Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 18 of 35

Thread: Transmission Code 17125

  1. #1
    Registered User ssassc1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Adelaide Australia
    Posts
    39

    Question Transmission Code 17125

    Well I have had this code now for over 12 months

    I have been waiting for the gearbox to fail or at least start to play up.

    So far nothing. Gearbox is performing well.

    So Guess Code 17125 isn't that bad after all? ie Gearbox death sentence?

    I contacted the ZF specialist here in Australia and their comments were along the lines of "if its not locking up. Don't worry about it, only down side is your using around 3% more fuel"

    I have had the transmission pan pulled and inspected and the oil is perfect and no metal bits.

    Am I just lucky?

    Cheers, John

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Evil Empire
    Posts
    466
    It's related to torque converter, not the internals of gearbox, so it's not a death sentence as such. If anything, a slipping TC should bring less stress to the rest of gearbox. It could go on like this for years if you drive conservatively.
    Downsides are: as noted, increased fuel consumption, and greatly reduced performance of the car. Plus, the TC will fail eventually and it won't be pretty.
    It's hard to say what to do, because if you replace just the TC, it may kill rest of your transmission mechanicals - if they are on their way out already, but manage to hold so far due to TC itself slipping. So, if you're okay with the performance and fuel consumption, just keep driving, but don't get too far away from home.
    And it's better to have some $$$ saved up for impending transmission overhaul.

  3. #3
    Registered User Bigglezworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cowtown, AB
    Posts
    2,232
    Quote Originally Posted by ssassc1 View Post
    Well I have had this code now for over 12 months

    I have been waiting for the gearbox to fail or at least start to play up.

    So far nothing. Gearbox is performing well.

    So Guess Code 17125 isn't that bad after all? ie Gearbox death sentence?

    I contacted the ZF specialist here in Australia and their comments were along the lines of "if its not locking up. Don't worry about it, only down side is your using around 3% more fuel"

    I have had the transmission pan pulled and inspected and the oil is perfect and no metal bits.

    Am I just lucky?

    Cheers, John
    I drove with a 17125 code for over 5 years. I didn't have drastic performance woes and experienced exactly what I do with my high power Buick that has a non-lock-up convertor - no lock-up at various times... I drove the snot out my car too. Like it was meant to be driven. I've posted it a few times on this forum that it's not a death sentance to throw a 17125 code. Just means the locking portion of the convertor that assists with direct drive through for improved gas mileage isn't working some times. TQ's ar hydraulic in design and 'slip' until their internal components provide fluid coupling to transfer the torque. As long as you have good fluid, your gearbox should be just fine.

    The gearbox on the same car I was throwing this error code on for years did finally crap the bed, but you would have to be a good salesman with detailed technical knowledge to convince me that it did so as a result of a convertor that didn't 'lock-up'. I will be tearing that box apart in the new year to see what the internals look like and will report back on my findings.
    '02 S6 Avant Silver - Pokey | Carbon Black/Ebony RS6 w/ stuff - darn quick | '03 Daytona Grey/Ebony RS6 w/ more stuff - quicker yet | '91 NSX CDN issue with 6spd & BBSC - quicker yet and then some | '87 Buick GNX OEM clone w/ lots of stuff - quickest hands down

  4. #4
    Registered User mik15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    For now in Abu Dhabi
    Posts
    709
    drove mine for about a year with the same error and honestly i had no idea that something was wrong with the TC if i hadn't read it here and then vagcom it and i am sure it was driven with this error for a long time as the previous owner had no idea either. However, once i knew there was a problem with it i became obsessed of it and starting noticing the delay in locking-up, so i had it replaced. In terms of power loss, i don't really think is noticeable, yeah, if you do a 1/4 mile then you would probably see the difference, otherwise not really, so i'd say the same thing, it is not a death sentence for the gearbox, driven in a sensible way could last a few more years, especially if you get the oil changed regularly.
    Ex.: 2004 Audi RS6 C5 ABT, Milltek non-resonated, 19" RS4 B7 rims, RNS-E - SOLD
    2004 AUdi RS6 C5, SE exhaust, RNS-E, 19' original rims - SOLD
    Now :2009 Audi RS6 C6 - stock yet pretty fast

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    7,780
    Knowing what we know at this point.

    If I ever encounter the 17125 in the future...this route is an option. If the rest of the trans is operating and shifts are holding....then run it till your ready to do a full rebuild. Then drive it up to Tozo. ;-)

    I would not opt to change the TC only. Ever again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigglezworth View Post
    I drove with a 17125 code for over 5 years. I didn't have drastic performance woes and experienced exactly what I do with my high power Buick that has a non-lock-up convertor - no lock-up at various times... I drove the snot out my car too. Like it was meant to be driven. I've posted it a few times on this forum that it's not a death sentance to throw a 17125 code. Just means the locking portion of the convertor that assists with direct drive through for improved gas mileage isn't working some times. TQ's ar hydraulic in design and 'slip' until their internal components provide fluid coupling to transfer the torque. As long as you have good fluid, your gearbox should be just fine.

    The gearbox on the same car I was throwing this error code on for years did finally crap the bed, but you would have to be a good salesman with detailed technical knowledge to convince me that it did so as a result of a convertor that didn't 'lock-up'. I will be tearing that box apart in the new year to see what the internals look like and will report back on my findings.

  6. #6
    Registered User ssassc1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Adelaide Australia
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by DHall1 View Post
    Knowing what we know at this point.

    If I ever encounter the 17125 in the future...this route is an option. If the rest of the trans is operating and shifts are holding....then run it till your ready to do a full rebuild. Then drive it up to Tozo. ;-)

    I would not opt to change the TC only. Ever again.
    Yes - Originally when the 17125 appeared on Vag Com, I was panicking a bit thinking I should pull gearbox and replace the TC. But then I thought.. well wait till gearbox fails and do both?

    Thing is, its not failing at all and car still drives great?

  7. #7
    Registered User lswing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR, again...
    Posts
    4,760
    Quote Originally Posted by ssassc1 View Post
    Yes - Originally when the 17125 appeared on Vag Com, I was panicking a bit thinking I should pull gearbox and replace the TC. But then I thought.. well wait till gearbox fails and do both?

    Thing is, its not failing at all and car still drives great?
    My car drove well with the code, really not too noticeable. If you are in 5th, Tip, 50mph, give it full gas and you'll see the rpms jump 500 or so before you move much.

    I should have replaced trans first time as it failed 6 months after new TC was put in...

    And my new trans failed 8 months after that, but either something failed or I just hammered on it too much...
    Ace/Edge TC - Tozo Trans - MTM TCU - REVO/ME7 tune - Wagner IC's w/ Venair Hoses - Aux Radiator delete - Hotchkis Sways - Hawk HPS Pads - Koni Sport Struts - Scroll KO4 Turbos - Devil's Own WM - 421whp/452wtq on Mustang Dyno - http://www.audirssix.com

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Central Oregon
    Posts
    6
    I just purchased mine a few months back and it has 89.5K miles. Looking at service records the car started throwing this code at around 45K. TC and trans are both original. Car drives fine with no slipping. Is going on 6 years like this. I am going to keep driving it this way and just replace both when the trans dies. I too was paranoide that this code meant you had a death sentence, but am now thinking it really is not.

  9. #9
    Registered User ttboost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,457
    Death knell? Probably not. But I think it depends on the condition of your car. If it is modded and making fairly decent power, I think the life expectancy is greatly reduced. I got the 17125 code very shortly after I bought my car (68k miles), and I flashed it about as week after I bought it. I then put a TC in it at about 72k, tranny died at 85k. Coincidence....I think not. If you have the code, and you are "stock", or have a "not too aggressive" flash, could very well last a long time. But don't be fooled into thinking it is not a problem.
    2013 Audi S8

