Honda Car Forum

Here is an explanation of the problem of transmission failure after
flushing/changing old ATF:



Archive for Wednesday, November 15, 2000
Transmission Health Check: Situation Is Fluid

By Ralph Vartabedian
November 15, 2000 in print edition G-1 LA Times

An automobile’s automatic transmission–the technology-packed gearbox
that is built like a Swiss watch, controlled by a sophisticated
computer and cooled by a red liquid that looks like cherry Kool-Aid–is
all too often a repair disaster waiting to happen.

Indeed, a transmission failure will typically cost more than $2,000,
which in many cases is nearly as much as replacing the engine itself.
Once a transmission starts to disintegrate, there isn’t much you can
do except to replace the entire unit.

Dirty automatic transmission fluid is one of the big culprits in
failures, which have grown more common in recent decades as engineers
have made systems more complex, jammed them into smaller spaces and
reduced the amount of outside airflow that cools them.

These trends have made transmission fluid all the more important
because of the crucial role it fulfills. It must lubricate gears,
bearings and other moving parts. It acts as a hydraulic fluid that
operates delicate valves and transfers power in the torque converter,
which is a high-powered fluid clutch that connects the engine to the
gearbox. And it is the only coolant inside the transmission to
transfer out heat.

Unlike motor oil, transmission fluid must provide lubrication but not
be so slippery that bands and clutches inside the transmission would
be unable to grab and transfer power when they are supposed to,
according to Mark Ferner, an engineer at Pennzoil’s lube research
center in Texas.

As transmission fluid ages, it can oxidize or burn up. It starts out
clear with a reddish tint but can end up opaque or brown with an
acrid, burnt odor. Such signs are typical of transmission failure
because they indicate that the transmission is overheating. (Fluid
that loses its color but remains clear is not necessarily a sign of
impending trouble.)

As the fluid oxidizes, it becomes less slippery and offers less
protection to moving parts. It also makes the clutches and bands
inside the transmission more grabby, so shifting is more labored.

All the while, higher temperatures accelerate wear. It is also common
for transmissions to shed metal flakes, but the amount of flaking
grows as a failure approaches, and that can jam valves and abrade
moving parts.

A mistake some motorists make is to change the fluid for the first
time only after they think trouble is coming on a high-mileage car.
The new fluid–with its greater lubrication and fresh detergents–often
will cause clutches to slip and will loosen deposits that can jam
valves. So the new fluid may actually precipitate the failure of a
transmission that is on its last legs.

Auto makers and transmission fluid makers have introduced newer fluids
that are better suited to handling modern operating conditions. At the
same time, they have extended the recommended change intervals. For
example, Ford Motor Co.’s Mercon 5 and General Motors Corp.’s Dextron
3 are described as lifetime fluids.

But a lot of the country’s top transmission experts believe that
motorists who follow such advice are begging for trouble. It makes a
lot of sense to change transmission fluid every 20,000 to 25,000 miles–
about four times as often as the auto makers say.

Ferner, for example, changes his own transmission fluid every 12
months or about 12,000 miles, saying new fluid replenishes the
detergents, contaminant dispersants and friction modifiers that get
used up over time.

Sam Memmolo, a master mechanic with a repair shop in Georgia, adds
that spending $100 or so on a fluid change to protect a $2,000
transmission is “a no-brainer.”

*

Knowing what to ask for in a transmission fluid change is a little
more complicated than getting a motor oil change. Auto makers do not
provide drain plugs for transmissions, so garages have developed two
ways to do the job.

Traditionally, a mechanic unbolts and removes the transmission oil
pan, a messy job that often results in burnt knuckles. With the pan
off, the mechanic typically changes the transmission filter, which is
either a screen or a cartridge with a felt filter inside. A good
tranny man can tell a lot about the health of a transmission from
looking at the amount of metal flakes inside a filter. The service
costs about $65.

