Transmission Failure 99 e300TD - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

christyb · #31 05-15-2008, 08:12 PM

They offered me 15% off of parts and labor and a loaner car for the duration of the repair.

I was told that if I could find something in writing from Mercedes about the "filled for life" and the subsequent change to call them back.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,
Christy

KarTek · #32 05-15-2008, 09:24 PM

Don't know if this helps or not but on page 109 of the owner's manual, in the lower right corner it states:

"The transmission has a permanent fill of automatic transmission fluid. Regular fluid level checks and changes are not required. For this reason the dipstick is omitted. If you notice fluid leaks or gear shifting malfunctions, have your authorized Mercedes-Benz dealer check the transmission fluid level."

It's in the book as they say...

Hatterasguy · #33 05-15-2008, 09:57 PM

You need to bribe one of the MB techs to give you a TSB number where they talk about the 39k mile change.

TMAllison · #34 05-15-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

You need to bribe one of the MB techs to give you a TSB number where they talk about the 39k mile change.

Exactly, all revisions are done by "Techincal Service Bulletins" that all dealers receive from MBUSA.

Hatterasguy · #35 05-15-2008, 11:56 PM

So the dealer is full of it, they know about the TSB's.

husk · #36 05-16-2008, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhdoc

I don't want to get into a P***ing match here but I don't think you would do any harm to anything by driving these cars in W mode rather than S mode. It simply starts off in second gear and shifts more conservatively. I have NEVER heard anyone before claim there could be damage done by driving in W.

When I bought my '98 I was really disappointed by its lack of pep. I then discovered the W/S switch was in W mode. Putting it in S made all the difference in the world. I asked the PO about it and she said "what switch?" so basically they probably drove it the first 115K miles in W, it didn't do any harm.

are you telling me that starting in 2nd gear is not harder on the transmission, clutch disks etc than starting in 1st gear? That is hogwash if you have a basic understanding of how a transmission works you will see that using the W switch does not do anything (traction wise) and has a greater propensity to cause a greater amount of wear on your transmission. If this extrapolated over the life of a transmission the amount of wear will be far more than driving in S mode. Put your car in gear and switch from S to W mode, there will be a noticeable shake when you switch from s to w mode. You are putting more wear on your engine, driveshaft, and sliding clutches. What proof do you have emperical or other which dissproves this? Show me how starting constantly in second gear produces the same or less wear than starting in 1st gear? Your statement does not make sense. The clutch (and related components) are definitely absorbing more of the wear starting in 2nd gear than 1st. End of story, show me how starting in second gear does not cause more wear than 1st gear.

You discovering the S/W mode really has nothing to do with anything, as is your armchair transmission diagnosis. If you have some experience with these transmissions then maybe your postulate will be valid but until that point it would be far more productive if you post factual data rather than your non-factual postulates.

TMAllison · #37 05-16-2008, 01:44 AM

Husk - From an engineering/design standpoint, W would not be present if not intended to be utilized......If intended to be used sparingly, it would be designed to revert to S after 20 minutes or some other time frame........

Is it harder on things? I couldn't say, and like you and Marty, I have no empirical PROOF to provide from an engineering standpoint which is better or easier on the trans one way OR the other. If YOU do, please share it with everyone and enlighten us. I do know that some forum members ONLY use W with no ill effects and ALSO know that MB has used 2nd gear starts on previous diesel models successfully.

My observations based upon how I drive is that S provides less lugging and is more conducive to my driving style. I suspect your driving environment is VERY similar to my own and being chipped a 2nd gear start would be very alien to you as well. Based upon my normal driving style and that I have only driven mine in snow/ice twice, I choose S all the time.

Others will necessarily decide differently.

christyb · #38 05-16-2008, 04:34 AM

I found four Technical Service Bulletins, none of which address the transmission at all. Are the TSBs available to the public different than those available to the dealer?

Here's the four TSBs (from NHTSA):

1. Trunk lid opens/closes too quickly
2. Consumer shutoff displayed in instrument cluster while driving
3. Ordering process for extended length seat belt
4. Power window devices and controls

KarTek - that does help, since my manual is in my car at the shop! Now I need something on the other end with the change(s).

TMAllison/Hatteras Guy - Am I looking at "different" TSBs?

Thanks

nhdoc · #39 05-16-2008, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by husk

are you telling me that starting in 2nd gear is not harder on the transmission, clutch disks etc than starting in 1st gear? That is hogwash if you have a basic understanding of how a transmission works you will see that using the W switch does not do anything (traction wise) and has a greater propensity to cause a greater amount of wear on your transmission. If this extrapolated over the life of a transmission the amount of wear will be far more than driving in S mode. Put your car in gear and switch from S to W mode, there will be a noticeable shake when you switch from s to w mode. You are putting more wear on your engine, driveshaft, and sliding clutches. What proof do you have emperical or other which dissproves this? Show me how starting constantly in second gear produces the same or less wear than starting in 1st gear? Your statement does not make sense. The clutch (and related components) are definitely absorbing more of the wear starting in 2nd gear than 1st. End of story, show me how starting in second gear does not cause more wear than 1st gear.

You discovering the S/W mode really has nothing to do with anything, as is your armchair transmission diagnosis. If you have some experience with these transmissions then maybe your postulate will be valid but until that point it would be far more productive if you post factual data rather than your non-factual postulates.

Let the pissing begin, I guess

I suppose the fact that for years (in fact from the beginning of use of A/T's in M-B cars) that many, many models were designed to start off in second gear would lead you to believe that they were all designed with an inherent flaw that would lead to premature failure?

Don't you think the engineers considered such issues when the designed a system to include the switch as an optional setting? The first such I know of was a 1964 220Sb I owned - a four speed auto which started off in second by design. My '74 240D also was designed to start off in second. Second gear in these transmissions is not so high a ratio as to put a measureable amount of extra stress on the transmission, just as the 722.6XX is designed in the same way.

As Terry said, if using that setting was only supposed to be "temporary" it would default to S automatically or each time you restarted or warn you that you were in a "non-standard" mode like it does when you switch off traction control. I do know that some people prefer the "smoothness" which results from starting off in second - they find it easier to control the throttle and don't need or miss the extra power from using a lower gear. There is nothing in the owner's manual which advises against using W for prolonged time or using it only sparingly. I guess I give the engineers more credit than you do.

In fact, I would argue that the transmission itself sees less wear and tear driving in W since it eliminates one shift each time you start from a stop. It is the torque convertor which sees more wear starting off in second gear, not the transmission. And, since I have not heard of any great number of torque convertor failures in these cars, even with all of the performance mods done to them, I would also conclude that they are sufficiently over-designed to handle any excess wear and tear caused by starting off in second gear.

pawoSD · #40 05-16-2008, 07:25 AM

That makes no sense....the clutches in a transmission only slip when its shifting, not when taking off in 1st or 2nd. At most you could say that starting in second puts more strain on the torque converter....and thats it. The rest of the tranny could care less what gear its in. In fact, starting in 2nd might reduce trans wear because it does one less shift per cycle.

nhdoc · #41 05-16-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawoSD

That makes no sense....the clutches in a transmission only slip when its shifting, not when taking off in 1st or 2nd. At most you could say that starting in second puts more strain on the torque converter....and thats it. The rest of the tranny could care less what gear its in. In fact, starting in 2nd might reduce trans wear because it does one less shift per cycle.

Yeah, I was adding a comment to this very effect to my response just as you posted this! Great minds do think alike

nhdoc · #42 05-16-2008, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christyb

They offered me 15% off of parts and labor and a loaner car for the duration of the repair.

I was told that if I could find something in writing from Mercedes about the "filled for life" and the subsequent change to call them back.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,
Christy

The problem is I don't think they ever officially issued a TSB to tell dealers to service them. It is generally accepted now that not servicing them will shorten their lives so many informed owners do it as preventive maintenance.

The new service procedure is for the 722.9, 7 speed unit, not our 722.6, 5 speed one. So, basically, this is one of those issues where you are probably going to have to bite the bullet, swallow hard and pay for the replacement.

mbdoc · #43 05-16-2008, 08:19 AM

MB will never admit they made a mistake on the "life time fill" statement. But starting in 2004 they issued a bulletin stating that ALL MB transmissions need at least 1 "fluid change" at 39K miles.

The number of transmission failures(722.6) that CAN (could have) been avoided with a fluid change every 50K is most likely 50% or higher!

They also will never admit mistake in the bio-wiring problem on the 1992-96 cars.

nhdoc · #44 05-16-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.B.DOC

MB will never admit they made a mistake on the "life time fill" statement. But starting in 2004 they issued a bulletin stating that ALL MB transmissions need at least 1 "fluid change" at 39K miles.

The number of transmission failures(722.6) that CAN (could have) been avoided with a fluid change every 50K is most likely 50% or higher!

They also will never admit mistake in the bio-wiring problem on the 1992-96 cars.

I've never been able to find any bulletin though. None is posted on Alldatata or the startek sites...have you got a copy of it or bulletin number?? That's what Christy is looking for.

mbdoc · #45 05-16-2008, 08:29 AM

Service info # SI00.20-P-0022A dated 02/2005