i could see the old ATF was brown but since the container was black, it was hard to tell it was dark brown or light brown. The tech said there was a light burnt smell but I could not smell it. I forgot to break open the filter to check.

I drove for about 25 km after and the transmission did feel better. My transmission was smooth before the change and it feels even smoother now. To go from P to D used to create a thud noise and it”s now significantly less. When I was driving, I used the shifter to change gears manually (5-4, 4-3, 4-5, etc) and they all went great. When I shifted from 4-5 and 5-4 manually, I saw the RPM change but I could hardly feel anything. Now I am not sure about the 2nd flush anymore. The car feels so good that maybe I should not mess with it. What do you think?

As for the motor oil, is the oil level in dyno mode accurate? Should it be measured hot or cold? It used to read 7.9L at startip in dyno mode and now it reads 7.0L. Is this too low, should I put in 0.5 L ?

 

Regarding engine oil give it a slight top up. You are in the safe area right now but with a little more oil you stress the oil charge less over the drain period.

Regarding your tranny. I expect it to be smoother now & you say it is. Having neglected it for so long I would do another 4 litre oil change (only) when it suits you. The more new fluid the better the lubrication.

 

I added 0.25 L of motor oil this evening and I will check tomorrow in dyno mode. Altogether I added 7.75 L of new oil. I think I should be OK.

I think the oil level measurement in dyno mode is finacky. I went outside my office every 1-2 hours today to check and I would get different readings.

Yes, definitely the tranny is better after the pan flush. I will probably get diminishing return in the 2nd flush if done too soon. Maybe I should do it in 5-10 k km.

 

I checked this morning in Dyno mode, after the car sat in my garage overnight. The oil level was 6.9L at startup.

This is strange because I checked it yesterday monring and it read 7.0L. Now I added another 0.25L, the level went down slightly?

How can this be? I did put in altogether 7.75L. I deliberately parked on a clean parking space last night and I did not see any oil stain on the floor this morning.

 

My opinion is Mercedes is not an oil refinery,they dont refine or manufacture their fluid. Their fluid is made for mercedes by a 3rd party. They make a $2.oo Qt. of fluid, and put the benz logo sticker on the bottle, and sell at dealership for $25 a QT ripping off there customers !! That why we call them stealership !! Again dont get me wrong if anyone is comfortable using factory fluids go ahead and I respect everyone opinion here in this mb forum, all I know is that Valvoline max life tranny fluid is compliant fluid at a lower price. There are many mb world and other forums member that have used max life fluid on there 722.6 tranny with no problem including myself.


here is a factory specification sheet and max life is now appoved for 722.6
link: http://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/bevoli...nt_action=show

http://www.automotive.artversa.com/A...AOHML/1216.pdf


VALVOLINE ATF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. For Mercedes Benz; 1995-2006: all 5 speed transmissions (with or without controlled torque converter lockup clutch)
SLF/Fluid Specification; Shell ATF 3403-4 115, MB 236.10
VALVOLINE ATF RECOMMENDATIONS; MaxLife ATF

236.8 Automatic transmission fluids (ATF, Specification 236.8)

Application in vehicles/major assemblies refer to
Sheet 231.1 (passenger cars, cross-country vehicles)
Sheet 231.2 (commercial vehicles)

Select Sheet
Overview
Last update: 02/06/2012
PRODUCTNAME PRINCIPAL
Addinol ATF D II E Addinol Lube Oil GmbH, Leuna/Deutschland
Agip ATF II E-(25367) ENI S.p.A. - Refining & Marketing Division, ROM/ITALY
ARAL Getriebeol ATF E-S Aral Aktiengesellschaft, Hamburg/Deutschland
Fuchs Titan ATF 5000 SL Fuchs Petrolub AG, Mannheim/Deutschland
mabanol Radon Gear ATF S Mabanol GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg/Deutschland
megol ATF II E Synth Meguin GmbH & Co. KG Mineraloelwerke, Saarlouis/Deutschland
Mobil ATF SHC Exxon Mobil Corporation, FAIRFAX, Virginia/USA
MOL ATF Synt MOL-LUB Ltd., ALMÀSFÜZITÖ/HUNGARY
Motorex ATF IIE Synthetic Bucher AG Langenthal, LANGENTHAL/Schweiz
OMV ATF-S OMV Refining & Marketing GmbH, VIENNA/Österreich
Panolin ATF Synth PANOLIN AG, MADETSWIL/Schweiz
Q8 Auto 14 Synthetic Kuwait Petroleum, ROZENBURG/THE NETHERLANDS
RAVENOL Dexron II E Ravensberger Schmierstoffvertrieb GmbH, Werther/Deutschland
SRS Wiolin ATF Dexron S SRS Schmierstoff Vertrieb GmbH, Salzbergen/Deutschland
------------>SynPower ATF The Valvoline Company, LEXINGTON, KY/USA < ------------------------