But this method leaves several quarts of dirty fluid inside the torque
converter. Some garages now offer an alternative fluid change, in
which the old fluid is pumped out of the transmission through a
coolant line. The cost is typically about $60 to $80.

Although this procedure results in a complete fluid change, the old
filter remains behind. But a transmission filter may not need to be
changed every 25,000 miles, because it will continue to allow
unrestricted flow.

A third option–which many transmission mechanics recommend at least
every 50,000 miles–is to spend $110 to $130 and have both services
done at once.







On Oct 30, 2:05*pm, "Jerohm" <jDrEmLoEh...@snet.net> wrote:
> a while back, I remember reading that RATHER than a flush, LS400 owners
> should politely ask for ONLY a drain and refill ... due to the possibility
> of causing more damage than it is worth. *Urban myth or any truth? *Thanks
> for any insight
> j

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:12:45 -0800, johngdole wrote:
<snip crap>

why are you posting non-quantitative oilco/marketing spam like this? if
you want to know when to change your transmission fluid, either follow the
manufacturer service procedure/schedule [which they spend millions
researching for you btw] - /or/ use oil analysis. all this bullshit about
"oh, don't worry about data, just spend money with us and we promise you,
uh, well, we'll /tell/ you everything will be just peachy, honest" is just
ridiculous. and naive. and stupid.

No, Jim, I attach references so you know the answer didn't come out of
thin air. People can read the words themselves and make up their own
minds.

Some of the manufacturer's intervals are for marketing purposes only.
For example, dino Dexron III has a rated severe service life of about
30-35K miles. So why is it OK to change it at 60K miles in some of
Toyota's (Lexus) transmissions if you're under severe service
category? BTW, the low-tech Type-IV ATF is dino, too.

But you're right. For short term car leases I guess no changes are
needed.



On Nov 7, 5:34*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> why are you posting non-quantitative oilco/marketing spam like this? *if
> you want to know when to change your transmission fluid, either follow the
> manufacturer service procedure/schedule [which they spend millions
> researching for you btw] - /or/ use oil analysis. *all this bullshit about
> "oh, don't worry about data, just spend money with us and we promise you,
> uh, well, we'll /tell/ you everything will be just peachy, honest" is just
> ridiculous. *and naive. *and stupid.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:28:13 -0800, johngdole wrote:

> No, Jim, I attach references so you know the answer didn't come out of
> thin air. People can read the words themselves and make up their own
> minds.

actually, all you did was repeat a pile of fact-free marketing garbage
that had succeeded in getting you suckered.

"Sam Memmolo, a master mechanic with a repair shop in Georgia, adds..."

i mean, really, who gives a flying one what "sam memmolo" is alleged to
say? the only thing that's clear in the article is that it's encouraging
you to spend money on transmission oil changes. not even a hint at
testing, analysis, not a single thing scientific or quantitative.

one of the best things about the net is access to information. one of the
worst things, is exposure to mis-information. you need to learn to
filter. if there's no hard data, just opinion of "sam memmolo"'s, you
need to be suspicious of guerrilla marketing - exactly what you'd found
and posted.

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:PcCdnShRyONOhIjUnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:28:13 -0800, johngdole wrote:
>
>> No, Jim, I attach references so you know the answer didn't come out of
>> thin air. People can read the words themselves and make up their own
>> minds.
>
> actually, all you did was repeat a pile of fact-free marketing garbage
> that had succeeded in getting you suckered.
>
> "Sam Memmolo, a master mechanic with a repair shop in Georgia, adds..."
>
> i mean, really, who gives a flying one what "sam memmolo" is alleged to
> say? the only thing that's clear in the article is that it's encouraging
> you to spend money on transmission oil changes. not even a hint at
> testing, analysis, not a single thing scientific or quantitative.
>
> one of the best things about the net is access to information. one of the
> worst things, is exposure to mis-information. you need to learn to
> filter. if there's no hard data, just opinion of "sam memmolo"'s, you
> need to be suspicious of guerrilla marketing - exactly what you'd found
> and posted.
>

He's right. I replaced the transmission fluid and filter in an AMC Hornet I
had, and a month later the transmission went bad. It's a little ironic how
servicing something actually makes matters worse.