  10. #10
    Registered User lswing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR, again...
    Posts
    4,760
    Quote Originally Posted by ttboost View Post
    Death knell? Probably not. But I think it depends on the condition of your car. If it is modded and making fairly decent power, I think the life expectancy is greatly reduced. I got the 17125 code very shortly after I bought my car (68k miles), and I flashed it about as week after I bought it. I then put a TC in it at about 72k, tranny died at 85k. Coincidence....I think not. If you have the code, and you are "stock", or have a "not too aggressive" flash, could very well last a long time. But don't be fooled into thinking it is not a problem.
    This is spot on...so much of it depends on tuned power and driving style...
    Ace/Edge TC - Tozo Trans - MTM TCU - REVO/ME7 tune - Wagner IC's w/ Venair Hoses - Aux Radiator delete - Hotchkis Sways - Hawk HPS Pads - Koni Sport Struts - Scroll KO4 Turbos - Devil's Own WM - 421whp/452wtq on Mustang Dyno - http://www.audirssix.com

  11. #11
    Registered User Bigglezworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cowtown, AB
    Posts
    2,232
    Quote Originally Posted by ttboost View Post
    Death knell? Probably not. But I think it depends on the condition of your car. If it is modded and making fairly decent power, I think the life expectancy is greatly reduced. I got the 17125 code very shortly after I bought my car (68k miles), and I flashed it about as week after I bought it. I then put a TC in it at about 72k, tranny died at 85k. Coincidence....I think not. If you have the code, and you are "stock", or have a "not too aggressive" flash, could very well last a long time. But don't be fooled into thinking it is not a problem.
    Sorry Mike, but I can't agree with this. I put over 50K on the tranny over the course of 6 years in my one RS6 after buying it and it threw the 17125 code sporadically throughout that timeframe. Car had street and track time on it and was driven the way it should be (i.e. - never babied). It was a stock tune for those keeping score. That slushbox failed a bit ago and I'm currently in the process of swapping it out.

    On the other side of the fence I have a high power turbo Buick that lays down upper triple digits in power and runs low 10's every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It has a small diameter high-stall Art Carr Non-Lock convertor that assists to launch at 4500rpm. I have yet to change it out for a lock-up style of convertor as I don't drag with it any longer and simply don't drive it enough to warrant the $ and time to switch out. As Bob is your Uncle, I am a firm believer that the fact it is a non-lock style of convertor (as were hundreds of thousands of convertors prior to the period when fuel economy became vogue), has no bearing on the longevity of the transmission running behind it. The longevity of the transmission is a result of the power being pushed through it - period. Improved clutches (quantity/quality) along with improved pump units, valving, etc., all go a long way to a transmission performing better under increased load. The ZF slush boxes that were put in the C5 were borderline and the archilies heal of the drivetrain (DRC aside). The power possibilities of the Cosworth built engines were limited so as to not overpower the poor quality tranny's that ran behind them. What we are experiencing as part of tranny failure is just that IMO.

    Torque convertors were designed to slip guys. It's called physics (more specifically fluid dynamics). They are designed these days to include a lock-up feature that accuates an internal clutch (similar to what you would see in a manual style of transmission) that overrides the fluid coupling assembly (pump, stator, and turbine) to now provide a mechanical coupling and lock input speed off the engine with the input speed of the tranny. Makes you feel like you hit another gear as our engine RPM's drop 5-10% and of course you get to put that little bit more power from your engine that was being loss in the fluid coupling effort to the asphalt. Used predominently to improve fuel mileage, their ability to lock input/output shaft speeds has been a huge consideration in drag racing. Has been lots of complications in that industry for years with the technology.

