Transmission oil change
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
Your response is pretty much what I have always felt, across the board.
Regarding the brake system flush, I could even see where one might want to
take such additional precautions with ABS, but not otherwise.
My problem is that fewer and fewer garages are doing the tranny fluid and
filter change - most have gone to these machines. If I have a tranny fluid
drain bolt, I will do it myself (Hyundai's and Kia's usually have them, most
others don't).
Tom Wenndt
"hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
news:f22bc51c6246ca1e61704763003775a7@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
> Most of those prices seem high, even for the inflated DC area. But I
> don't
> know what the going rates are in Atlanta.
>
> As far as the transmission fluid, do as Matt said and check your manual.
> I'm pretty sure the recommendation is about 100k miles on the tranny
> fluid, but check your manual to be safe. I wouldn't want to send you in
> the wrong direction and have it cost you. But it's also important to
> check the transmission fluid. If it's dark brown, it's probably a good
> idea to flush the transmission (or drain and refill it).
>
> If you take a flashlight and look down at the a/c belt under your hood,
> you'll probably be able to see some pretty significant cracking of the
> ribs where it goes over the tensioner pulley (because the belt is bent
> backward). This belt usually starts cracking at around 30k miles or 3
> years, so I would expect it probably is a good idea to replace at 40k.
>
> Your car uses Dexron ATF as power steering fluid. There is no maintenance
> recommendation in the owner's manual, so I wouldn't do anything to service
> it unless you take a sample of fluid from the reservoir and it's
> absulotely gross.
>
> Your brake pads should be visually inspected for thickness. Once they
> reach 2/32 inch, replace them. If you know what you're looking for, you
> can probably see the outer pad through the wheel.
>
> This flush business is something many shops have started doint to increase
> profitability. I agree they can be a valuable service under the right
> circumstances, but the whole thing winds up being pretty much a racket. A
> partnership develops between the dealer and the additive company. The
> additive company typically provides the machines as long as you use their
> product (or works out some other deal putting the shop on the hook). I'm
> not particularly proud that in my shop we are pressured to sell brake,
> power steering, coolant, transmission flushes as well as 4wd servicing and
> a "performance" oil change which basically runs some detergent oil through
> then engine prior to doing an oil change. The shop's recommendation on
> the flush services is 2 years/24k miles, which I find particularly gross.
> I don't think I've once recommended a power steering or brake flush
> (although there is some debate over the value of the brake flush -- I'll
> discuss below). I do recommend coolant flushes based on condition of
> coolant and maintenance interval (2 years for Hyundai) and transmission
> flushes based on fluid condition. The service personnel at the shop
> typically receive some sort of spiff to use the additive product. Look
> closely at what they're proposing to do in each of these flushes. I'll
> bet that each has an additive or some "special" fluid from a particular
> automotive chemical supplier. Usually, it's about $.25 to $.5 per service
> for the tech. I have no idea how advisors and managers are spiffed, but I
> do know that it happens, at least in some cases. That's right; these
> products are so good the company pays the shop employees to use them.
> Ultimately, it makes the whole thing stink and causes suspicion when such
> a service is actually a good idea.
>
> Brake fluid is hydroscopic, meaning water bonds to it. So, if your brake
> fluid absorbs water over time, this water can in turn begin to corrode
> your metal hydraulic brake components (such as wheel cylinders) and
> accelerate their failure or leakage. I personally believe that the brake
> hydraulic system is largely a closed system which is rarely open to the
> atmosphere. As such, its absorbance of water should be minimal.
>
> I can think of little reason to recommend a power steering flush. There
> are some older (pre-90s) GM products (particularly Celebrity, 6000, Ciera,
> and Century) which tend to have poor cold assist issues which I have seen
> the flushes partially alleviate.
>
Regarding the brake system flush, I could even see where one might want to
take such additional precautions with ABS, but not otherwise.
My problem is that fewer and fewer garages are doing the tranny fluid and
filter change - most have gone to these machines. If I have a tranny fluid
drain bolt, I will do it myself (Hyundai's and Kia's usually have them, most
others don't).
Tom Wenndt
"hyundaitech" <notpublic@not.public.com> wrote in message
news:f22bc51c6246ca1e61704763003775a7@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
> Most of those prices seem high, even for the inflated DC area. But I
> don't
> know what the going rates are in Atlanta.
