ATF exchange. By mileage, time, or color?
- Thread starter KLowD9x
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: KLowD9x
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: KLowD9x
I don't trust universal ATFs. I will stick with the recommended fluids. I was just wondering what is a better method, time, color, or mileage?
go drain and fill 30k miles.
if you do have an overheating event, like towing, change it out asap in between that drain and fill.
Drain and fills are just a waste of time. You put 4 liters of good fluid into a sump of 12 liters of nasty fluid.
I flushed out my transaxle yesterday evening seeing as how we ran out of work here. I reset the adaptive data and performed a relearn test drive. The shift quality is perfect now.
if you start early, and do it regularly, you will never get "nasty fluid". as for how much you get out, that varies by transmission. I can get 40% out of mine with a drain and fill.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: KLowD9x
I don't trust universal ATFs. I will stick with the recommended fluids. I was just wondering what is a better method, time, color, or mileage?
go drain and fill 30k miles.
if you do have an overheating event, like towing, change it out asap in between that drain and fill.
Drain and fills are just a waste of time. You put 4 liters of good fluid into a sump of 12 liters of nasty fluid.
I flushed out my transaxle yesterday evening seeing as how we ran out of work here. I reset the adaptive data and performed a relearn test drive. The shift quality is perfect now.
if you start early, and do it regularly, you will never get "nasty fluid". as for how much you get out, that varies by transmission. I can get 40% out of mine with a drain and fill.
Take it as you will, but the wife's Cavalier still had what I'm pretty sure was the original ATF (brown/black and smelly) at 135k when I changed it out. Shifted fine before, shifted the same after. Still shifts fine almost 7k miles later.
KLowD9x, if you could truly measure a shift quality improvement, then you might want to re-think the 'sensibility' of your 75k mile replacements. I agree with unDummy here; you shouldn't really be able to tell the difference before vs. after. If you can, you probably already waited too long. This assumes it's a genuine difference rather than a mind game you're playing with yourself, of course. 
As to your original question: If you will only use 1 criterion to the exclusion of all else, and if it must be only 1 of the 3 you proposed, then mileage is the best within those parameters.
As to your original question: If you will only use 1 criterion to the exclusion of all else, and if it must be only 1 of the 3 you proposed, then mileage is the best within those parameters.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
KLowD9x, if you could truly measure a shift quality improvement, then you might want to re-think the 'sensibility' of your 75k mile replacements. I agree with unDummy here; you shouldn't really be able to tell the difference before vs. after. If you can, you probably already waited too long. This assumes it's a genuine difference rather than a mind game you're playing with yourself, of course.
As to your original question: If you will only use 1 criterion to the exclusion of all else, and if it must be only 1 of the 3 you proposed, then mileage is the best within those parameters.
The only time I could measure a difference in shift quality was after the first flush. I flushed through 16 liters of fluid at 50K miles because the fluid was black. Which is very common for this particular transaxle at that mileage. However, after I performed the fluid exchange, the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts were quite stiff. Not hard. I could feel them engage, which is odd for this AW box.
The only reason it made a difference this last time is because I reset the adaptive data and performed a relearn test drive. I'm sure if I had done this same procedure when I performed the first flush, I never would have noticed a difference in shift quality.
All I know is that the fluid that came out after 70K miles was in good condition, smelled new, was still red, and was just a little cloudy. 50K miles seems like a reasonable time to do a small 8 liter flush from now on.
The best part is that, just like when the car was new, I can no longer feel the shifts when the fluid is hot. (When cold, there is a different shift program to make the engine warm up faster. It's annoying, but I guess they had to do it for the sake of emissions.)
KLowD9x, if you could truly measure a shift quality improvement, then you might want to re-think the 'sensibility' of your 75k mile replacements. I agree with unDummy here; you shouldn't really be able to tell the difference before vs. after. If you can, you probably already waited too long. This assumes it's a genuine difference rather than a mind game you're playing with yourself, of course.
As to your original question: If you will only use 1 criterion to the exclusion of all else, and if it must be only 1 of the 3 you proposed, then mileage is the best within those parameters.
The only time I could measure a difference in shift quality was after the first flush. I flushed through 16 liters of fluid at 50K miles because the fluid was black. Which is very common for this particular transaxle at that mileage. However, after I performed the fluid exchange, the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts were quite stiff. Not hard. I could feel them engage, which is odd for this AW box.
The only reason it made a difference this last time is because I reset the adaptive data and performed a relearn test drive. I'm sure if I had done this same procedure when I performed the first flush, I never would have noticed a difference in shift quality.
All I know is that the fluid that came out after 70K miles was in good condition, smelled new, was still red, and was just a little cloudy. 50K miles seems like a reasonable time to do a small 8 liter flush from now on.
The best part is that, just like when the car was new, I can no longer feel the shifts when the fluid is hot. (When cold, there is a different shift program to make the engine warm up faster. It's annoying, but I guess they had to do it for the sake of emissions.)
- Status
