Honda Car Forum

In article <feb3pv.gio.0@poczta.onet.pl>,
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:

> As a consumer, a car user, I need to know what exactly is wrong in using
> the machine to flush the transmission fluid and paying cheaper ($99)
> than paying for two drain&fill services (2x$69).

You don't pay two drain/fill services as separate items. You pay for
the Honda-recommended fluid replacement, which is more than a single
drain/fill but is a separate procedure with its own price.

You really don't get out much, do you.

In article <feb5q1.dl4.0@poczta.onet.pl>,
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:

> And where do you have here "the manufacturer VERY SPECIFICALLY recommends
> AGAINST" flushing with machine ? Do not make stuff up, please...

I don't. I've spoken with a Honda zone rep--you know, the
manufacturer's representative who has to pay out for warranty claims and
the like.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <feb0pv.hho.0@poczta.onet.pl>,
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>


snip


>
>>Can you quote Honda's or Toyota's recomendation against
>>flushing with machine INCLUDING the reasoning given?
>
>
> Do they have to give a reason? Do they give a reason why they recommend
> changing the oil?
>
> 2002 Honda Odyssey owner's manual, p. 295:
>
> To thoroughly flush the
> transmission, the technician
> should drain and refill it with
> Honda ATF-Z1 (Automatic
> Transmission Fluid), then drive
> the vehicle a short distance. Do
> this three times. Then drain and
> refill the transmission a final time.
>
> Now, what about that specified procedure is ambiguous? Why do you want
> NOT to follow the specified procedure?
>


Personally, I find that procedure pretty wasteful and convoluted.

By simply providing a means to drain the converter as well as the tranny
would simplify the process.

I'm wondering why the environutz have not picked up on this by the lube
companies love it...

JT

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-6E52C4.19013507102007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <feb5q1.dl4.0@poczta.onet.pl>,
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>
>> And where do you have here "the manufacturer VERY SPECIFICALLY recommends
>> AGAINST" flushing with machine ? Do not make stuff up, please...
>
> I don't. I've spoken with a Honda zone rep--you know, the
> manufacturer's representative who has to pay out for warranty
> claims and the like.

Sorry, but I would preffer to see official paper from Honda.
Something like tsr or service manual amendment, etc.

So far you were not able to produce manufacturer recomendation
AGAINST using AT flush machines.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-AC1F17.19003107102007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <feb3pv.gio.0@poczta.onet.pl>,
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>
>> As a consumer, a car user, I need to know what exactly is wrong in using
>> the machine to flush the transmission fluid and paying cheaper ($99)
>> than paying for two drain&fill services (2x$69).
>
> You don't pay two drain/fill services as separate items. You pay for
> the Honda-recommended fluid replacement, which is more than a single
> drain/fill but is a separate procedure with its own price.

From my experience dealerships do not offer simple drain&fill.
They switched to offer machine flush.

> You really don't get out much, do you.

What are you trying to achive using such rude comments?
Do you think they are valid arguments in this debat?

Please provide me with a proof of manuafacturer recomending
against using flush machines or admit such recomendation
does not exist.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-795C31.18592107102007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <feb3pq.gio.0@poczta.onet.pl>,
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you think I would care to ask this question
>> if it did not matter to me?
>>
>> > They are the engineers. I'm the consumer.
>> > I don't need to know the engineering details.
>> > I need to know what maintenance to perform
>> > and when to perform it.
>> >
>> > The hairy details aren't nearly so important.
>>
>> I will give you a reason why they could be important.
>> If the manufacturer recomended use of a machine than
>> the routine would be not universal and hard to
>> make in not well equiped garage...
>
> If the engineers recommended a machine, the machine in question would
> be specified and Honda would require its dealerships to own one.

Engineer do not recommend a machine, they do not recommend
against using a machine either. So do not try to lift your
own opinion against machines using the authority of the
honda manufacturer if there is no such recomendation against
using such machines.

So far, during this lenghty discussion, nobody was able
to answer simple question with valid, verifiable answer:
why flushing transmission is worse than drain&fill.
Also, nobody confirmed the statement made to me and OP
at the dealership about benefits of using tranny with
an old fluid, which contains "beneficial particles",
flushed with the replacement of the fluid...

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:gOdOi.187981$ax1.64553@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Personally, I find that procedure pretty wasteful and convoluted.

Me too.

> By simply providing a means to drain the converter as well as the tranny would simplify the process.

