![]() There is a lot of debate about late ATF changes killing transmissions. Getting scheduled maintenance on an automatic transmission is by far your best recourse. It will more than likely destroy your transmission. Bottom line here is that rule of thumb dictates, if you haven't kept up on your transmission maintenance, don't do a tranny flush. Yet, the same type of vehicle, if left alone, would have lasted many, many more miles without the flush. To this end, I've seen transmission which get flushed, having never had the fluid changed, destroy itself within a few thousand miles. There is still a large quantity which remains in the torque converter. When you drain by dropping the pan alone, you are only changing out the fluid which resides in the pan. This not only cleans the filter, but also replaces all fluid in the transmission. The reason a flush could be more detrimental is because (to my understanding) the way a flush works is by forcing fluid through the system backwards, freeing up any solids which may be in the filter or elsewhere and forcing them back out through the system. This is because the buildup solids would still be in place. ![]() Please note, changing just the fluid (dropping the tranny pan method) under the same conditions (long period than specified between fluid change) would not have this same effect. If the transmission has had regular flushes, this buildup does not occur as well as wear/tear not occurring due to buildup. This causes faster wear in the material which is left, which causes the transmission to need rebuilt sooner. If you remove this buildup, you leave gaps in the soft parts (clutch material) which means less material for the transmission to work with. The theory is, over time, buildup occurs within the transmission when flushes do not occur at regular maintenance intervals. ![]() I believe the problem which is actually being discussed is doing a transmission flush when it has never been done before (or with long periods without). empirical data on this, so please understand that caveat. So I'm fine with doing some minor maintenance to keep it going for a couple more years, but don't want to do anything that will possibly harm the transmission or make the problem worse. If I have to do a major repair at this point, I'd pretty much declare the vehicle "junk" instead. If I understand correctly, such treatments are usually best followed by a fluid change. I've had a little hesitation in shifting: I talked to my mechanic and he likely said it's a sticky solenoid, and he suggested a cleaning transmission treatment (such as Seafoam), but he hasn't looked at it. With my vehicle in particular (2000 Chevrolet Venture), I had a transmission repair and fluid change at 130,000 miles, and am now at 190,000 miles (so it is a little overdue for transmission maintenance). Is there any truth to this? Best answers I could find searching the internet were pretty inconclusive at best, such as yahoo answers with unhelpful answers like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The usual story is something along the lines of "older American make care with 200,000 miles, a week after we changed the fluid, the transmission went out." ![]() I have had people give me anecdotal stories (friend of a friend type thing) about changing the transmission fluid in vehicles with 150,000+ miles, especially those that haven't had regular transmission maintenance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |