at all the threads about oil changes. Are we all phobic because we don't plan to religiously follow the recommendation of 10000 miles or whatever the computer might say? Or do some of just want a little extra safety margin knowing that sometimes companies push things a bit? We can argue ad nauseam about how much safety margin would be good to add, and I will gladly agree that that it's possible that 50-60K might be too much, but unless it's extreme, like suggesting trans oil changes every 10K miles or something like that, it's not accurate to call it a phobia.

Hi David,

Ford Engineering does push back on Marketing...That is how the FX4 brand came about with real offroad increased performance and not the white painted shocks and a decal saying FX4. I have seen no marketing of the 150,000 mile change interval. The transmission was designed with this interval as a objective, and it it did not meet this objective during testing, there would be pushback.

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[P. A. Schilke]

It isn't because it's not needed. It is needed, just at a longer interval then previously.

I did more research and it's actually a complicated issue. To a big degree, it's the manufacturers protecting themselves against the combination of users who aren't careful combined with changes in transmission design.

The main issue is that transmissions have become much more complex, they are designed with tighter margins and have less tolerance for things being out of spec. As a result, they have become much more sensitive to things like fluid type and fluid level. 25 years ago, on an A4LD, using the wrong oil, or a bad additive, or over/under-filling would cause symptoms like slightly rough shifts or slow shifts, but now, mistakes like that can cause actual damage, and getting *all* the bad oil out is not easy since each draining only removes 1/3 of the oil. Combined with 60,000 mile power train warranties it has become a big issue for the manufacturers. Old habits die hard and many people are complaining about the missing dipsticks and difficult access to the fill port, but the industry's "answer" is that with newer, more complex transmissions, they have been finding that more problems have been caused by user error than by inherent flaws.

So, as @P. A. Schilke said, the trend has been to design for extremely long service intervals, especially for the transmission, and make access intentionally much more difficult. Unfortunately, it's a case where the 98% of people who have no business sticking their heads under the hood have made things more difficult for the 2% who are more careful and capable. Fine, I get that.

So, what's the compromise? While I get that transmission and transmission fluid designs have improved a lot, I think a lot of people might not feel comfortable waiting 150,000 miles for the first change despite what the manual says, especially people who tow a lot or otherwise have heavier than normal use. The user manual doesn't seem to indicate that such usage should decrease the transmission oil change interval, but the manufacturers are ignoring the "peace of mind" factor that many people will have in waiting 150,000 miles for a trans oil change.

So, yeah, it's not 1965 (I never said it was), and I never said there was a need to change the fluid every 10,000 miles, but I don't think 50,000 or 60,000 would be unreasonable, especially if you tow a lot and are willing to spend a few bucks every 4 or 5 years for some extra peace of mind.

So yes, old habits die hard, and I agree people will need to get used to not needing to check these things as often for peace of mind purposes. It's all still there, it's still possible to do a DIY fluid change following the procedure in the service manual, it's just harder to get to. I'll probably still take a look every time I do an engine oil change, at least for oil quality if not for level (the level check is more complicated, and not really needed if there are no signs of leaking).

Hi Folks,

Old A4LD back story. I had the first A4LD transmission to be installed in a Stateside vehicle, one of my Aeorstar prototypes (I had Econoline and Aerostar NVH at the time) and I have to say the experience was underwhelming. The transmission traveled vertically a farther distance than it did horizontally. I had it installed at the Experimental Garage, vertical distance traveled by the transmission was approximately 5ft down. I had an Engineering Signoff which said it was good to go! Fired up the Aerostar and put it in reverse to back out of the hoist. made it about two feet and herd a loud pop..and no motive power. We pushed it back onto the hoist and raised it up to find the servo cover and the servo piston had blown out of the side of the transmission case..trans fluid everywhere. Trans was totally toast., so after mopping up the trans fluid, the mechanics went about removing the trans...so it traveled 5ft vertically and 2 ft horizontally and the A4LD program when down hill from here....

Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[Jake]

I would like to throw a couple of videos from a ford tech on youtube into the ring here. I've watched more than a few of his videos before and he seems to be pretty knowledgeable.

 

[Floyd]

Aftermarket dipstick...
I didn't find a specific video for the Ranger, but this one should be essentially similar .
It is for the F-150 . There may be some differences for the Ranger application.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

I would like to throw a couple of videos from a ford tech on youtube into the ring here. I've watched more than a few of his videos before and he seems to be pretty knowledgeable.