"Jon G." <jon8338@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> He's right. I replaced the transmission fluid and filter in an AMC Hornet
> I had, and a month later the transmission went bad. It's a little ironic
> how servicing something actually makes matters worse.


A lot of people dont service the transmission until the damage is already
done.

If changing transmission fluid and filter causes a problem, then your tranny
was
hanging by a thread anyway.

This is one reason I am cautious about buying a used car. A lot of people
just
run the wheels off of them, and dont service them, and we inherit their
sloppiness.

The manufacturer specifies the change intervals under different type of
severity.
If you dont do the service, then dont bitch when you have a problem.

Oil analysis, and all this other BS, is the refuge of idiots. The
manufacturer tells
you up front what to do. If you choose not to do it, TS.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:48:01 -0600, HLS wrote:

> "Jon G." <jon8338@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>> He's right. I replaced the transmission fluid and filter in an AMC
>> Hornet I had, and a month later the transmission went bad. It's a
>> little ironic how servicing something actually makes matters worse.
>
>
> A lot of people dont service the transmission until the damage is
> already done.
>
> If changing transmission fluid and filter causes a problem, then your
> tranny was
> hanging by a thread anyway.
>
> This is one reason I am cautious about buying a used car. A lot of
> people just
> run the wheels off of them, and dont service them, and we inherit their
> sloppiness.
>
> The manufacturer specifies the change intervals under different type of
> severity.
> If you dont do the service, then dont bitch when you have a problem.
>
> Oil analysis, and all this other BS, is the refuge of idiots.

wow! that's like saying a fuel gauge won't tell you if the tank's got gas
in it! great one dude - we need more of your kind around here!




> The
> manufacturer tells
> you up front what to do. If you choose not to do it, TS.

measuring beats scheduling. scheduling is for when you can't measure.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 18:48:01 -0600, "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote:

>
>"Jon G." <jon8338@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>> He's right. I replaced the transmission fluid and filter in an AMC Hornet
>> I had, and a month later the transmission went bad. It's a little ironic
>> how servicing something actually makes matters worse.
>
>
>A lot of people dont service the transmission until the damage is already
>done.
>
>If changing transmission fluid and filter causes a problem, then your tranny
>was
>hanging by a thread anyway.
>
Yeah, the old "new tranny fluid will dissolve the grunge and FUBAR
your tranny" never made any sense.
If it's running by dint of coagulated grunge, it won't last long
anyway.

>This is one reason I am cautious about buying a used car. A lot of people
>just
>run the wheels off of them, and dont service them, and we inherit their
>sloppiness.
>
Sure, but bad maintenance is usually obvious. If the engine and tranny
are tight, all else is normal, usually inexpensive maintenance.
If the price is too high, you can often get it knocked down by
pointing out something like looseness in the suspension, etc.
I've got a '90 Corsica 2.2 we've been driving around town since I saw
it on the street with a "For Sale" sign over ten years ago.
Been a great second car.
The guy wanted $3k, and it was worth that to me, even though the test
drive showed in needed struts. I didn't even mention the struts,
because the price was a good one.
After the test drive my 15 year old pointed out the only blemish on
the car, a buffable scratch. The guy heard my kid point out the
scratch, and said, "I'll give it to you for $2500."
That $500 more than paid for new struts.
He just wanted to get rid of the car, because his kid had graduated
HS, was off to college, and they just didn't need it anymore.

>The manufacturer specifies the change intervals under different type of
>severity.
>If you dont do the service, then dont bitch when you have a problem.
>
>Oil analysis, and all this other BS, is the refuge of idiots. The
>manufacturer tells
>you up front what to do. If you choose not to do it, TS.

Yep. Cars don't get high cholesterol treatable with Lipitor.

--Vic