Maybe it is not possible due to locking some air in the tranny
during refill or something like that? Who knows...

Machine seems to be a reasonable way to go but nobody can
produce here argument against using such machine, unfortunatelly.

> I'm wondering why the environutz have not picked up on this by the lube companies love it...

Lube companies love it because it saves service time and the tranny fluid.

Pszemol wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:gOdOi.187981$ax1.64553@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Personally, I find that procedure pretty wasteful and convoluted.
>
> Me too.
>
>> By simply providing a means to drain the converter as well as the
>> tranny would simplify the process.
>
> Maybe it is not possible due to locking some air in the tranny
> during refill or something like that? Who knows...
>
> Machine seems to be a reasonable way to go but nobody can
> produce here argument against using such machine, unfortunatelly.

-------------------------------

Honda designed the tranny. They know ZipHead Lube will hook up the hoses
backwards (and probably sell you non-Honda fluid). They have a simple
answer: Don't do it.

Read it for yourself:
http://www.hondasuv.com/members/showthread.php?t=22479&

'Curly'

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
news:feb3ps.gio.0@poczta.onet.pl...
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-B5A54C.17111207102007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <feaets.hl8.0@poczta.onet.pl>,
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Do they care to say WHY it is not recommended?
>>> >
>>> > i just told you...
>>>
>>> What you said does not make any sense.
>>> Flush is going to exchange almost 100% of fluid with a new one.
>>
>> It will also do other things that the people who designed and built
>> the transmission don't want to happen.
>
> What exactly are these "things"? Do you know or you simply guess?
>
>> Honda does specify a method to exchange almost 100% of the fluid with
>> fresh. Use that method. Hint: it does NOT involve the use of a
>> machine. A torque wrench, a drain pan, and some fresh fluid--and
>> time--are all that's needed.
>
> If you replace 2/3 of the fluid twice you will have still
> more than 11% of old gunk diluted in the transmission...


At least you don't have anyone elses fluid from the flushing machine which
was a point he made.

I highly recommend you get your AT flushed ASAP. Let us know how it works
out.



"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
news:feb42a.ghc.0@poczta.onet.pl...
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-43B169.18064307102007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <feb0jc.b2s.0@poczta.onet.pl>,
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Secondly, it doesn't matter if the dealership has and tries to sell
>>> > the services of such a machine. The only real question is, is it good
>>> > for the car? The dealership doesn't really care; they care about
>>> > selling services that people want, whether those services are useful
>>> > or not, whether those services are beneficial or not, whether those
>>> > services are harmful or not.
>>>
>>> Does the manufacturer tolerate services sold under the logo of
>>> TOYOTA or HONDA which are not only not recomended but HARMFULL?
>>> Dont you think that manufacturer would forbid selling such services?
>>
>> Nope. Happens all the time.
>>
>> Now, if the manufacturer's area representative gets wind of too much crap
>> going on (not bloody likely in the case of GM and Ford and Chrysler), if
>> the customers bother to complain directly to the manufacturer in such a
>> way that it gets their attention, the dealership might have to answer to
>> the manufacturer in some way or another.
>>
>> But the dealership is an independent businessman, and there are strong
>> laws regarding his right to do business and his relationship with the
>> manufacturer.
>>
>> In the end, most dealerships just do what they think they can get away
>> with. Their goal is to MAKE MONEY. Period.
>
> Not very convincing argument...
> If in fact a strong manufacturer recomendation AGAINST using
> such machines existed if would be easy to get on the dealers back
> for doing something to the cars which manufacturer recomended against.
>
>>> > Does the manufacturer specify the procedure? If so, show me the
>>> > specification.
>>>
>>> Do not know such specification. do not have access to service manuals.
>>
>> If they don't specify it, and/or you don't know if they specify it, then
>> why assume they DO specify it?
>>
>> Absent a specific recommendation to do so, don't you think it's better to
>> assume NOT to do it and instead do what it is they actually specify?
>
> I do not assume it.
>
> You seem to cut the last, important part of my message.
>
> <you:>
>> Honda specifies a repeated drain/fill/drive procedure to exchange the
>> fluid, and recommends against using a flush machine. There's a reason
>> for that, and it doesn't have anything to do with foreign or contaminated
>> fluids.
>
> <me:>
> Can you show me such recomendation of honda AGAINST flushing with machine?
>
> Well, can you?