Auto trans., 2000 compared to 05
 

Are the transmissions better in the 05's than in the 2000's? I had one
replaced after 70000 it was covered. Now at 120000 I'm having problems
again.

Re: Auto trans., 2000 compared to 05
 

Which model are you referring to?

Dan <dforant1@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e73d11h4k06r34cm447aeqq2d2bbkbbc3v@4ax.com...
> Are the transmissions better in the 05's than in the 2000's? I had one
> replaced after 70000 it was covered. Now at 120000 I'm having problems
> again.

Re: Auto trans., 2000 compared to 05
 

Oops, Elantra.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:20:29 -0500, "atarileaf"
<hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote:

>Which model are you referring to?
>
>Dan <dforant1@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:e73d11h4k06r34cm447aeqq2d2bbkbbc3v@4ax.com.. .
>> Are the transmissions better in the 05's than in the 2000's? I had one
>> replaced after 70000 it was covered. Now at 120000 I'm having problems
>> again.
>

Re: Auto trans., 2000 compared to 05
 

Dan wrote:
> Are the transmissions better in the 05's than in the 2000's? I had
one
> replaced after 70000 it was covered. Now at 120000 I'm having
problems
> again.

Hyundai's warranty replacement transmissions are rebuilt, not new.
Apparently the rebuilding work is contracted out to a third party whose
chief incentive is to quickly crank quantitities of transmissions out
rather than to produce quality work.

When the automatic transmission on our 2000 Sonata went bad, the dealer
had to replace it 3 times before we received an acceptable unit. No
idea how long it will last, but needless to say we don't have a real
warm and fuzzy feeling about it.

While Hyundai has made great strides in in the last several years it
seems that if you do suffer a major failure you're getting into a
revolving-door situation of trying out rebuilt parts of uneven quality
until you get one that works.

Re: Auto trans., 2000 compared to 05
 

pdp11@techie.com wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>>Are the transmissions better in the 05's than in the 2000's? I had
>
> one
>
>>replaced after 70000 it was covered. Now at 120000 I'm having
>
> problems
>
>>again.
>
>
> Hyundai's warranty replacement transmissions are rebuilt, not new.
> Apparently the rebuilding work is contracted out to a third party whose
> chief incentive is to quickly crank quantitities of transmissions out
> rather than to produce quality work.
>
> When the automatic transmission on our 2000 Sonata went bad, the dealer
> had to replace it 3 times before we received an acceptable unit. No
> idea how long it will last, but needless to say we don't have a real
> warm and fuzzy feeling about it.
>
> While Hyundai has made great strides in in the last several years it
> seems that if you do suffer a major failure you're getting into a
> revolving-door situation of trying out rebuilt parts of uneven quality
> until you get one that works.

This isn't just a Hyundai issue. Every single automaker does this. You
want a new transmission? Start fighting.

It could be worse, you could be dealing with Chrysler - the transmission
could be totally dead and the engine be half full of raw gasoline and
they'd claim everything was working "as designed"...

JS

Re: Auto trans., 2000 compared to 05
 

I'll drink to that.

Just traded in my '98 Grand Caravan Sport on a 2005 Santa Fe LX on Saturday.
The first transmission lasted 5 years. I've had 5 replacement transmissions
in the last 2 years. Although I only paid for the first replacement, the
lost time and rentals made me swear off Chrysler products forever.

Hoping for better reliability with the Santa Fe.

Jon

"Jacob Suter" <j4k3@ezho.org> wrote in message
news:OX8Sd.17606$IZ4.15650@fe73.usenetserver.com.. .
> pdp11@techie.com wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Are the transmissions better in the 05's than in the 2000's? I had
>>
>> one
>>
>>>replaced after 70000 it was covered. Now at 120000 I'm having
>>
>> problems
>>
>>>again.
>>
>>
>> Hyundai's warranty replacement transmissions are rebuilt, not new.
>> Apparently the rebuilding work is contracted out to a third party whose
>> chief incentive is to quickly crank quantitities of transmissions out
>> rather than to produce quality work.
>>
>> When the automatic transmission on our 2000 Sonata went bad, the dealer
>> had to replace it 3 times before we received an acceptable unit. No
>> idea how long it will last, but needless to say we don't have a real
>> warm and fuzzy feeling about it.
>>
>> While Hyundai has made great strides in in the last several years it
>> seems that if you do suffer a major failure you're getting into a
>> revolving-door situation of trying out rebuilt parts of uneven quality
>> until you get one that works.
>
> This isn't just a Hyundai issue. Every single automaker does this. You
> want a new transmission? Start fighting.
>
> It could be worse, you could be dealing with Chrysler - the transmission
> could be totally dead and the engine be half full of raw gasoline and
> they'd claim everything was working "as designed"...
>
> JS
>

Re: Auto trans., 2000 compared to 05
 

zeppo wrote:
> Just traded in my '98 Grand Caravan Sport on a 2005 Santa Fe LX on
Saturday.
> The first transmission lasted 5 years. I've had 5 replacement
transmissions
> in the last 2 years.

I've heard that current Chrysler transmissions are bad news. The
interesting thing is that at one time they were the cream of the crop.
(The 3-speed Chrysler Torqueflite that came in my 1975 AMC Hornet has
never needed service beyond the occasional fluid change during its
30-year life!) I guess those days are long gone.

Re: Auto trans., 2000 compared to 05
 

So true. I wish they still made the old K car - Dodge Aries, Plymouth
Reliant. I loved those cars despite their boxy appearance. Very reliable. I
had an 89 Reliant for the last 5 years and aside from the standard brake
repairs, one replaced rad and one replaced exhaust (because of emissions) it
ran like a dream with no problems.

I also had an 84 Aries back when I first started driving and NEVER had a
problem with it. Now what do we get from Chrysler- the NEON!!! :(


<pdp11@techie.com> wrote in message
news:1109043976.363208.106380@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> zeppo wrote:
> > Just traded in my '98 Grand Caravan Sport on a 2005 Santa Fe LX on
> Saturday.
> > The first transmission lasted 5 years. I've had 5 replacement
> transmissions
> > in the last 2 years.
>
> I've heard that current Chrysler transmissions are bad news. The
> interesting thing is that at one time they were the cream of the crop.
> (The 3-speed Chrysler Torqueflite that came in my 1975 AMC Hornet has
> never needed service beyond the occasional fluid change during its
> 30-year life!) I guess those days are long gone.
>