 

236.8 is no longer specified for 722.6 and never was for 722.9 transmissions - it is a very old spec. 236.14 is the only quality level specified for these transmissions to maximise life. Please read the rest of this thread. No one is saying you should use Benz "genuine" label fluid. All we are saying is you must use a 236.14 approved fluid.

We are not going to continue this argument. We are going to give people the best possible advice. Then they can make an informed choice.

BTW - Valvoline SynPower ATF is not Valvoline Maxlife.

Valvoline Maxlife is not approved and you should be asking yourself the question as to why Valvoline used to have approved products for these transmissions but no longer has as the specification has become more stringent.

Part of the Benz approval regime is that you have to use the exact nomenclature on the approval listing, globally on your packaging. Benz is used to all the tricks in the oil industry such as "meets the requirements of", "is suitable for" etc. etc. You have to state on the packaging that the product is "Approved" against 236.14 etc. Benz does checks periodically of approved products around the world. If the oil company violates the rules their product will be delisted & they will battle to ever achieve an approval again.

 

Ever feel like you’re pissing into the wind against the naysayers?

The local McParts is again advertising its “four new tires installed for $99!” special. Mighty tempting.

 

Indeed! And they always provide erroneous information as backup!

 

As a reminder:





The Shell product is available from Ryder Fleet Products at just over $5 per quart.

Many Benz dealers in the US now carry the Mobil approved fluid & charge $7 a quart for it.

Fuchs Titan 4134 is usually about $10 per quart with frequent coupons that give you a decent discount on it.

 

Just a reminder to all. Valvoline has now done the correct & wise thing & produced a product meeting & approved against 236.14.



https://mbworld.org/forums/clk-class...?highlight=ATF

 

Too bad I could not find compatible ATF in Toronto. Also, all the online stores I called would not ship to Canada.
MB dealership here are charging $25 per liter here.

 

We carry OEM MB ATF fluids and it is much than 25$ per liter...

Igor.

 

Next up for my car is transmission service and I just read through this extremely long and interesting thread ...

Glyn, is there an updated 236.14 spec sheet showing Valvoline on the list? If not, can you confirm that it is Valvoline SynPower ATF 134?

Glyn, do you have any insights on relative quality of the 236.14 approved fluids? You mentioned somewhere in one of these posts that MB (or their chosen OEMs) tend to use top-grade components in their fluids, therefore the higher price. Does this imply that, for example, Shell ATF134 may do just enough to make the approval list, whereas the expensive brands may do far more?

I should also mention that Shell ATF 134 does not appear to be available anymore on the Ryder Fleet web site. Any updates on where to find 236.14 fluids in the US at a reasonable cost would be much appreciated ...

Thanks. John

 

The above is the latest list & Valvoline now has a listing for the correct product. There is only one approved additive system so all 236.14 approved products are equivalent & fungible.

The stock of Shell fluid at Ryder seems to have run out. Fuchs Titan 4134 is usually reasonably priced.

 

Thanks. And, regarding the rather lengthy 236.10 vs 236.14 debate on this thread, which of the two statements would you say is more correct:

a) 236.10, although an older spec, is still suitable for the 722.6 transmission, however it will not provide the same level of protection and longevity for the transmission as the new 236.14 spec oils will

... or ..

b) Somewhere along the line, MB discovered/determined that 236.10 spec oils may actually damage or reduce the life of a 722.6 transmission and therefore should not be used under any circumstances

? (understanding of course that MB will warranty only 236.14 fluids ... however I assume many of the cases here will be out of warranty).

Since the bulletin only says "from now on use only 236.14 spec oils" and does not give a reason, us engineers would prefer a concrete answer as to why (instead of trying to guess why).

Fyi, I still intend to put 236.14 in my transmission, but just thinking for those folks who live in places where 236.14 oil is not available or is cost-prohibitive versus an available 236.10 oil.

