Tranmission Oil - Anyone?

[Linas.P]

I guess that depends on your luck, certainly there is chance for it to be broken... although usually they are supplied with some sort of warranty.

As well, I don't mean to say £300 isn't normal. That is actually what I would expect from reputable show which does the job properly. But then doing it every 50k miles... somehow hard to justify the expense.

Again just as example - my old IS250 covered 193k miles without fluid change. Thrown solenoid error, fluid was replaced and error is now gone. Compared that to your schedule - if I would have done fluid change every 50k miles for £300, that would have been £1200 just for fluid change. 

For some comparison that is half of the value of the car and price for gearbox to be replaced not once, but twice... how do you justify this cost? 

[m4rkw]

I would hazard a guess that the quoted £150 did not include a filter replacement. Some cars don't have a replaceable filter assembly but a 2007 IS? I'd be surprised if it wasn't replaceable. 

[Linas.P]

As I said above, I don't think £300 quote is wrong, what I am saying - doing it every 50k miles makes no economical sense, even if not doing it would require gearbox replacement at 200k... that would still be cheaper.

5 minutes ago, m4rkw said:

Things done properly cost money. A transmission fluid change is not something you want to scrimp on imho.

The labour was only 1h 15min, the rest of the cost was parts and fluid, the strainer assembly alone is £92.98.

The complete kit costs ~ £90-£140 depending on where you get it from. Filter certainly doesn't cost £92. Here is the full Aisin OEM kit £129 - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/toyota-a960e-automatic-gearbox-oil-5L-aisin-type-iv-fluid-filter-gasket/264387179867

1 minute ago, m4rkw said:

I would hazard a guess that the quoted £150 did not include a filter replacement. Some cars don't have a replaceable filter assembly but a 2007 IS? I'd be surprised if it wasn't replaceable. 

No - it was already discussed, £150 at Lexus buys you 1L "refresh refill", that is all you get. 

[Malc]

6 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

£150 at Lexus buys you 1L "refresh refill", that is all you get. 

but that does give you a discounted  hourly rate for the job ......  if it's booked for a whole hour that is !

Malc

[m4rkw]

6 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

For some comparison that is half of the value of the car and price for gearbox to be replaced not once, but twice... how do you justify this cost? 

I do about 10k miles/year, so £300 every 50k is about £5/month, hardly breaking the bank. I got the car with 77k on it and the transmission fluid was the very first thing I did. I did the second change again last year after only 20k for a couple of reasons: 1) i was working from home a lot, and my job doesn't normally allow wfh so it was much easier to get it to a trusted independent, 2) a drain and refill doesn't get all of the fluid out and I was conscious that it was changed later than ideal the first time.

Also I'm very very skeptical that you can get a reliable transmission replacement for £400. Maybe you can buy a unit for that, a quick look on eBay reveals two U241E units (the one for my car). One is £300 or best offer from Estonia, with a 3-month warranty. The other is about £1000 from germany with a 12-month warranty. Those prices are obviously without installation which I suspect is a fair bit of labour. The large price differential tends to point towards likely reliability.

So lets say I were to scrimp on fluid changes and destroy my transmission, and then buy the cheap unit from estonia. What do we think the labour is to install a transmission, 5 hours or so?  So £300 unit, best part of £500 for installation, £800. The unit fails a month after installation. Labour is not going to be refundable for a garage that installed a 3rd party transmission, so that's dead money, and then what are you going to do about the unit? Sure it has a warranty, but that's for the unit only. You'll need to pay another heavy labour charge to have it removed from the car and then the cost of sending it back to Estonia is likely most of the initial purchase price.

So as well as a huge chunk of money down the drain you've also got the inconvenience of an unreliable car leaving you stranded at the side of the road waiting for the RAC. I often take long road trips during the summer, I want to be as sure as I can be that my car isn't going to break.

