Forever transmission fluid
 

Was it the sulphur in the transmision fluid of my 1999 ML320 that allowed Daimler to recommend against changing it ever? There are 211,000 miles on my truck and I decided to change the fluid before taking a long trip in order to examine it, the pan, the filter, and the magnet for debris suggestive of failure; luckily, there were none. What I did find was black fluid the consistency of molasses which stunk of sulphur and left a yellowish stain on my jeans. I think it was hypoid gear oil like what I used to put into differentials and boat gear cases. The expensive replacement fluid has the appearance of brake fluid without the sulphur. Apparently Daimler now recommends frequent fluid changes. Was Daimler forced to discontinue use of sulphur for environmental reasons or did they go to the lower viscosity for MPG considerations? I liked the idea of forever fluid and wonder what has changed. Daimler gets more money this way and I heard that when the new parts boss came in about 10 years ago, the first thing he did was double parts prices to corporate acclaim. They are a sinister, sulphurous bunch!

is your transmission a manual then it would be gear oil.If automatic the clutch have graphite in them and cause the black,nothing to worry.Tramission should fluid should be change every 40,000 miles.I use Mobil One ATF and change every 80,000 miles.

There is NO such Thing...
 

As "Forever" ATF.(Except in the mind of the Deceived Owner!)
Most Likely some Madison Avenue Type working for Montvale or Stuttgart
came up with THE RIDICULOUS claim as part of some sales Smutz.

MB has backpedaled away from that Bushwa claim as fast as they can,
and at the same time managed to try to appear as if they NEVER Said it.

TOO,TOO Many Trannys went KaBoom as a result of this Excrement!

Not sure how or why it would smell of sulfur. I've heard the special ATF is much like Dexron, though the additive package differs.

The black is normal. The clutches in the transmission include graphite, and the fluid picks it up over time as the clutches wear. Inky black is not a problem, though it does indicate the trans has not been serviced for many miles.

The filled-for-life thing was an MBUSA policy. The Rest-of-the-World always had a 40K-ish mile service interval for this transmission.

My 99 c280 with the m112 has the tranny dipstick /filler tube sealed. How were you able to add the fluid?

A lot of european manufacturers went to 'lifetime fluids' in the 90s so they could claim lower ownership costs over the life of the car. Its BS. My 94 Volvo had lifetime diff oil, ATF and coolant. Replaced all 3 more than once.

I would maintain that the transmissions went boom "just because". There is no way to prove whether a transmission would fail if the fluid were changed or not. Transmissions sometimes fail, through no fault of the fluid.

factory experiment
 

Sulphur has long been a additive for oil to be used in gears experiencing high pressure and sliding contact such as hypoid sets. Daimler doesn't do anything without cause. I wonder if high sulphur transmission fluid in conjunction with an instruction to purchasers to never change it may have been a factory experiment. I use my tranny fairly hard with gutted converters and extra intake air. Also, I go down through the gears at stoplights as on my motorcycle. I don't tow over the Pass as my last Tahoe went out at 120,000 miles despite the addition of a separate fluid cooler. This was good fluid for me. Factories do experiment like Harley did with OHC drive belts instead of chains (now the norm). If this were an experiment, there are other reasons besides non-functionality which could have caused its discontinuance: EG, reduced profits to dealers for service, the Euro eco-nannies or MPG. Just another one of life's mysteries. I'd prefer not to change every 40k.

I'll do a separate thread under "Change ML320 transmission fluid" as there is a lot of misinformation out there.

Mercedes gave upon the idea of lifetime trans fluid about 2004. You are very lucky the trans hasn't expired.

Before you do that you had better find out what the correct change interval is because it sure isn't 211,000 miles.

You could say the same about smoking and cancer...

Keep smoking (not changing the fluid) and sure you may never get cancer and something else in the body or another event caused death, but more times than not, it'll catch up to you and smoking was the cause.

I changed my girlfriends 2002 CLK320 trans fluid. Based on the sample analysis, a lot of metal content and most likely original fluid. I changed it at 104k and I think it was a very wise condition.