>
> As far as the transmission fluid, do as Matt said and check your manual.
> I'm pretty sure the recommendation is about 100k miles on the tranny
> fluid, but check your manual to be safe. I wouldn't want to send you in
> the wrong direction and have it cost you. But it's also important to
> check the transmission fluid. If it's dark brown, it's probably a good
> idea to flush the transmission (or drain and refill it).
>
> If you take a flashlight and look down at the a/c belt under your hood,
> you'll probably be able to see some pretty significant cracking of the
> ribs where it goes over the tensioner pulley (because the belt is bent
> backward). This belt usually starts cracking at around 30k miles or 3
> years, so I would expect it probably is a good idea to replace at 40k.
>
> Your car uses Dexron ATF as power steering fluid. There is no maintenance
> recommendation in the owner's manual, so I wouldn't do anything to service
> it unless you take a sample of fluid from the reservoir and it's
> absulotely gross.
>
> Your brake pads should be visually inspected for thickness. Once they
> reach 2/32 inch, replace them. If you know what you're looking for, you
> can probably see the outer pad through the wheel.
>
> This flush business is something many shops have started doint to increase
> profitability. I agree they can be a valuable service under the right
> circumstances, but the whole thing winds up being pretty much a racket. A
> partnership develops between the dealer and the additive company. The
> additive company typically provides the machines as long as you use their
> product (or works out some other deal putting the shop on the hook). I'm
> not particularly proud that in my shop we are pressured to sell brake,
> power steering, coolant, transmission flushes as well as 4wd servicing and
> a "performance" oil change which basically runs some detergent oil through
> then engine prior to doing an oil change. The shop's recommendation on
> the flush services is 2 years/24k miles, which I find particularly gross.
> I don't think I've once recommended a power steering or brake flush
> (although there is some debate over the value of the brake flush -- I'll
> discuss below). I do recommend coolant flushes based on condition of
> coolant and maintenance interval (2 years for Hyundai) and transmission
> flushes based on fluid condition. The service personnel at the shop
> typically receive some sort of spiff to use the additive product. Look
> closely at what they're proposing to do in each of these flushes. I'll
> bet that each has an additive or some "special" fluid from a particular
> automotive chemical supplier. Usually, it's about $.25 to $.5 per service
> for the tech. I have no idea how advisors and managers are spiffed, but I
> do know that it happens, at least in some cases. That's right; these
> products are so good the company pays the shop employees to use them.
> Ultimately, it makes the whole thing stink and causes suspicion when such
> a service is actually a good idea.
>
> Brake fluid is hydroscopic, meaning water bonds to it. So, if your brake
> fluid absorbs water over time, this water can in turn begin to corrode
> your metal hydraulic brake components (such as wheel cylinders) and
> accelerate their failure or leakage. I personally believe that the brake
> hydraulic system is largely a closed system which is rarely open to the
> atmosphere. As such, its absorbance of water should be minimal.
>
> I can think of little reason to recommend a power steering flush. There
> are some older (pre-90s) GM products (particularly Celebrity, 6000, Ciera,
> and Century) which tend to have poor cold assist issues which I have seen
> the flushes partially alleviate.
>
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
'It's your money, waste it at will.
Matt'
REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
then , theres not much point.
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
Matt'
REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
then , theres not much point.
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
'It's your money, waste it at will.
Matt'
REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
then , theres not much point.
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
Matt'
REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
then , theres not much point.
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
'It's your money, waste it at will.
Matt'
REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
then , theres not much point.
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
Matt'
REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
then , theres not much point.
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
> 'It's your money, waste it at will.
> Matt'
>
> REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
> For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
> in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
> then , theres not much point.
I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile. The van was running great when a drunk hit
me and totaled it last December.
I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money,
then that is your prerogative.
Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something. Changing
the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent anything.
Matt
> 'It's your money, waste it at will.
> Matt'
>
> REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
> For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
> in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
> then , theres not much point.
I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile. The van was running great when a drunk hit
me and totaled it last December.
I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money,
then that is your prerogative.
Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something. Changing
the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent anything.
Matt
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
> 'It's your money, waste it at will.
> Matt'
>
> REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
> For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
> in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
> then , theres not much point.
I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile. The van was running great when a drunk hit
me and totaled it last December.
I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money,
then that is your prerogative.
Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something. Changing
the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent anything.