To be honest I think the price quoted for the unit from germany is cheap as well, but with a one-year warranty maybe it's going to be somewhat more reliable. However that unit is still £1000, plus ballpark £500 for installation, £1500. If I was going to skip fluid changes and just buy a transmission when it fails, at £5/month saving my current unit would need to last 25 years.

It just doesn't make sense to do this.

[m4rkw]

Also, re: your point about your transmission that nearly made it to 200k without a fluid change - everyone can point at one person who smoked 40 a day for their entire life and lived to 92. I'd rather base my decisions on what happens in the aggregate though.

[Linas.P]

As I said - no issues without fluid change until 193k, no issues after the change... oil pan was clean as well, no metal... back some dust which is normal. 

Alternative £1200 for fluid change alone... even if car would have required replacement transmission it could be easily done under £1200. What you comparing with is literally worst case scenario.

1 minute ago, m4rkw said:

Also, re: your point about your transmission that nearly made it to 200k without a fluid change - everyone can point at one person who smoked 40 a day for their entire life and lived to 92. I'd rather base my decisions on what happens in the aggregate though.

Fine... please point me out to IS250 with failed transmission. How often that happens and at what mileage? 

[m4rkw]

Just now, Linas.P said:

As I said - no issues without fluid change until 193k, no issues after the change... oil pan was clean as well, no metal... back some dust which is normal. 

Alternative £1200 for fluid change alone... even if car would have required replacement transmission it could be easily done under £1200. What you comparing with is literally worst case scenario.

You got lucky. Just like someone who smoked a load of cigarettes all their life and lived to their 90s, it happens. Doesn't mean it's statistically likely though.

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, m4rkw said:

You got lucky. Just like someone who smoked a load of cigarettes all their life and lived to their 90s, it happens. Doesn't mean it's statistically likely though.

Fine... please show me what is statistically likely. 

And I don't mean it in demeaning way - if you have statistics which shows that 50k fluid change is necessary and prevents failure maybe at 100k, then this information would be of massive value to the community.

BUT... I am not aware of such static. I can at least point you out to the car I know covered 193k miles without issues... and there are now loads used IS250 with well over 100k miles... where rest assured no fluid change was done.

And that does not mean they are fine... they may be lazy to shift gears, or have hard shifts or whatever... and that would warrant the fluid change or at least refresh. BUT again - failures of this gearbox are not common and not well known.

[nicnac]

4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

if you have statistics which shows that 50k fluid change is necessary and prevents failure maybe at 100k, then this information would be of massive value to the community.

Cause I say so ........... Linas ..................... Is that not enough?😁😎

[m4rkw]

2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Fine... please show me what is statistically likely. 

I'm not aware of any hard data available on this, I only have other people's opinions to go on. However I've yet to meet a trusted technician who would advise not changing the fluid, consensus seems to be that somewhere above 100k they will start to show problems if not maintained. Garage owners who see loads and loads of cars and transmission failures all seem to say the same thing, change the fluid. A cynical person might say "well of course they do, that's how they make money" but I've also had the same people turn down work they could have easily taken because they are honest people. I also suspect that £1200 is highly optimistic for a high quality replacement transmission. Maybe you could get the job done for that but I doubt you'll get another 200k out of the replacement unit.

When I had my fluid changed at 77k Russell showed me the jar of fluid he'd drained out of it, it was dark brown and obviously depleted.

At the end of the day it's a balance of risk, if you're happy to take the risk then good luck to you, I like to drive with the confidence that I'm going to get where I'm going.

[Linas.P]

8 minutes ago, nicnac said:

Cause I say so ........... Linas ..................... Is that not enough?😁😎

No... it is your opinion... no matter how correct or reliable (and I mean it), it is just an opinion.

And by the way - I agree with you both! In ideal world where money is no object, or where IS250 is worth £30k I definitely don't see how fluid change could hurt.

But it's not ideal world, the car is barely worth few £ nowadays and doing fluid change very 50k is neither warranted, nor economically viable. 

5 minutes ago, m4rkw said:

When I had my fluid changed at 77k Russell showed me the jar of fluid he'd drained out of it, it was dark brown and obviously depleted.

