Ever hear of this?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crater

Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
42
Location
northern kentucky
Happen to come across a forum that is conducted by a mecahnic who has been in business for forty years and has a radio talk show somewhere (can't recall). Anyway, he stated that if you have not changed your Transmission fluid ever before, doing so with something like 60,000 miles, would cause more damage than it would do any good, and not to bother at all.

I'm dumb, so I'm wondering what you all say....
 
Before I joined BITOG I overlooked my tranny untill about 70k. Yes it was stupid, but I discovered the errors of my ways and made it up to my tranny with maxlife, and a second flush 20k miles latter. I now have 99.5k miles and every thing is still running strong. Well..except for that annoying squeal when Im not moving.
 
That statement maybe true to a point. I remember working for a company when they bought 2 new cavalier wagons. I think we had close to the same mileage from what I remember. Anyway, when I was close to a 100k miles I had the tranny fluid changed. Just so you know I had no issues with the tranny. After the fluid was changed, the tranny was slipping a little for about 500-1000 miles and then all was fine. I ran that car till about 150k miles and the tranny was still fine. The other guy’s car needed a new tranny at around 120k. He never had the fluid changed.

Here's the kicker. He drove like an old lady going to church. I was a more aggressive driver.
 
Keep the thoughts coming, please. I have 85,000 miles on my Malibu, and I don't thing anything has ever been done to the Trans. I would like to keep this car until the wheels far off, but don't want to break something if it ain't broke.....
 
Change it.
Quite frankly, if a problem shows up, thats a problem that was pre-existing and just masked by the old fluid (ie: excessive clutch wear).

Alex.
 
crater, I've heard from people I respect that doing a complete flush on a high-mileage transmission that's never been serviced *may* cause issues. It's better to do a couple of pan-drops over a few thousand miles. Change the filter during the first pan-drop, install a universal drain plug, then change just the fluid only a couple more times and you should be good to go. Going forward, new fluid every 15,000 miles if you are hard on your car, every 30,000 if you are easy.
 
Yeah, I'd go with a partial change somewhat akin to like changing the ATF on Honda's, three quarts at a time.
 
You guy's are the best. Going to do a drop and filter change this week-end. Could be interesting to see what comes out. Any kind of additive that I might have installed while I'm at it?...
 
My anecdotal evidence is the 95 Voyager we owned. Everyone told us to expect the transmission to fail right around 115,000 miles. So, about every 35,000 miles a I had a transmission flush. At about 100,000 miles I dropped the pan (what a mess that made), changed the filter, cleaned the pan and refilled the oil. I could feel the difference. At 125,000 we sold the van to a real estate agent when we got our Odyssey. That was February 2004. The van is still going strong. When we sold it the body was falling apart around the engine and transmission and the buyer fixed it up quite a bit.
 
I keep reading these stories about you guys on the west and east coast "cold" states, as I would say, that the bodies keep falling apart. Is it from all the salt laid down in the winter or is it just corrosion from the salt air??
 
It's the salt laid down in the winter.

offtopic.gif
For funsies, I once kept tabs of all the days my car was exposed to salt, even if it was just a splash through a briny puddle on a sunny day when it was thawing. I was surprised to find it was only 40 days in the whole year that my car was exposed to salt.

Salt is a horrible thing for our car, roads, bridges, and environment. I've heard discussion that it may not be worth putting down salt on roads. It's be cheaper and more economic for people to stay home and not come to work on those slippery days, than to deal with salt damage. But no politician would dare make anything out of this.
 
We don't do salt in California. Even in the mountains. Sand only. Our cars never rust out. Oh, unless you live on the foggy coast.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kestas:

Salt is a horrible thing for our car, roads, bridges, and environment. I've heard discussion that it may not be worth putting down salt on roads. It's be cheaper and more economic for people to stay home and not come to work on those slippery days, than to deal with salt damage. But no politician would dare make anything out of this.
Click to expand...
If people stay home instead of working it's a double edged sword...


- Decreased productivity and output from workers

- Less work from repairing all the salt damage

- Less work from not putting down salt


Yes it lessens the envoiromental impact but you're talking a huge hit to the economy.

That being said I don't like what salt does to my car or what all that extra metal and asphalt use does to the environment, just playing devil's advocate.

Also, this site needs a spell check, I can't spell very well and it makes me look stupid sometimes :-P. Take w/ a grain of salt.
patriot.gif
freak2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Next transmission service?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
RobbS
P
4L80E Hard 1-2 Shift
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
Peteco
T
Running different OEM MTF’s in other make vehicles
Replies
15
Views
794
nthach
T
2016 Volvo S90; wrong transmission oil?
2
Replies
22
Views
750
RF Overlord
john_pifer
Thinking About Idemitsu TLS-LV for 2007 Tacoma V6 (Aisin A750E Automatic)
2
Replies
24
Views
709
john_pifer
Back
Top Bottom