Thanks. John

 

In my case, I cannot find these 236.14 or MB-approved ATF locally (Toronto) other than the dealership. The dealership here charges $25.60 CAN per liter.

The online stores I contacted didn't ship to Canada.

 

This statement is accurate:

"a) 236.10, although an older spec, is still suitable for the 722.6 transmission, however it will not provide the same level of protection and longevity for the transmission as the new 236.14 spec oils will"

It will also degrade more quickly in service.

 

Based on your last statement, would it make sense to recommend to someone that, if they were stuck with 236.10, then reducing the transmission service intervals would help them to maximize transmission life? If so, how short an interval before you get to the point of diminishing returns? And how far (qualitatively) are they still away from a 236.14 transmission life?

Thanks. John

 

You need to understand that materials meeting 236.10 are dying products. They will not be available for much longer.

Your logic of reducing drain interval is sound but I've seen 722.6 transmissions do 1 million Km's at 60K Km's or 39K mile drain & filter change intervals on cars that do no towing. I would say the 39K mile/ 60K kilometres drain is still appropriate.

As the relationship of wear to mileage on a fluid is not linear I would be guessing. If I was regularly towing the vehicle's permissible weight I would halve the drain interval.

If stuck with 236.10 fluids I might reduce service to 50K Km's in hard driving conditions.

The new 236.15 fluid is designed for 120K Km changes (not reverse compatible & only for new 722.9 Plus transmission). We have yet to see how this works out in reality as the 722.9 Plus transmission population ages.

 

I guess what I'm looking for is the "risk" you take from using 236.10, on reducing the lifespan of your transmission. If you either want to save a couple hundred bucks every few years when you change the fluid, or simply cannot get the new fluid yet, are you severely shortening the life of your transmission?

If you did fluid wear testing in the labs and were able to compare old vs new fluids -- I would assume conducted some sort of accelerated wear testing -- can you say whether the difference was nominal (e.g. 20-30% range) or significant (50-100% or more)?

If you were to tell me that using the old fluid would lop off 20-30% from a 1 million Km lifespan, I might not care. But if there is a chance I can be cutting it down to 300k or less, during the time in which I plan to own the car, its a much more real issue.

I hope you understand why I keep prodding on this ... based on your background you are potentially in a position to provide "educated guesses" or "engineering estimates", to give people a better sense of the ramifications of their decisions. Fluids especially seem to be a very touchy area of vehicles ... brake, PS, engine, trans and diff. I'm also going through this with a 1996 Honda Accord I bought for my son -- their 4 speed AT is very touchy and given the wrong fluid can break almost immediately.

Thanks. John

 

OK - Please understand that this is an educated guess from having seen hundreds of used fluid samples & working with Benz on fluid development & testing.

I have no problem with you questioning me. I am commenting on the 722.6 transmission only. The 722.9 stresses it's fluid to a far greater degree.

On a properly serviced vehicle (every 60K Km full drain & filter) the difference would probably be about 30% in 500,000 Km's old vs. new spec fluid.

One thing I must stress is the non linearity due to the nature of wear & oxidation & degradation of a fluid. e.g. oxidation catalyses further oxidation until you get a run-away situation where the fluid polymerises. Equally you can't put wear material back onto clutch facings, bearings & gears. e.g as the case hardening thins so wear increases at an accelerated rate.

How you look after a transmission in it's early life from a lubrication perspective will have a large effect on accelerating wear in it's later life. Same goes for engines etc.

If you service at recommended interval from day one the 722.6 is a robust transmission that will go a long long way. If you neglect it over it's first 120,000Km's you will shorten it's potential life substantially. Use of the 236.14 fluid will mitigate this to a degree but only to a degree once the damage is done.

 

Another thread suggested calling Shell Oil to find a local Shell Oil distributor ... I did that yesterday, found one within 20 mile radius, and bought a case of Shell ATF 134 for $64.

It had probably been sitting in the warehouse for a while, and 4 of the 12 bottles showed signs of prior seepage due to poor packaging during shipping (seems to be common per other reports) ... but it was available.

 

Thanks for the Info. This will help others. I think that stock moves very slowly.

 

Good for you.

Does anyone know where to get this Shell oil in Toronto? In Canada?

 

Fyi, if it helps, Pennzoil ATF134 and Shell ATF 134 are supposed to be the same fluid, relabeled. So look for either one.