Adaptation is indeed the correct word.

What I was referring to: https://www.weistec.com/media-events...9transmission/

Going through this process ("Forced Adaptation") dramatically improved shift quality after I installed the deeper pan.

My point was that I'm skeptical of the need for a TCU tune on a 722.9 and the roughness some people have historically complained about the MCT version of it is easily remedied.

Adaptations are only for changes in mechanical components like clutchpacks, valve bodys, frictions, steels, torque converters / mct units. Changing fluid / filters / transmission pan will have zero effect on adaptation values, unless your fluid is excessively burnt / well beyond service limits. Your car feels lazy because you drive it lazy. It learns to your style. go do a couple quick full throttle pulls and it will wake back up.

Fluid quality was fine and the transmission was serviced at ~35K miles, which is well within service limits.

The car never felt lazy and I can't say I "drive it lazy" either.

What I directly experienced:

-Post-install of the deeper pan and service, shifts were harsher than before. Not slower, not delayed...just nowhere near as smooth as they were beforehand.

-If the extra capacity isn't what caused the change in shift behavior, than maybe the use of a different filter (superseded part w/ more filtering layers) did.

-I spoke with Weistec at the time and they recommended clearing adaptations and following the process of manually setting new ones. After performing this, all was well again and has been in the 2+ years since.

The idea that a deeper pan and super duper filter altered the performance that drastically. strains credulity in most realms of performance vehicles and experience.

All cars will perform better with new filters and fluids from an entropic standpoint but I believe the purpose of the pan was to lower operating temps through the design IIRC, not to aid in shifting.

Odds are, clearing your "Browser history" on your transmission and giving it a chance to learn how you drive the car vs n/N of the life of its shifting function is probably what changed it, if it changed it.

Whether you had the car forever or someone else did, how you drive it over time will change because you are not a robot etc.

I don't think anyone believes you're intentionally misleading but anecdotally its more conjecture than evidence and some people have being trying to work this particular problem out for awhile so a bigger pan and filter would leave a lot to be desired amongst the engineering world if that was the fulcrum of the issue of the shifting in these cars...

Let's try to dial a few things in.

Some actually require a clearing of adaptations post-service because the transmission adapts to changes in fluid quality over time and will perform worse with just the service. Certain Aisin transmissions, for instance, call this out in the factory service procedure.

While this is not the case for the 722.9 transmission, my point is that it is not a foreign concept in automatic transmissions, either.

The purpose of the Weistec pan is indeed to help with cooling, both through the extra fluid capacity and ability to route in an external cooler. I never claimed the pan aids in shifting so I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

This theory doesn't account for a few things:
.

1. Prior to the service, there was no issue with the smoothness of shifts and the TCU had ~5K miles of data / adaptation to my driving style by the time I first serviced it.
2. The issue was noticed immediately after the service, as in the road test after completing it.
3. I didn't resolve the issue by clearing things and giving the car a chance to re-learn how I drive. I resolved it after performing the Forced Adaptation process via MB STAR.

The deeper pan and updated filter are two variables that deviate from a normal 722.9 service, so I included them into the discussion.

I'm not confirming either as the root cause, but because they are delta variables to the factory procedure, I didn't automatically rule them out either.

Most things shared in a forum are anecdotal. The very purpose of one is to aggregate individual experiences and opinions, all to be taken with a grain of salt.

To your latter comment, however, there has been a major fluid change and multiple filter revisions from the factory over the course of the MCT's lifecycle and to dismiss those factory-originated changes would be silly. Happy to share some technical documents on the 722.9 going into more detail if you'd like.

I'm just going to leave this quote here and you can chew on it and determine the taste of how someone would clearly think you were alluding to the pan and filter increasing the operational efficiency from a non-thermodynamic standpoint.

If you're still curious why someone would think you're insinuating something then I can't help you.

"Fulcrum of the issue."

Those engineers are paid to advance the product itself, not a specific issue. The idea that they worked on another aspect of the transmission while not being able to solve this one is tantamount to how engineers are fit into a business model.

AMG could pay their engineers to solve a plethora of issues, at the cost of the advancement of everything else.

So anecdotally, the changes made to the filtration and reservoir of the fluid are more superfluous than anything for the structure of the issue itself.

This is pure conjecture. If you actually have information on the reasoning for these changes and whether or not there is an impact, I am genuinely interested to learn about it.

Otherwise, there is little weight to an anonymous opinion based solely upon the generalities of engineers.

The condescending nature of your posts is amusing.

I'll leave it at that. Cheers.