Matt
> 'It's your money, waste it at will.
> Matt'
>
> REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
> For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
> in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
> then , theres not much point.
I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile. The van was running great when a drunk hit
me and totaled it last December.
I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money,
then that is your prerogative.
Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something. Changing
the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent anything.
Matt
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
> 'It's your money, waste it at will.
> Matt'
>
> REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
> For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
> in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
> then , theres not much point.
I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile. The van was running great when a drunk hit
me and totaled it last December.
I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money,
then that is your prerogative.
Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something. Changing
the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent anything.
Matt
> 'It's your money, waste it at will.
> Matt'
>
> REPLY: Its not 'a waste' ; its called good preventive maintenance.
> For the people who put high mileage on their cars before trading them
> in, its especially wise. If you get rid of your cars every 3 years,
> then , theres not much point.
I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile. The van was running great when a drunk hit
me and totaled it last December.
I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money,
then that is your prerogative.
Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something. Changing
the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent anything.
Matt
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile.'
REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
90,000 miles before trans. failure.
'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
that is your prerogative.'
REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
anything.'
REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile.'
REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
90,000 miles before trans. failure.
'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
that is your prerogative.'
REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
anything.'
REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile.'
REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
90,000 miles before trans. failure.
'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
that is your prerogative.'
REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
anything.'
REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile.'
REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
90,000 miles before trans. failure.
'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
that is your prerogative.'
REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
anything.'
REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile.'
REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
90,000 miles before trans. failure.
'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
that is your prerogative.'
REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
anything.'
REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
supposed to be so fragile.'
REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
90,000 miles before trans. failure.
'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
that is your prerogative.'
REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
anything.'
REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
dave wrote:
> 'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
> manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
> transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
> 41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
> supposed to be so fragile.'
>
> REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
> Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
> out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
> less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
> smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
> there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
> MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
> 90,000 miles before trans. failure.
I don't have the manuals for the vehicle any longer so I can't look it
up. I was thinking it was in the 50,000 mile range also and I believe
that is roughly the intervals when I had the fluid and filter changed.
My point isn't the absolute number of miles, that will likely vary by
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.
> 'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
> others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
> simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
> that is your prerogative.'
>
> REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
> the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
> good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?
> 'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
>
> REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
>
> 'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
> anything.'
>
> REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
> sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
Common sense is very often wrong. I know a lot of folks whose common
sense tells them that an automatic that shifts very smoothly will last
longer than one that shifts very firmly. This generally isn't true, at
least it wasn't true a few years ago. A firm shift means the clutches
are slipping for a much shorter time. Smooth shifts required lots of
clutch slippage and thus wear. This certainly wasn't intuitive or
"common sense."
Modern cars often reduce engine power during the shift so that you can
have both smooth shifts and reasonable wear, but my point remains that
things which are "common sense" are very often wrong.
Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter.
So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description in
the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the appropriate
maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need to do
things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and time.
Matt
> 'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
> manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
> transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
> 41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
> supposed to be so fragile.'
>
> REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
> Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
> out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
> less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
> smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
> there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
> MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
> 90,000 miles before trans. failure.
I don't have the manuals for the vehicle any longer so I can't look it
up. I was thinking it was in the 50,000 mile range also and I believe
that is roughly the intervals when I had the fluid and filter changed.
My point isn't the absolute number of miles, that will likely vary by
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.
> 'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
> others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
> simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
> that is your prerogative.'
>
> REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
> the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
> good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?
> 'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
>
> REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
>
> 'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
> anything.'
>
> REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
> sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
Common sense is very often wrong. I know a lot of folks whose common
sense tells them that an automatic that shifts very smoothly will last
longer than one that shifts very firmly. This generally isn't true, at
least it wasn't true a few years ago. A firm shift means the clutches
are slipping for a much shorter time. Smooth shifts required lots of
clutch slippage and thus wear. This certainly wasn't intuitive or
"common sense."
Modern cars often reduce engine power during the shift so that you can
have both smooth shifts and reasonable wear, but my point remains that
things which are "common sense" are very often wrong.
Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter.
So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description in
the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the appropriate
maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need to do
things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and time.
Matt
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
dave wrote:
> 'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
> manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
> transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
> 41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
> supposed to be so fragile.'
