Hello all,

I apologize if this question has been asked many times before, and the answer may be common knowledge, but not to me as i know nothing about these cars yet.

As with most autos, you get a dipstick. And when servicing you refill through the dipstick tube. Obviously on these cars,you don't. So how does one change the fluid? What is the procedure? and what type of fluid should i use?

 

Try using the search. There could be good info there. I always try there first. Good luck.

 

There is a world of information at the top of this forum in the 'Stickies'. Here is a link to the ATF fluid change found there: https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...-cd-faq-54942/

That is the JTIS version. There are a number of pictorals from forum members and even videos of the change procedures.

I have found that the vBulletin software that this and most forums run on is pretty weak in the search function. For instance, it will not search on less than 4 characters and it often returns hundreds of hits in chronological order rather than relevance. If you start a Google, or other web search engines with 'jaguarforum' and then the search string you will get a much better response.

 

It's a rather drawn out affair, with careful monitoring of fluid temps to get the correct level, if not pumps are noisey.

You'll need some specialist tools to do the job without problems like snapped bolts removing the trans pan.

To access the drain and fill port on the UK drivers side, a short neck, long handled allen wrench, trans pan requires a solid tip torx, the security torx snap (ones with the hole in the centre) use oem o ring/filter assembly. Shop around for the cheapest CORRECT fluid.

Just some tips, you can find the job in the stickies as advised by others above. Hope this helps.

 

Another question peeps (yes i know its prob in the "stickies" but haven't had a chance or time to look yet. What is the correct fluid for my box? Do i need to go to a main dealer for it or maybe someone like opieoils?

 

Cheers for the info. What do you mean "pumps are not noisey"

 

bump!

 

Look at this other transmission fluid thread on your ZF5HP24 transmission (2000 Jaguar XJ8):
https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...ping-up-29776/

Jim Lombardi

 

No dip stick. Easier to get serviced at a transmission shop. The transmission is "Sealed for Life". Life is about 100,000 miles or less if not serviced. The fluid is $$.
BMW and Mercedes use the same transmission.

 

Lear45
forum member selkent1 has a 2000 Jaguar XJ8 and his transmission is (ZF5HP24) not the same as the 722.6 mercedes transmission that is used in the XJR or XKR.
It does appear that some of the BMW models from 1996 to 1998 used the ZF5HP24 transmission, it also appears that the Mercedes Benz models used 722.6 transmission.

Jim Lombardi

 

Your post prompted me to craft one of my own entitled:

Searching jaguarforums.com (or any website, really) using a search engine

It really is amazing what you can find on any given website that you may have thought was "lost forever" because the built-in search function just doesn't allow you to craft a finely-honed search.

Just knowing about the site: operator was a major revelation to me when I first had the need to find things that I knew that I'd seen on a given website (most often forums, but not always) but simply could not pull up with a built-in search function.

 

Thanks for all the info peeps. Now at least i know what type of gearbox i have, but am still no clearer as to what is the correct type of fluid i should be using. Am getting loads of variables. Anyone have this answer?

 

Pretty sure this is the same transmission used in the E38 7-series, so it stands to reason it calls for the same fluid. That fluid is Esso ATF LT 71141, which is technically the only fluid you should ever use. However, several fluids suggest compatibility with that fluid, including commonly available Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF and Pentosin ATF (available anywhere that sells euro car parts). FWIW, in other car circles I've found that Valvoline Max Life ATF is compatible with virtually everything Mobil 1 ATF and Pentosin ATF1 is, so it's reasonable to believe it'd work in the Jag ZF box as well.

Personally I would source the Esso. It's not tough to find - PelicanParts.com carries it if nobody else does. My personal backup plan would Pentosin ATF1, as I've used that as a substitute for other picky transmissions and its never done me wrong. AutohausAZ, ECS Tuning, and Pelican Parts all carry is, and all recommend it for use in the E38 7er.

 

The Esso LT 71141 ATF specification is 20 year old technology far bypassed by more recent oils such as Mobil 1 synthetic ATF and others. In my opinion any ATF that claims to meet that specification does so if for no other reason than because of potential liability. Castrol Import ATF if less than $5 every day and occasionally goes on sale. The $40 per liter Jaguar price is an ultimate insult.

 

You bring up an excellent point that applies to virtually any automotive fluid or lubricant where specifications are a part of the picture.

Again and again I tell people: look to the specs and they'll tell you all you need to know.

These sorts of questions arise for motor oil as well as transmission and other fluids and the urban legends are rampant. Compliance with API, SAE and/or ILSAC specifications will tell you all you need to know. In virtually all cases, though not absolutely all, the as technology/specs have marched on there has been an effort to make sure that the new ones "meet or exceed" those that came prior to them. If you have verified that the specification for a fluid for your car is met or exceeded by a newer fluid with a newer spec, there's no reason one should suspect use of that newer fluid should be an issue.