Ford Motor Co. Tech or a Dealer "tech"? I take this as his 15 minutes of fame.... Listen if you want and follow his advice it you wish...There are more like him out there on the internet...Sigh! What does a thermostat/coolant have to do with a Transmission?

Thanks for sharing...I needed a laugh or two tonight after a hard day in the AZ heat digging my tortoise a new larger burrow...

best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[DavidR]

Hi David,

Ford Engineering does push back on Marketing...That is how the FX4 brand came about with real offroad increased performance and not the white painted shocks and a decal saying FX4. I have seen no marketing of the 150,000 mile change interval. The transmission was designed with this interval as a objective, and it it did not meet this objective during testing, there would be pushback.

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

Okay, I appreciate that, especially coming from a Ford Engineer.

Yes, products have design goals, and there is usually a point where the engineering department can veto that goal if it really can't be met within some reasonable reliability target. But the other angle to this is that, from my own experience at least, even if the goal can be met, these are never hard numbers. They are almost always based on statistics, and quite often, the point on the curve that gets chosen is determined by more than just the engineering department. So while there are design goals, those goals are met with a certain acceptable cost target, and a certain statistically based reliability target.

I've been involved (as you probably have as well) in a number of these decision processes, and most often the meetings go something like this (NOTE: I"m not saying this is what happened, it's just a purely hypothetical example of the process I've seen most of the time):

ENGINEERING: We've completed extensive life testing and simulations and we can meet a 150K mile change interval with an 8% failure rate at the 200k mile mark. The data also show that with a 100K change interval, the failure rate at 200K miles is 3%.

MARKETING: Okay, 8% is an acceptable failure rate at 200K miles, let's go with it.

ENGINEERING: Are you sure you don't want to go with 100K and get higher statistical reliability?

MARKETING: Nah, we need to stick with the goal otherwise we will be worse than the Chevy Colorado (or Toyota Tacoma or whatever), and we have historical data that shows that this will affect sales, whereas a 5% reliability hit at 200K miles will never show up on anyone's radar.

So again, I stress that this example is purely hypothetical, but the process is not. I can't count the number of times I've been in meetings like this about tradeoffs involved in setting things like maintenance/calibration schedules or product specifications.

Is this process bad? Not at all, every product design has statistical tradeoffs like this. But is also means that there is almost always some statistical wiggle room that the end user can take advantage of.

The end result is that while I'm not 100% sure, it's highly likely that cutting the interval from 150K to, say, 75K or 80K could result in a statistical increase in reliability for very little cost over the vehicle lifetime, whereas cutting it to 10K or something extreme like that will not provide any further benefit and would be a total waste.

This is really all I'm saying, not that the engineers are wrong, or not trustable, or that they don't get listened to, but that these decisions are based on statistics, and the engineers aren't the only ones with input into the decision.

So, yes, while I think it would be stupid and wasteful to change the transmission oil every 10K or 20K miles, knowing how decisions usually get made, I wouldn't be at all surprised if adding at least some safety margin would gain a certain amount of reliability, statistically.

 

[DavidR]

Hi Folks,

Old A4LD back story. I had the first A4LD transmission to be installed in a Stateside vehicle, one of my Aeorstar prototypes (I had Econoline and Aerostar NVH at the time) and I have to say the experience was underwhelming. The transmission traveled vertically a farther distance than it did horizontally. I had it installed at the Experimental Garage, vertical distance traveled by the transmission was approximately 5ft down. I had an Engineering Signoff which said it was good to go! Fired up the Aerostar and put it in reverse to back out of the hoist. made it about two feet and herd a loud pop..and no motive power. We pushed it back onto the hoist and raised it up to find the servo cover and the servo piston had blown out of the side of the transmission case..trans fluid everywhere. Trans was totally toast., so after mopping up the trans fluid, the mechanics went about removing the trans...so it traveled 5ft vertically and 2 ft horizontally and the A4LD program when down hill from here....

Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

Well, you guys definitely nailed it at some point because the A4LD in our '89 Aerostar ran for ~240,000 miles with the only symptom being a tiny piece of a thrust washer found in the oil pan at around 220,000 miles

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Hi David,

I know from where you are coming, but at $1 million a prototype we have limited sample size, so we do not agree with anything other than all the test vehicles pass the test. We do statistical analysis but it at mileages above what is published in the owners manual. Can we guarantee 100% no..but statistically if we extend beyond our spec we can achieve a very small failure rate at 150,000 miles. As to the percentage...I am not going to divulge as this is program specific and I do a disservice to the program folks. Corporate proprietary.

You have a firm grasp of what we in the auto industry struggle with bean counters and Marketing, both of which I am no fan of either. It comes down to ethics...Engineering wants assurance of 100%, Marketing is okay with less. I have to say that Ford in my experience listened to Engineering. Of course there were exceptions, and many of the folks at Ford Truck Engineering that agreed with Marketing lost their job for making these decisions. Engineering had to stay firm against them. Marketing cost me millions with their "information". They were so wrong.

Change your Tranny when you like...just if you do...do it per the book.... You will feel better.

best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[DavidR]

Hi David,

I know from where you are coming, but at $1 million a prototype we have limited sample size, so we do not agree with anything other than all the test vehicles pass the test. We do statistical analysis but it at mileages above what is published in the owners manual. Can we guarantee 100% no..but statistically if we extend beyond our spec we can achieve a very small failure rate at 150,000 miles. As to the percentage...I am not going to divulge as this is program specific and I do a disservice to the program folks. Corporate proprietary.

You have a firm grasp of what we in the auto industry struggle with bean counters and Marketing, both of which I am no fan of either. It comes down to ethics...Engineering wants assurance of 100%, Marketing is okay with less. I have to say that Ford in my experience listened to Engineering. Of course there were exceptions, and many of the folks at Ford Truck Engineering that agreed with Marketing lost their job for making these decisions. Engineering had to stay firm against them. Marketing cost me millions with their "information". They were so wrong.

Change your Tranny when you like...just if you do...do it per the book.... You will feel better.

best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

Fair enough. In my own experience, I haven't worked on projects as mechanically complex as a vehicle or the 10R80, and I can understand that prototypes and pre-production runs would be so expensive as to be too limited in size to get full statistically sized samplings. In my own experience, the more that's the case, the more people rely on simulations compared to actual field life testing, but the overall statistical relationship of product failures or products being out of spec vs. maintenance or calibration intervals is still present.

And yeah, you can never get to 100% reliability, that's why the analysis is always statistical, or at least ideally it is, and why you can usually move a little along the reliability curve by tweaking maintenance a bit. Ford are a company with a lot of experience and they have had a lot of time to figure out how to balance the competing forces within the company. The fact that you attest to that is a good thing, and I think it also shows through in generally good product reliability, though with so many complex products coming to market, there will always be a few problem areas that get through, as you also point out. Undetected problems can even get through in simpler products where there was the opportunity to do a statistically significant amount of accelerated life testing or field testing.

Lastly, I totally understand not being able to release internal cost and reliability targets, I could not do that either for the products I've worked on. But many people involved in product development know that those targets and trade-offs exist, and that reliability (or accuracy in some cases) has a statistical relationship with maintenance intervals (or calibration/adjustment intervals in some cases), which is why some people make a personal decision to modify the maintenance schedule. As we sometime say, everything in nature is a gaussian, and by moving along that curve, you can often improve your chances of "beating the odds" a bit, but there will also be a point of diminishing returns beyond which you're just wasting time and money. Since the actual data is always proprietary, you kinda have to just go from past experience

 

[VAMike]

You mentioned two reasons why extra fluid changes to "feel good" may be a bad idea (fluid type and level) but there are others: the possibility of introducing contaminants to an otherwise sealed system, the possibility that various seals and hardware expected to be opened once or twice over the life of a vehicle don't respond well to repeated use, etc. If the motivation is anxiety, maybe a security blanket is a better option.

 

[DavidR]

You mentioned two reasons why extra fluid changes to "feel good" may be a bad idea (fluid type and level) but there are others: the possibility of introducing contaminants to an otherwise sealed system, the possibility that various seals and hardware expected to be opened once or twice over the life of a vehicle don't respond well to repeated use, etc. If the motivation is anxiety, maybe a security blanket is a better option.

I don't deny that, and said at many points that there will be a point of diminishing returns. Maybe you could try communicating without constant insults, seems pretty hard for you.

Sponsored