>
> REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
> Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
> out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
> less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
> smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
> there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
> MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
> 90,000 miles before trans. failure.
I don't have the manuals for the vehicle any longer so I can't look it
up. I was thinking it was in the 50,000 mile range also and I believe
that is roughly the intervals when I had the fluid and filter changed.
My point isn't the absolute number of miles, that will likely vary by
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.
> 'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
> others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
> simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
> that is your prerogative.'
>
> REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
> the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
> good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?
> 'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
>
> REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
>
> 'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
> anything.'
>
> REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
> sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
Common sense is very often wrong. I know a lot of folks whose common
sense tells them that an automatic that shifts very smoothly will last
longer than one that shifts very firmly. This generally isn't true, at
least it wasn't true a few years ago. A firm shift means the clutches
are slipping for a much shorter time. Smooth shifts required lots of
clutch slippage and thus wear. This certainly wasn't intuitive or
"common sense."
Modern cars often reduce engine power during the shift so that you can
have both smooth shifts and reasonable wear, but my point remains that
things which are "common sense" are very often wrong.
Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter.
So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description in
the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the appropriate
maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need to do
things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and time.
Matt
> 'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
> manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
> transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
> 41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
> supposed to be so fragile.'
>
> REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
> Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
> out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
> less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
> smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
> there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
> MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
> 90,000 miles before trans. failure.
I don't have the manuals for the vehicle any longer so I can't look it
up. I was thinking it was in the 50,000 mile range also and I believe
that is roughly the intervals when I had the fluid and filter changed.
My point isn't the absolute number of miles, that will likely vary by
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.
> 'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
> others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
> simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
> that is your prerogative.'
>
> REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
> the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
> good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?
> 'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
>
> REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
>
> 'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
> anything.'
>
> REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
> sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
Common sense is very often wrong. I know a lot of folks whose common
sense tells them that an automatic that shifts very smoothly will last
longer than one that shifts very firmly. This generally isn't true, at
least it wasn't true a few years ago. A firm shift means the clutches
are slipping for a much shorter time. Smooth shifts required lots of
clutch slippage and thus wear. This certainly wasn't intuitive or
"common sense."
Modern cars often reduce engine power during the shift so that you can
have both smooth shifts and reasonable wear, but my point remains that
things which are "common sense" are very often wrong.
Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter.
So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description in
the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the appropriate
maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need to do
things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and time.
Matt
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
dave wrote:
> 'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
> manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
> transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
> 41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
> supposed to be so fragile.'
>
> REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
> Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
> out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
> less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
> smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
> there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
> MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
> 90,000 miles before trans. failure.
I don't have the manuals for the vehicle any longer so I can't look it
up. I was thinking it was in the 50,000 mile range also and I believe
that is roughly the intervals when I had the fluid and filter changed.
My point isn't the absolute number of miles, that will likely vary by
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.
> 'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
> others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
> simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
> that is your prerogative.'
>
> REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
> the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
> good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?
> 'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
>
> REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
>
> 'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
> anything.'
>
> REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
> sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
Common sense is very often wrong. I know a lot of folks whose common
sense tells them that an automatic that shifts very smoothly will last
longer than one that shifts very firmly. This generally isn't true, at
least it wasn't true a few years ago. A firm shift means the clutches
are slipping for a much shorter time. Smooth shifts required lots of
clutch slippage and thus wear. This certainly wasn't intuitive or
"common sense."
Modern cars often reduce engine power during the shift so that you can
have both smooth shifts and reasonable wear, but my point remains that
things which are "common sense" are very often wrong.
Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter.
So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description in
the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the appropriate
maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need to do
things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and time.
Matt
> 'I put 178,000 miles on a 1996 Plymouth Grand Caravan following the
> manufacturer's recommended transmission fluid and filter changes. The
> transmission never required work and this is with the infamous Chrysler
> 41TE (I think I got that right going from memory) transmission that is
> supposed to be so fragile.'
>
> REPLY: Im willing to bet that Chrysler didnt suggest 100,000 miles on a
> Trans. fluid change for their 1996 MiniVan either ; maybe you can find
> out what it was and report. Ill bet it was more like 50,000 miles (or
> less) . Further, this story is simular to the guy that started
> smoking 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day at 18 and made it to 80 ---
> there will always be some that beat the odds. I owned 2 Chrysler
> MiniVans with that infamous transmission and none of them made it past
> 90,000 miles before trans. failure.