    Some light reading
    http://www.dragzine.com/tech-stories...p-drag-racing/
    Last edited by Bigglezworth; December 25th, 2013 at 16:50.
    '02 S6 Avant Silver - Pokey | Carbon Black/Ebony RS6 w/ stuff - darn quick | '03 Daytona Grey/Ebony RS6 w/ more stuff - quicker yet | '91 NSX CDN issue with 6spd & BBSC - quicker yet and then some | '87 Buick GNX OEM clone w/ lots of stuff - quickest hands down

  12. #12
    Registered User ttboost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,457
    Not a problem Tim..my post was based on MY experience, which I found to be consistant with others. It doesn't surprise me that there may be exceptions, you being one. It is VERY possible that a failing Audi TC has NO direct correlation with a failing Audi transmission (which seems to be what you are suggesting). I just happen to think it is more plausible that a very important driveline component failure can potentially cause another component to fail. These cars are smart, and they "learn" and tend to compensate for other shortcomings. Your example was on a stock car, so maybe a 17125 code on a 50k mile car is the limit? Whereas my 70k mile flashed car only lasted 15k miles, not 50k.
    2013 Audi S8

  13. #13
    Registered User G2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    695
    The other down side is more heat build up when the TQ slips. May not be critical, but if you're sporting 500 lb/ft....
    Cheers, G2/Gary
    C5-RS6/KWV3/Revo/H20 Inj./Custom BBK/Custom cooling/CNC arms \ VW Touareg V10 \ B7A4 2.0T Avant \ Mk1 Callaway Scirocco \ audirs6parts@gmail.com / www.oilpro.myamsoil.com

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    7,780
    Som bitch!

    When did you update the signature? The EC tune and in the 10s? Hot damn


    Quote Originally Posted by ttboost View Post
    Not a problem Tim..my post was based on MY experience, which I found to be consistant with others. It doesn't surprise me that there may be exceptions, you being one. It is VERY possible that a failing Audi TC has NO direct correlation with a failing Audi transmission (which seems to be what you are suggesting). I just happen to think it is more plausible that a very important driveline component failure can potentially cause another component to fail. These cars are smart, and they "learn" and tend to compensate for other shortcomings. Your example was on a stock car, so maybe a 17125 code on a 50k mile car is the limit? Whereas my 70k mile flashed car only lasted 15k miles, not 50k.

  15. #15
    Registered User ssassc1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Adelaide Australia
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by volksburgs View Post
    I just purchased mine a few months back and it has 89.5K miles. Looking at service records the car started throwing this code at around 45K. TC and trans are both original. Car drives fine with no slipping. Is going on 6 years like this. I am going to keep driving it this way and just replace both when the trans dies. I too was paranoide that this code meant you had a death sentence, but am now thinking it really is not.
    If I can get another 5 years out of my Gearbox. Will be VERY happy

    Thanks for the relies everyone!!

    I feel a bit more relaxed now

  16. #16
    Registered User ttboost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,457
    Quote Originally Posted by DHall1 View Post
    Som bitch!

    When did you update the signature? The EC tune and in the 10s? Hot damn
    Went to Atco beginning of November just to see what was up...first few times I had issues...especially tire issues...found some crap DR's and made another quick trip...it was Chevy day, so only got 2 passes...first pass spun a little bit, 2nd pass spun too, but no where near as bad...I'll do better in the Spring...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Atco - 11.25.jpg 
Views:	145 
Size:	21.4 KB 
ID:	14531Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Atco - 10.99.jpg 
Views:	135 
Size:	19.8 KB 
ID:	14532
    2013 Audi S8

  17. #17
    Registered User Bigglezworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cowtown, AB
    Posts
    2,232
    What the hell were you racing against that only trapped 50mph?? lol
    '02 S6 Avant Silver - Pokey | Carbon Black/Ebony RS6 w/ stuff - darn quick | '03 Daytona Grey/Ebony RS6 w/ more stuff - quicker yet | '91 NSX CDN issue with 6spd & BBSC - quicker yet and then some | '87 Buick GNX OEM clone w/ lots of stuff - quickest hands down

  18. #18
    Registered User kday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    398
    I thought the issue with the failure to lock was that it was due to an internal fluid leak which resulted in lower line pressure and therefor higher wear on the clutches.

    My car has had the 17125 code for about 3 years. Only in the last 6 months has there been any symptom other than the lack of lockup. Lately it's been a bit balky at tip in sometimes, and I'm getting the sense that the problem has spread to the gearbox proper. I've had a 6 speed kit waiting to go in for 2 years but I've been waiting for it to get bad. Soon, I guess...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •