Tansmission / torque converted imploded 500 mi.s after fluid change

[CBeau]

My car is early VIN (don't have handy now but I know "early" as per threads here), just turned 94k mi.s. I don't believe trans or TC had ever been changed but not certain on that, nor am I certain on trans fluid service intervals. I have some records but mostly on DRC recall replacement, I need get whatever Audi has. I bought from orig. owner who I know and know maintained it well but some with indy and I just don't think he has the records (he has lots cars doesn't keep track of all so well).

I've had car about three years all stock and only driven occasionally, put about 5k miles in 3 years. About a month ago I decided to daily drive it for a while and about a week into doing that I thought really should do fluid filter service so I know its been done and with what. Got BND fluids and filter, did all as per the book and all went as supposed to and took amount expected = abt. 1.5 gal., filter pick-up was good length, some sludge on magnets but seemed normal, fluid looked fairly dark and not red like the new BND (I'm pretty color blind so couldn't really say if old had a color, wasn't black) and didn't smell burnt either. Only thing I would have done differently with change is if I had to do over again I would have drained and filled, then run a while then drained and changed filter and filled again for some flush action beyond the volume taken for pan fill. I was actually still planning to do that and just put second new filter on again.

I never had a problem with the trans, at all. It always shifted fine in auto and tip, never any slipping. I drove the car fairly hard some but never abused the trans knowing it was a marshmallow. So I changed fluid and started back to daily driving it, probably putting 50 or so miles a day avg. and I remember thinking how the new fluid really seemed to improve the shifting. I was actually very surprised in improvement. I've been playing with all kinds cars for long time but have had very few true viscous transmissions esp. any with a real engine in front of them and never really knew a fluid change could make such a difference unless old fluid was really broken down.

So about 540 miles and 2 weeks after change I was stopped in traffic and went to move and car just revved and I thought I might have mistakenly hit gear selector or something so while I'm looking down at that all the sudden "BOOOMM!!" and car lurches forward and starts moving, subsequent shifts seemed not right also but I was just focused on getting back to where car lives. Eventually I notice all shift lights on dash "PNDR" are all lit up and its in some limp mode. So I get back, turn off car and turn back on and lights are back to normal and I try same stopped start and same thing and confirmed shifts beyond 1st to 2nd not right also. Check engine light was already on for some air something on bank 1 so not sure if trans threw codes but I'm pretty sure it must have if went to limp mode. I use friends vagcom so I'll prob. have whatever codes it threw tmrw.

I read up on forum threads on blown trans / TC and was starting to think clutch pack 1. Was going to do ride in 5th test and see if slipping to confirm clutch pack 1 is culprit but then I called 517 Trans and Sam apparently is no longer there but spoke to Carmine and explained all and he seemed very knowledgeable and said his first guess would be TC. He said get codes first and call him back.

So questions for you RS6 professors:

1 - what's the over-under on fluid change messing up trans after couple weeks and 540 miles? My inclination is not very likely, if just little bit after change I would be more skeptical but trans ran better than ever those couple weeks and 540 mi.s. Carmine at 517 Trans thought same.

2 - Carmine at 517 Trans knew the trans real well and knew the car a fair amount said had worked on plenty pulling and rebuilding trans' etc. said car (not trans but car) was one of worst / most difficult cars he's worked on and said trans is def. not well suited for the powerplant in his opinion. He also said he does beef up / improve TC some when he redoes them and can do limited things to clutch packs and valve body and other internals but not much, said maybe improve rating 50-60 HP and TQ. Basically said even if redo as robust as he can he wouldn't go throwing a bunch more HP & TQ at it.

Any other experiences from anyone getting trans fortified and having luck with longevity and a real bump in HP / TQ? And if so how fortified and by who. Haven't sought out opinion yet from the Tozo I see referenced so much.

I have read many other threads with people opining the trans is never going to be substantially better / more robust no matter what. I've also read few threads on people having trans "fortified" and running substantially more HP / TQ and having to replace / repair again in not too distant future.

3 - If I confirm it is TC how bad of a idea is it to not rebuild rest of trans with 94k mi. on early VIN car? I really don't want to go thru expense and time delay of doing all that if I don't have to. And if I do end up doing full rebuild seems I've read can get new (maybe rebuilt) box from Audi for $5kish which is what 517 Trans said was range for full rebuild. Which is better option? I wouldn't mind paying more $$ if box was going to come back substantially better and stronger but to fork out to get back what is essentially same and still a weak link is no fun. Maybe Tozo has different and better solution?

4 - Can trans / TC be removed without removing engine? Haven't researched or read book on that at all yet but figured I'd ask. If I pulled engine I would undertake some of the usual maintenance things, time belts and rollers all pretty new, but could do O2s, valve cover gaskets, cam chain pads prob. , maybe remove SAI etc.

Thanks in advance for any help and input.


4 -

[lswing]

Sucks.

There have been multiple cases of new fluid in an old trans ending its life. Basically the crappy old fluid was less viscous and dirty/gummy so it was keeping things together. It was going to go soon anyhow I bet. Try swapping back to a thicker mix for a bandaid, G2 has been working on this I think.

Not the TC. I wouldn't trust them much if they said that. Your clutches are toast and slipping. Exactly symptoms of my failures, slipping and slamming into gear. You can log the TC with VCDS and see it acts nothing like that when engaging disengaging.

Rebuild trans for $3,500 and TC for $500, Tozo, ACE, other. $3-4k labor and random parts.

Good part is, if all goes well you'll be good for another 100k!

I never got a code or CEL on both failures.

[lswing]

And..just pull the engine, much worse to try and get trans out alone, fix other random stuff.

Rebuilds with upgrades can handle a bit more, maybe, but can still break if flogged on, don't ask me how I know...

Rebuilt with warranty is nice, but you're still liable for the $3k labor to swap. Get at least one year 10k mile warranty. Follow break in times.

[Bigglezworth]

Sorry to hear your story. Each time a thread like this is posted, I shake my head at the engineering effort of this car. So many Rolls Royce items, but the two Archilles heels with the pathetic slushbox and the DRC crippling an otherwise great ride.

Another case of bad timing and trying to attribute it to another effort. Transmission was always destined to fail. Sorry, that is just a fact and no matter how hard, how soft, how clean your fluid was or wasn't, they have all appeared to fail around the 100K mark. Lots of threads on the why's. As stated above, it plausible that clean fluid helped it along a bit, but the failure was impending already. Your description is vertabum what I experienced when mine failed. Driving along fine and then kaboom. It requires rebuild or swap out. I can confirm it is possible to remove from below, but the amount of time it takes pissing around with everything along with the amount of work necessary to get the engine in a location that permits you to do such, is easily offset with a proper removal of the entire powerplant.

[hahnmgh63]

I agree with Bigglezworth on this. Two weakest points, tranny & DRC. Also, Tranny can be pulled without pulling the engine but it's pretty much just as much work, especially having to pull/move the passenger side Turbo, plus with the engine out you have the bonus of easy access for all of the other work, timing belt, hoses, seals, etc...
With that said, I have a 517 trans/TC from Sam, put almost 10K on it but I just pulled it out last week. Seemed pretty solid but still not a GM Turbo 400, not like the newer ZF 6HP or Aisin trannies. Only so much that can be done and I decided that the manual was the way to go with the bonus of saving some weight and getting more power to the wheels. The manual would be predictable, and if I blow it, the manual will be much easier to swap out again.

[CBeau]

Trying to sell your auto trans? Was it your orig rebuilt by 517 or did you buy it done from them with core or whatever? You shipped a long way to go to 517 in NJ. Isn't Tozo in CO? Lot closer. Just curious why 517 and not him? Curious bc I'm in the same stew right now. Thanks.

And yes.... I think I'll just pull engine and go over it all. Its never been out b4 so kinda want to see what all might be up with vacuum lines etc. Sucks won't be going over it to add power bc the trans grenades as it is. I'd love to tweak that bad ass motor. Its like a hot girl who wants you but you can't touch. I'd even consider taking the leap off the manual conversion cliff but seems so many people who did that ended up dumping cars in the process or right after. Has to be some reason for that. And really from what I've read just seems a little more than I would want to get involved with. I like the comfort of auto for this car.... I have a lot other cars that are uncomfortable as hell and like work to drive.

With that said, I have a 517 trans/TC from Sam, put almost 10K on it but I just pulled it out last week. Seemed pretty solid but still not a GM Turbo 400, not like the newer ZF 6HP or Aisin trannies. Only so much that can be done and I decided that the manual was the way to go with the bonus of saving some weight and getting more power to the wheels. The manual would be predictable, and if I blow it, the manual will be much easier to swap out again.

[lswing]

Google this... site:rs6.com 517 transmission

Tozo is in Chicago area. $175 trans shipped to Oregon when I did mine. Solid work. I probably overcooked the first one he sent me, it was driven hard because I foolishly believed it could take a bit extra. Tozo had warned me that this trans no matter the build can/will fail, and it did. He did warrantied it for me as we weren't 100% sure of why it was slipping after 8 months, and I've been nicer to the new one. He does TC also.

I'm a bit skeptical of the IPT claims of HP handling as there isn't really that much you can do to the clutch packs, they are just so damn small. Tozo build is upgraded clutch packs, higher VB pressure for quicker/stronger shift, updated reverse pin, think a couple other goodies.

That should be a good trans from hahnmg63 though, perfect timing!

[Bigglezworth]

I had thought Tozo used the OEM ZF specific clutches?

Not certain if 517 uses OEM ZF clutches or not as part of rebuild.

I know the Level 10 package includes different aftermarket clutches that are made specifically for their kit.
http://www.levelten.com/Audi_Vw_auto...-g110-7600.htm

[lswing]

Could be. Maybe the "upgraded clutch pack" comes from him adding an extra clutch disc, which I'm almost sure is done. I think from talking he was using the best clutch discs that he could source.

Just to revisit my clutch failure, I'm almost sure a clutch disc(s) got "glazed" by high temps and overheating, maybe not enough break-in, tough to say. There was never any clutch material in my fluid, it just wouldn't hold full power in 3rd gear wide open runs. Or else something failed preventing full pressure to be applied once the clutch was engaged.

[marklar182]

This is why I never changed the filter/fluid in my car. I spoke to ZF and they said don't do it!!!!!

[CBeau]

So with your signature's whp of 421 and wtq of 452 and inflate it to reflect power coming off of crank and into trans. I'd say 15% inflator is conservative given slushiness of the unit, that would put your crank figures at HP 484 & TQ 520 which I believe is waaay more than box rated for esp. TQ ... at least according to ZF website figures..... I bet your car will fry it if you misbehave.

I wonder what they had in the Champion race cars? I could find out. But I'm sure its on this forum somewhere. Probably something like XTrac sequential dog-gear boxes that cost $80k ea. and they probably ate 5+ a season.

Continuing with my sexist analogies, that engine with so much untapped power being hamstrung by that lame box is like a hot girl whose parents don't let her out of the house.... what a waste!! I guess manual really is the only way out.

I read a thread from about yr. ago somebody talking about trying to put newer 6 spd. Audi/ZF trans (# 6HP something I think) in the car and it looked like that got shot down as total impossibility before it even made it off the drawing board.... axel placements / general geometry of trans or something like that.

I think my SL65 viscous box is rated to over 1000 ft lbs. & shifts like butter in both directions no matter the load on it. Audi really should have used a better box for a $90k flagship executive sedan.

Could be. Maybe the "upgraded clutch pack" comes from him adding an extra clutch disc, which I'm almost sure is done. I think from talking he was using the best clutch discs that he could source.

Just to revisit my clutch failure, I'm almost sure a clutch disc(s) got "glazed" by high temps and overheating, maybe not enough break-in, tough to say. There was never any clutch material in my fluid, it just wouldn't hold full power in 3rd gear wide open runs. Or else something failed preventing full pressure to be applied once the clutch was engaged.

[CBeau]

I heard both ways.... change frequently..... and don't ever change. But I never heard it from ZF's mouth. Maybe its the aged trans and not changed regularly to then all the sudden a change that causes the problem. I wrote above, I just really can't see fluid causing problems after it ran fine (actually smoother than before) for 540 miles and two weeks after change and no slippage symptoms whatsoever until it just stopped working like somebody flipped a light switch.

Things I've read where fluid change seemed to cause problems it was pretty instant after change. I think the TC just gave up the ghost, seal or something, and then wouldn't hold / build pressure properly so it delays and then when it finally builds enuf pressure "BOOM SLAM"!! into gear. At least I'm trying to convince myself of that bc if I really thought I grenaded my trans by being nice to it and trying to do the right thing (not to mention with $15+ per quart "specially formulated fluid") I'd probably shoot myself.... or the car. E

Early VIN & 94k miles & never any trans or TC replacement or service beyond fluid change(s), if it kept going much longer it would have been a real anomaly from what I know of these cars. That's my story & I'm sticking to it for my own sanity's sake.

And btw my VIN which I didn't have when I wrote first post = 905122

This is why I never changed the filter/fluid in my car. I spoke to ZF and they said don't do it!!!!!

[Bigglezworth]

Audi really should have used a better box for a $90k flagship executive sedan.

Won't get any disagreements from any owners of these cars on that statement.

[Dmb408]

Won't get any disagreements from any owners of these cars on that statement.