I don't have the manuals for the vehicle any longer so I can't look it
up. I was thinking it was in the 50,000 mile range also and I believe
that is roughly the intervals when I had the fluid and filter changed.
My point isn't the absolute number of miles, that will likely vary by
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.
> 'I stand by my statement that changing the transmission fluids, or any
> others for that matter, more often than the manufacturer requires is
> simply wasting money. If it gives you peace of mind to waste money, then
> that is your prerogative.'
>
> REPLY: Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
> the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
> good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?
> 'Maintenance is only preventive if it is preventing something.'
>
> REPLY: I couldnt agree more.
>
> 'Changing the fluids more often than recommended simply doesn't prevent
> anything.'
>
> REPLY: Only if you have complete faith in the Manufacturers MO ; common
> sense and being in a Mechanical Trade tells me not to.
Common sense is very often wrong. I know a lot of folks whose common
sense tells them that an automatic that shifts very smoothly will last
longer than one that shifts very firmly. This generally isn't true, at
least it wasn't true a few years ago. A firm shift means the clutches
are slipping for a much shorter time. Smooth shifts required lots of
clutch slippage and thus wear. This certainly wasn't intuitive or
"common sense."
Modern cars often reduce engine power during the shift so that you can
have both smooth shifts and reasonable wear, but my point remains that
things which are "common sense" are very often wrong.
Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter.
So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description in
the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the appropriate
maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need to do
things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and time.
Matt
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
'My point isn't the absolute number of miles, that will likely vary by
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.'
REPLY: My point is that you canNOT trust the Manufacturer's advertised
maintenance claims ; which is why I change my fluids more often myself
using all synthetics...except for the Trans Flush/Drain which i have a
local shop perform. Ive seen the condition of fluids after the
Manufacturers suggested maintenance schedule...and its rediculous
pushing it to that extreme.
'Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?'
REPLY: I am an avid reader of Technical Articles written by Authoritys
in various mechanical fields in addition to having worked in a related
Mechanical Trade for over 30 years at a maintenance/teardown/rebuild
level. Car Manufacturers, like Car Dealers, cannot be 100% trusted to
give the correct story when it comes to maintenance...in addition to
design in many cases.
'Common sense is very often wrong. '
REPLY: Common sense which comes from a mechanically oriented person ,
is usually right. Especially if that person has had first hand
experience from a design, application, and repair standpoint.
'Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter. '
REPLY: Automotive Transmission Oil OFTEN SEES contaminants in the form
of metal particulates, acidity, and condensation . And heat IS OFTEN a
problem in modern auto Transmissions especially in hot climates and/or
mostly city driving where the clutches are constantly shifting ; heavy
cargo loads or people loads contribute to the issue. Go to
www.amsoil.com for further education on this subject.
'So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description
in the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the
appropriate maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need
to do things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and
time.'
REPLY: And keep in mind that 100,000 mile suggested changing of fluids,
spark plugs, and coolant...come from Manufacturers who very often have
an ulterior motive .
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.'
REPLY: My point is that you canNOT trust the Manufacturer's advertised
maintenance claims ; which is why I change my fluids more often myself
using all synthetics...except for the Trans Flush/Drain which i have a
local shop perform. Ive seen the condition of fluids after the
Manufacturers suggested maintenance schedule...and its rediculous
pushing it to that extreme.
'Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?'
REPLY: I am an avid reader of Technical Articles written by Authoritys
in various mechanical fields in addition to having worked in a related
Mechanical Trade for over 30 years at a maintenance/teardown/rebuild
level. Car Manufacturers, like Car Dealers, cannot be 100% trusted to
give the correct story when it comes to maintenance...in addition to
design in many cases.
'Common sense is very often wrong. '
REPLY: Common sense which comes from a mechanically oriented person ,
is usually right. Especially if that person has had first hand
experience from a design, application, and repair standpoint.
'Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter. '
REPLY: Automotive Transmission Oil OFTEN SEES contaminants in the form
of metal particulates, acidity, and condensation . And heat IS OFTEN a
problem in modern auto Transmissions especially in hot climates and/or
mostly city driving where the clutches are constantly shifting ; heavy
cargo loads or people loads contribute to the issue. Go to
www.amsoil.com for further education on this subject.
'So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description
in the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the
appropriate maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need
to do things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and
time.'