Actually, the statements that a given fluid meets an obsolete spec has very little to do with product liability and everything to do with marketing. An excellent example of this is the Dexron-III spec for transmission fluid. GM, who is the specifier in this case, has declared that specification obsolete and no longer licenses any fluids under it. However, there are millions upon millions of cars that have transmissions that use Dexron-III spec fluid. Those who make fluids that meet (or exceed) that spec assiduously label it as such, even though the spec is obsolete, because Dexron-III is the set of "magic keywords" that purchasers are looking for. You see this even more commonly on motor oils, which give the laundry list of obsolete API/SAE/ILSAC specs they meet. If you look at the latest ILSAC motor oil spec it clearly states that the lubricating properties (and the testing to prove same) meets or exceeds all prior ILSAC specs and is backward compatible with all of them. However, few have ever laid eyes on those specs and rely on the list on the label instead. Of course, even being able to rely on that list, other than by straight visual identification of what might have been in an owner's or workshop manual, implies a level of knowledge that many consumers simply don't have.

 

While I don't disagree with any of that on a technical level, I would also submit that specifications notwithstanding the Esso fluid works with 100% certainty, the ZF box a pain to work on, and it's not known for its durability. On my car, $70 worth of fluid versus $5 worth of fluid (or whatever those numbers truly are) is not a significant enough spread to warrant experimentation given what's at stake. If the Mobil 1, Castrol Import, Valvoline Max Life, Pentoson ATF1, Mobil1 Synthetic ATF, Royal Purple Max ATF, or whatever fluid is demonstrably better it's worth consideration but lacking such evidence, me, personally, $50 or $100 saved is not worth me having to do a job twice due to malfunction or wondering forever if my experimentation hastened failure. That's just my $0.02, YMMV.

P.S. FWIW, Mobil makes both Mobil1 and Esso, and I'd say if Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF says it meets the Esso spec, it does so almost certainly. And I'd still use the Esso.

 

I appreciate your input and the YMMV, as that's almost invariably true regardless of the subject. I am asking the following not of you, specifically, but as a thought exercise:

1. Why must an alternative be "demonstrably better" to be worth considering? If the product is at least as good as what you're considering using it to replace, isn't that enough? Often the issue is not expense, either, but availability. If I can pick up something locally, or have it shipped domestically, that convenience matters. For myself, "do no harm" is right up there at the top of the list of things to consider. Once I'm satisfied that criterion is fulfilled, cost, convenience, etc. are definitely legitimate considerations.

2. What would constitute "such evidence"? Virtually none of us is ever going to have anything, at all, to go on other than OEM original recommendations and the specifications those items meet. As our cars get further and further from current production it is only reasonable to assume that Jaguar (or, pick your manufacturer - this is a general point) is not going to be updating any information for maintaining these cars. Regulating/licensing/specifying bodies, however, continuously update and improve while having no specific "skin in the game" as far as specific makes or models go.

There are many times when slavish devotion to what was current at the time of production is, well, counterproductive.

 

Sure...

Call me risk-adverse, but I don't see the value in changing something for the sake of changing something, which is what we're talking about here. The specified fluid isn't hard to find, and isn't unreasonably expensive. But, on with your exercise.

I don't agree that organizational/societal/whatever specifications are the be-all and end-all of significant fluid qualities. If "meeting or exceeding" a API/SAE/ILSAC/etc. specification was the only thing that mattered, I'd be putting Autozone oil in my cars instead of Motul. Both meet the same specifications, right? Of course they do. But the sum total of a product isn't limited to the specification. In my example, I happen to know - factually - the additive package in Motul is superior - it contains more zinc (amongst other things) than the Autozone product, and I know my flat-tappet, turbocharged cars rely on that zinc for anti-wear. So Motul is what I use. Similarly, "DOT 3" is a widely recognized brake fluid specification. It's what my track car specifies. I could buy Autozone DOT 3 brake fluid, but I don't. I buy ATE or Motul brake fluid because their dry and wet boiling points are 20% higher than generic DOT 3 fluids. They are tangibly superior options to the Autozone fluid despite meeting identical minimum specifications.

In the same vein, if it was provable that some other fluid was superior to the Esso stuff, I'd certainly entertain it as an option. But lacking some sort of concrete evidence I'm not going to. What if the Esso product contained some essential additive the Mobil 1 or ATF1 did not? What if in meeting a specification the Esso offered a superior low temperature fluidity or superior oxidation stability? I would need those qualities - and others - quantified before making a change.

Sure, I'll buy into that. There have been plenty of times I've needed a specific thing that is NLA or impossible to get and a substitute has to be devised. I use Type F in my Falcon because you can't get Type A anymore. But the Esso stuff isn't hard to find - it's as close as any Jaguar, BMW, or Audi dealership - so let's discard that consideration.

