|
Gary
It just seems to make economic sense to me that an engine with more oil capacity should be able to go longer between changes. Maybe there is some flaw in my thinking, I am at least trying to look at it logically and it seems to make sense, and I have had good luck doing it this way. I certainly can't see the sense in what was once reasonable and prudent, ie 2500-3000 mile oil changes, even non-synthetic oil is much better than even 10 or 15 years ago.
My thought on the transmission: Always has been "hands off" on the 722.6 transmission. MB doesn't call for a change. You can read lots of posts here about 722.6 transmission failures. And they DO fail sometimes, the earlier the transmission the more prone to failure. The design has evolved quite a bit, and it's MY opinion that if the transmission is going to fail it will be a design fault and NOT caused by failure to change the oil. There are lots of threads here about the 722.6 transmission, so you can research it if you'd like.
Gilly
|