 The fluid was dark brown after 193k miles as well ... and it would be dark brown after 23k miles. Probably not as dark, but certainly not pink/red fluid you put in. 

Besides my solenoid issue started after my second "eurotrip"... that is blasting through Europe at constant max speed for hours at the time.

Now apparently, if you drive at more than 80% of max speed, then fluid service schedule is no longer "life-time". But most of British cars never seen even 90MPH, never mind cruising at 130MPH for 3-4 hours straight.

[nicnac]

1 minute ago, Linas.P said:

No... it is your opinion... no matter how correct or reliable, it is just an opinion.

And by the way - I agree with you both! In ideal world where money is no object, or where IS250 is worth £30k I definitely don't see how fluid change could hurt.

But it's not ideal world, the car is barely worth few £ nowadays and doing fluid change very 50k is neither warranted, nor economically viable.  

Jeeeeeeeeeez ! Lighten up........I was joking !🥰

[m4rkw]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

But it's not ideal world, the car is barely worth few £ nowadays and doing fluid change very 50k is neither warranted, nor economically viable. 

Cars in a working state, particularly ones with a known history and where you've made sure they are serviced correctly, are often worth a lot more to their owner than their market resale value. Rather than just looking at what the car is worth on paper you should look at what it would cost to replace it, and take into consideration the array of unknowns that a new used car brings with it.

Also "lifetime" from the mouth of a manufacturer means expected service life. For most cars these days that's around 100k. "sealed for life" means exactly what it says, because when the fluid's all burnt up it's done.

[m4rkw]

Case in point: I suspect that a good quality replacement transmission for my car, with installation, would be more in the ballpark of £3k. The car is maybe worth £2500 ish, it's hard to know really because there are so few harriers around so nothing on the market to compare it with, but this is my approximate suspicion. If the transmission failed tomorrow I wouldn't hesitate to replace it, because I know the rest of the car has been well looked after and I can easily expect to get another 100k out of it without another major problem. Spending £3k on a new used car would be a much greater risk in terms of unknowns and potential problems, and I doubt I'd get something as nice as my car.

[m4rkw]

Lets also not forget our poor friend Stuart whose LS is now stuck in the south of france because something failed unexpectedly. Admittedly his problem wasn't a neglect of servicing but more neglect on the part of whoever did his MOT, but I take my family to rural Brittany most years and if the transmission went out over there I imagine it would be a total nightmare.

[Linas.P]

18 minutes ago, m4rkw said:

Cars in a working state, particularly ones with a known history and where you've made sure they are serviced correctly, are often worth a lot more to their owner than their market resale value. Rather than just looking at what the car is worth on paper you should look at what it would cost to replace it, and take into consideration the array of unknowns that a new used car brings with it.

Also "lifetime" from the mouth of a manufacturer means expected service life. For most cars these days that's around 100k. "sealed for life" means exactly what it says, because when the fluid's all burnt up it's done.

I have said that myself, in this thread. 

Regarding car value - yes if you planning to drive same car forever that is valid point. I don't... despite IS250 being excellent car which I really struggled to replace (and still prefer over my RC), but I recognise that it is getting old now... And once car value drops below the cost of maintenance that is when I stop caring. Or rather when increase in resale value is lower than the cost of carrying out maintenance. 

On my car that was the point when it was written-off, but arguable even before that I was spending way to much on service then the car was worth. And that is another good point - by the time you reach 200k miles it is probably more likely for the car to be written of in an accident than gearbox failing.

Everyone will draw the line where they want the line to be, I know that IS250 auto is reliable and dependable car and gearbox not going to suddenly fail on you. As such I am happy to look past the mileage and only replace it when it shows the signs in needs it - early, late, harsh shifting or error codes. That is what I would do if I own one and that is what I recommend for everyone else.