If it were this day and age in terms of recalls, they never would have gotten away with not recalling this car.

[hahnmgh63]

From the ZF service information pamplet on the 5HP & 6HP transmissions:
Depending on the driving style, ZF therefore recommends a transmission oil change every 80000 to 120000 KM, or after 8 years at the latest.

Now Audi might say filled for life but what is the life? They only warrantied it for 4yrs/50K.
CBeau, the trans might be spoken for locally, I'll let you know. I bought a core from Raven Motorsport down in Cali, it came out of one of the first 6spd conversion cars. Sold my original to a guy that was on the list here a few years ago, he was just looking for a working trans to sell his car with and my original worked ok. I just was hoping for some magic. 517 claimed a lot, says a lot was strengthened. Who knows it might last forever but still didn't shift as well as a lot of other brands of Automatics out there, just under capacity. I don't daily drive my RS6 but if I had to, with traffic then I probably wouldn't do the conversion.

[Aronis]

So I am confused. At 68000 miles I had a leaking seal on the Transmission. The seal was replaced and the transmission was serviced along with new fluid.

My torque converter failed at 102,000 miles and was replaced. ? changed Transmission fluid again?

I had a leak from the differential seal at about 118,000 miles but the transmission fluid was not involved.

So if changing the Transmission fluid kills the old transmission then mine should be dead? The car is just shy of 140,000 miles ....now I have a new GD leak and waiting to get it to my Indy for a look see.

Mike

[CBeau]

I think all the change fluid don't change fluid theories are just that... theories. I think these trans' are a black mystery box. Some blow early some blow later, maybe some VIN correlation, but I think most at least torque converters fail sooner or later, the power / potential power of the motor def. outclasses the trans by a lot, there is no question about that. At first when I got the car and started getting half familiar with it, reading on here etc. I thought all the blown trans' must have been from people throwing 100+ more HP & TQ at the stock trans &/or driving them like idiots consistently shifting on the rev limiter under full load etc. Then I gradually started to become a believer that the trans' are suspect & borderline junk no matter if car is stock or how you drive them (which was really the impetus for me to do the fluid change, there was and never had been anything wrong with it b4 I did change). Then... last week I became a true believer.

I don't have near the history or knowledge that many on here do but I think 102k mi.s on orig torque converter is pretty good. What is your last 6 VIN? I see you joined this forum in '04, did you buy the car new? Whats interesting to me is your torque converter blew at 102k mi.s and you just had it replaced and your 38k mi.s down the road since then with the rest of the trans untouched and its still fine except some leaks.

I think if trans is weak point which these def. are I'd opt for change fluid more frequently not less. I think mine is the torque converter (I just think clutch packs would have shown slipping symptoms before total implosion), and I think my fluid change being not so long before it failed is a coincidence, but I don't really know. I will know in a little bit exactly what failed once I get it apart.

So I am confused. At 68000 miles I had a leaking seal on the Transmission. The seal was replaced and the transmission was serviced along with new fluid.

My torque converter failed at 102,000 miles and was replaced. ? changed Transmission fluid again?

I had a leak from the differential seal at about 118,000 miles but the transmission fluid was not involved.

So if changing the Transmission fluid kills the old transmission then mine should be dead? The car is just shy of 140,000 miles ....now I have a new GD leak and waiting to get it to my Indy for a look see.

Mike

[CBeau]

CBeau, the trans might be spoken for locally, I'll let you know.

OK Thanks. Let me know. I will be doing something here within the next few weeks.

You ever tried a 968 6-speed box in a 944 turbo? Its really nice. Takes a little doing to get speedo / odometer to work, other than that its bolt right up. I think the first and final ratios end up about the same as on the orig. 5 speed box just more incremental gear inb/w so revs./powerband don't drop off inb/w shifts as much so easier to keep boost level in the sweet spot. Those 6 speed boxes are getting about as rare as hens teeth these days and expensive. I don't think 968 prod. #s were that large and box only used in them. I think the NA 944S boxes are a good one too, generally shorter gears I think... I think they're even rarer. I've had bunch 944 Ts, have couple right now ('86 and '89 S), one with 968 6 speed box 3 ltr. motor and putting about 500 to wheels (fully and very reputably built motor friend spent $40k on and promptly wrecked it at track so I got on the cheap).... = about double HP of car the box was utilized for and no problems whatsoever..... uhm uhm.... Audi engineers take note. Actually worst part for me about driving new Audis is it makes me realize how big a p.o.s. the RS6 box really is, I mean if it was just old technology and sloppy I can live with that, but sloppy and weak = no good.