I have a friend with a 250k Honda Accord who says his transmission is slipping and his mechanic told him not to change it since its been too long without one. Is this just a Japanese thing? I would have thought a transmission is a transmission. Maybe the mechanic is just watching his ass just in case...

I would compare this to a transmission this way:

"Smoking" would be like doing peel outs or "dropping" the trans (rev up in neutral and then slam into drive), yeah that's abuse and will catch up to you, eventually trans will be in bits in the bottom of the pan or maybe even the road. Very different than not doing a trans fluid change when it's a lifetime fill.

I change both ofmy cars faithfully,and use sync atf.Instead of 30,000 miles.I can go 60,000 milesHeat destroys regular ATF.I figure 60,000

its got alot of dirt

On a 722.6 or an earlier non-sealed trans?

BMW's did it too as far as I remember.

I have seen situations where the fluid has never been changed and then at 180k+ miles gets changed and the transmission dies shortly thereafter.

With that said I have a friend that has a 90's diesel Chebby pickup and he changes fluid every year with a filter change every other year. The truck is currently showing over 350k miles on the original transmission.

When I bought my '84 190E, the transmission was slipping somewhat, so I decided to change the fluid and adjust the bands. The band adjustment helped, but the fluid change... We found that there was no filter in there, along with the dark red-brown fluid.

Changed it, and installed a filter, and I got almost 6 years out of it with everyday driving before problems started up again.

Bought another transmission, and changed its fluid and filter, and adjusted it bands, and did the piston replacement upgrade. It shifts great, and will change the fluid again in around 40K.

Your friend is overdoing it to his chebby, but I like the idea.

I've got an old 1985 Oldsmosteal Toronado that uses the 4 speed with overdrive transmission. I did 25-30k fluid and filter changes on it, and it ran fine and died suddenly at 116k. The rebuilder told me that most of these transmissions failed at 75-80k, so mine had a good run. It's running fine now.

And with THAT being said we had an owner where i worked who put tons of miles on his car, the proverbial "travelling salesman" (which is just what he was), and he had a 210 diesel with the 722.6 in it. He did all service "by the book", he would be in about every month to two months for a service. We never did do a trans service on it, and he dumped it at 300K to one of our service writers, who then put another 50K on it, so 350K w/o a service when he went to another dealership so i lost track of it.

So I would still stand by my claim that if you get "a good one" they will last a very long time without a fluid change. If you don't have a good one (specs are off or maybe just the way the car is driven?) then it is going to hatch on you whether you change the fluid or not.

I don't think there is anything to the claim that MB did this purposely to make it look like the maintenance costs are cheaper. If they think it needs to be done they will say so, IMHO.

Gilly

I figured they did it to sell low maintenance cars.

In regards to the 210 I've got a customer with a 99 E300 that is coming up on 280k miles on the original transmission. He typically just changes fluid/filter every 40k miles and the car drives and runs out great.

I sure do like those 210 turbodiesels.

I think this one was a 97 non-turbo with a 722.6, make sense?

When MBUSA introduced the service requirement for the 722.6, didn't they state the service was required to maintain shift quality, with no mention of any other reason? I used to have a copy of the technical supplement, but deleted it in a recent fit of virtual housekeeping.

This mirrors my experience with the old 2001 E320 wagon. I never serviced the trans because, well, it didn't call for any. About 75K miles in the shift quality got funny - just a little bit of a grab and lurch into 3rd and 4th, but nothing real bad. The car was under Starmark, so I had the dealer pull codes and adaptations from the trans, all of which looked fine. My service writer, bless her heart, refused to sell me a transmission service because the car wasn't on her list of vehicles that required it. After a couple of attempts to buy a trans service - seriously! - I gave up, ordered the parts, and did it myself. I really hate servicing transmissions at home. It's messy and the older I get, the harder the garage floor becomes (no lift). Anyways, the shift quality was instantly back to normal and remained so for the rest of my ownership.

MB has never "introduced" a service requirement for the 722.6 that I know of (I can recheck, last checked about a year ago).
If there is no leak the level should stay the same. That said MB does recommend having the trans filled to the max line. Not over filled, just at the max level line. This is for improved shift quality.
Gilly