Besides biggest Lexus value is reliability, dependability and ability to do mega miles with minimal maintenance. Not to use this to the limit = not taking main advantage of brand. And I do not suggest to go silly, but Auto gearboxes are know to survive just fine well past 100k... although even I suggest fluid change ~100k or if there is reason for it.

[nicnac]

I just like having my machinery in tip top condition 🤭

[Linas.P]

I like it too... I just realise there is point at which you have diminishing returns. Some machinery is keeps it's value as long as it is maintained... cars don't. You can have car in perfect order, it still depreciates... and at some point it is inevitable that strict "tip-top" order maintenance is going to cost you more than it is worth. 

[m4rkw]

2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I like it too... I just realise there is point at which you have diminishing returns. Some machinery is keeps it's value as long as it is maintained... cars don't. You can have car in perfect order, it still depreciates... and at some point it is inevitable that strict "tip-top" order maintenance is going to cost you more than it is worth. 

This is a given, but again value on paper is meaningless to most people with older cars. The value of my car is that I can get into it and drive somewhere. The value of that has not diminished at all during the time I've owned it and the averaged out monthly cost of keeping it in good condition is well worth it for that benefit.

[nicnac]

I have my S2000 , & SC430 as toys . regardless of cost .............. I have my CRV ........ as transport . My other half has CX3 ............ to go out and earn money to keep me in cars !🤣

[Linas.P]

5 minutes ago, m4rkw said:

This is a given, but again value on paper is meaningless to most people with older cars. The value of my car is that I can get into it and drive somewhere. The value of that has not diminished at all during the time I've owned it and the averaged out monthly cost of keeping it in good condition is well worth it for that benefit.

Clearly we have different perspective on car ownership... and that is fine.

[m4rkw]

4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Clearly we have different perspective on car ownership... and that is fine.

I am curious though, if maintenance costs exceed the on-paper value of the car do you just discard it and buy a new one or keep it going? What metrics do you use to make such a decision one way or the other? 

[ColinBarber]

1 hour ago, m4rkw said:

Case in point: I suspect that a good quality replacement transmission for my car, with installation, would be more in the ballpark of £3k. The car is maybe worth £2500 ish, it's hard to know really because there are so few harriers around so nothing on the market to compare it with, but this is my approximate suspicion. If the transmission failed tomorrow I wouldn't hesitate to replace it, because I know the rest of the car has been well looked after and I can easily expect to get another 100k out of it without another major problem. Spending £3k on a new used car would be a much greater risk in terms of unknowns and potential problems, and I doubt I'd get something as nice as my car.

I don't see the point in spending above the vehicle's market value on a repair. Yes the vehicle could go another 100k miles without an issue, but it could equally be written off the next day, through no fault of your own, and you receive somewhere from £2000 to £2400 as settlement from your insurance.

Obviously spending £300 every 5 years to avoid a £3k transmission bill is the sensible option, although a transmission failure can occur for various reasons, not just due to the fluid condition.

[Linas.P]

I think it is little bit more nuanced than that... Not even sure I can explain that without writing 3 page long essay. Many things comes to it, my age, my work, my needs, car value, car age, the type of car it is etc. Generally, I am not planning to keep cars for longer than 3 years. My last IS250 was little bit of exception as I owned it for 5.5years (and it was my third one!).

I would just say that on-paper value of the car is the value of the car, what it worth to you doesn't matter. If it is written of insurance won't care how much you love it, they simply pay what is worth. Whenever it is worth maintaining depends on many aspects again - whenever that increase the car value (some cars will cost the same regardless if maintained or not), whenever that increases the car utility to you (maybe car is not worth it, but £500 towards maintained means you get extra year of use... and you not in position to get another car yet) etc.

The consideration on maintenance is more of a thing for the cars between 10 and 30 years old. Less than 10 usually worth maintaining, over 30 already classic, so again worth maintaining.

Just to say - recently that is no longer my concern as the cars I own and the time period I own them for kind of means that I never need to do any maintenance bar warranty work and annual service... and they are worth enough that any maintenance would be easy to justify anyway.