I've suggested a few things above that would constitute such evidence. Specific knowledge of a fluid's properties and how those properties interact with the part in question would be a good start. I didn't randomly choose Motul oil or ATE brake fluid - I did research on the properties of those fluids and have a reasonable understanding of old-style valve trains and on-track brake fluid temperatures and I made an educated determination.

I don't have any information about the inner workings of ZF transmissions nor have I any comparisons of Esso fluid versus Pentosin et al fluid. In a situation where I needed to make a substitution due to lack of availability, you can be certain I'd look into these things. In a situation where I had reasonable evidence that better performance might be obtainable, I'd look into those things. But neither of those conditions apply and, furthermore, based on my limited knowledge of automatic transmission design and automatic transmission performance, I would venture to say messing with automatic transmission fluids causes as many problems as it fixes.

I think your first assumption is fair, but your second one strikes me as odd. You started your line of reasoning with "the specification is the specification," but now you are implying that these specifications are subject to improvement? I don't think that's accurate. Or, perhaps you are implying that later revisions of a specification are inherently superior to early ones? That's certainly inaccurate as well - DOT5 is not better than DOT3 (it's totally different!), and newer API engine oil specifications are not inherently superior to old ones (see my aforementioned comment about zinc content as an example), and Dexron VI is definitely not good for older GM transmissions (which is why I run Mercon V is my Tahoe...)

Along that line of reasoning, I think your implication that these specifying bodies are somehow concerned with what ZF did 20 years ago while Jaguar is not is seriously flawed. I'd bring up the Dexron issue as an example of how newer specifications are - and increasingly so - at odds with older technologies. The fact that these bodies don't have skin in the game, and are defining specifications within a fairly narrow scope (lubricity, operating temperature, COF, whathaveyou, etc.) leaves the door wide open to the possibility some screwy aspect not reflected in the base statistics of the fluid might have been an important element in the component's original engineering. I've suggested additives (zinc), base materials (silicone), and might add material compatibility (such as the exciting Dexron VI rubber issue). These are all qualities of fluids that are not reflected in bare specifications!

Sure. But there are equally many times when casual disregard to lessons learned in the past and a broad "newer is better" mentality is counterproductive.

To be clear, and to apply what I've said in this exercise in the context of my earlier post:

There, I suggested several fluids which claim compatibility with the Esso fluid that ZF and Jaguar specify. I tempered those suggestions with a note that I wouldn't be one to experiment. When I know something works, and I cannot put my finger on a specific need going unmet, and the potential cost of a lateral movement is high, I'm not going to be a guinea pig. If someone else wants to, I provided some thoughts. I thought my post was fairly complete in that sense.

I changed my motor oil because I was worried about unnecessary wear. I changed my brake fluid because I needed better on-track performance. I put Mercon V fluid in my GM transmission (because Dexron VI has demonstrable issues with older rubber). I did all of these things because a need was going unmet and I found a reasonable way to meet it. But when I changed my Audi's transmission fluid I used the Esso stuff, because I had no unmet goals and I wasn't interested in a $2000 repair bill (and I get a friend discount at an Audi shop ).

Obviously, everyone should pursue sleeping soundly at night in their own way, but this is how I do it.

 

I can't argue with most of what you're saying, but I can argue with parts of it.

The whole ZDDP/zinc thing is, from all appearances, a non-issue. It's right up there with the declarations that unleaded was going to destroy all engines built when lead was common, that ethanol is the reason for virtually all fuel system failures, and other "classic/collector car" urban legends. The ILSAC and API specs, and the tests that go with them, clearly show that the current oil formulations for gasoline engines meet or exceed prior specs and their lubricating properties.

Yes, I do believe that specifying bodies are the ne plus ultra when it comes to factual information regarding fluids and their performance properties. I also expect that people who take the time to read them know what they mean. DOT5 brake fluid is not compatible with either DOT3 or DOT4, and the specs clearly state that. What I found even more insane, though, was the decision to formulate DOT5.1 so that is is backward compatible. Talk about confusing!! But the facts are all there in the specs.

There are all kinds of marketing claims by myriad vendors about why their product is better than the competitors'. When it comes down to it the only thing one can rely on is what official licensing or specification a given fluid is known to meet. All else is suspect.

In the end, though, your final sentence sums up my attitude perfectly. People need to read up on the factual data available and pursue what they are comfortable with. I won't criticize anyone who makes an informed decision that they're comfortable with.

A great deal of what circulates in "car nut" circles is received wisdom that's anything but.

 

If lowest common denominator fluids are working for you, that's fantastic. That is simply not my approach, nor would it ever be my advice. Perhaps I'm a "car nut" passing on something other than wisdom, but for the same reason I ask medical questions of my doctor and not my landscaper and encourage my clientele to ask technical questions of me and not their office manager, I'd like to believe time, research, and a lot of wrenching has given us "car nuts" insight and experience that just might be of use. Personally, I'll take such received wisdom from enthusiasts over idle speculation from the peanut gallery any day of the week. That's just my process, my approach, and nothing more.