REPLY: And keep in mind that 100,000 mile suggested changing of fluids,
spark plugs, and coolant...come from Manufacturers who very often have
an ulterior motive .
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Transmission oil change
'My point isn't the absolute number of miles, that will likely vary by
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.'
REPLY: My point is that you canNOT trust the Manufacturer's advertised
maintenance claims ; which is why I change my fluids more often myself
using all synthetics...except for the Trans Flush/Drain which i have a
local shop perform. Ive seen the condition of fluids after the
Manufacturers suggested maintenance schedule...and its rediculous
pushing it to that extreme.
'Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?'
REPLY: I am an avid reader of Technical Articles written by Authoritys
in various mechanical fields in addition to having worked in a related
Mechanical Trade for over 30 years at a maintenance/teardown/rebuild
level. Car Manufacturers, like Car Dealers, cannot be 100% trusted to
give the correct story when it comes to maintenance...in addition to
design in many cases.
'Common sense is very often wrong. '
REPLY: Common sense which comes from a mechanically oriented person ,
is usually right. Especially if that person has had first hand
experience from a design, application, and repair standpoint.
'Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter. '
REPLY: Automotive Transmission Oil OFTEN SEES contaminants in the form
of metal particulates, acidity, and condensation . And heat IS OFTEN a
problem in modern auto Transmissions especially in hot climates and/or
mostly city driving where the clutches are constantly shifting ; heavy
cargo loads or people loads contribute to the issue. Go to
www.amsoil.com for further education on this subject.
'So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description
in the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the
appropriate maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need
to do things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and
time.'
REPLY: And keep in mind that 100,000 mile suggested changing of fluids,
spark plugs, and coolant...come from Manufacturers who very often have
an ulterior motive .
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________
vehicle and by severe vs. normal service. My point is that the
manufacturer's recommendation for the type of driving you do is
typically fairly conservative. There is simply no need to perform
maintenance more frequently than required.'
REPLY: My point is that you canNOT trust the Manufacturer's advertised
maintenance claims ; which is why I change my fluids more often myself
using all synthetics...except for the Trans Flush/Drain which i have a
local shop perform. Ive seen the condition of fluids after the
Manufacturers suggested maintenance schedule...and its rediculous
pushing it to that extreme.
'Its 'not wasting money' when the manufacturer is pushing it to
the limit on maintenance durations to make the vehicle (and them) look
good.
And how do you know this? Are you a transmission designer?'
REPLY: I am an avid reader of Technical Articles written by Authoritys
in various mechanical fields in addition to having worked in a related
Mechanical Trade for over 30 years at a maintenance/teardown/rebuild
level. Car Manufacturers, like Car Dealers, cannot be 100% trusted to
give the correct story when it comes to maintenance...in addition to
design in many cases.
'Common sense is very often wrong. '
REPLY: Common sense which comes from a mechanically oriented person ,
is usually right. Especially if that person has had first hand
experience from a design, application, and repair standpoint.
'Transmission fluid isn't like engine oil. It doesn't see contaminants
from combustion that form the nasty acids and such that make the life of
engine oil fairly short. Unless you are towing or really abusing your
automatic, the only thing the oil has to deal with is wear material from
the transmission itself. With a good filter, this isn't a problem for
many, many miles. I've never seen a transmission filter even close to
being clogged even after 50,000 miles. The other issue for the fluid is
heat, but again is is rarely a problem unless you are towing. And then
the manufacturer's change intervals are typically a lot shorter. '
REPLY: Automotive Transmission Oil OFTEN SEES contaminants in the form
of metal particulates, acidity, and condensation . And heat IS OFTEN a
problem in modern auto Transmissions especially in hot climates and/or
mostly city driving where the clutches are constantly shifting ; heavy
cargo loads or people loads contribute to the issue. Go to
www.amsoil.com for further education on this subject.
'So, realistically compare your driving environment to the description
in the maintenance section of your owner's manual, select the
appropriate maintenance schedule, follow it, and you'll be fine. No need
to do things twice as frequently, unless you like wasting money and
time.'
REPLY: And keep in mind that 100,000 mile suggested changing of fluids,
spark plugs, and coolant...come from Manufacturers who very often have
an ulterior motive .
____________________________________________
"The only thing necessary for evil to continue, is for good (tolerant)
men to do nothing" -- C.S. Lewis.
____________________________________________