I took it to the shop today to get transmission flush and was told
that it was in such a bad shape that if they do the fluid flush, the
car might not move and that the transmission was just buying time
before it goes down. The question is, how much would it cost to get
First, let us drop back about 3 squares. First, what kind of shop
did you take it to for that transmission flush? How many miles are we
talking about on that vehicle? Has the transaxle been reacting
strange, such as delayed shifts, slips, weird noises, etc.?
I'm VERY suspect of any shop that, without really checking it out,
pronounces your transaxle as toast.
I'm no great fan of transaxle flushes without also taking down the
pan and replacing the filter assembly. Just doing a fluid flush would
be like changing the engine oil and leaving in an old oil filter.
Also, if that flush machine is not cleaned out from the last job
they did you'll inherit all the crap that was in that last
So anyway, before you shell out $2500~3000 P&L to have a tranaxle
put in that car, let's try and figure out if one is actually needed.
I'll echo Bill's comments and add that unless this car has been abused or
the car has very high mileage, this really sounds suspect. These
transmissions are quite solid and they run for a very long time. That
said - what was it that caused you to take it to the shop for a flush in the
When I bought the car at around 63K miles I was told that the
transmission flush was done and now it's 95K miles. I heard some
grinding noise in the front and car shakes while braking. So I had the
front rotors and pads replaced and since it's been more than 30K miles
since a transmission flush was done, I asked them to do it. They
advised that if they do the job, the car might not move and suggested
that I just drive till it the transmission goes out instead of
repairing it. This was all at Tuffy Auto Service.
William H. Bowen wrote:
On a car with 95K miles, a shop that has no history of the car might be wary
of doing a flush on the trans - basically a CYA response on their part. I
agree with you, though, that it's a good idea to change the trans fluid. How
about just getting the pan dropped, a new filter and fresh fluid? That goes
for about $125 in my area.
My experience is different. In 45 years of car ownership, I've only ever
changed the fluid in one transmission. I've only ever had a problem with one
transmission. Can you guess which one? And yes, some of them have gone
200,000 miles with nothing ever done to them.
Why? My cars are very well cared for. The oil is changed regularly, but
not at 3500 miles. The body is perfect, clean, waxed, engine is tuned up
when needed, etc. You don't get 150k to 200k by abusing and not caring for
a car. Transmissions, OTOH, really don't require much service unless
something wears over many miles. It can happen. Pretty close to being a
Make all the comments you want, but can you explain why the only trans that
ever broke down was the one that received some "preventative maintenance"
and the others were flawless? Make all the suppositions you want, but facts
it's simple, you didn't do the preventative maintenance soon enough, or
you didn't do it correctly. (or, of course, you might have had a car
that had a design or manufacturing flaw in the transmission.) Saying
things like doing recommended PM causes transmissions to fail earlier
than they otherwise would is flat out idiotic and I should hope that
nobody reading this is dumb enough to infer from your post that one
should not properly maintain a transmission. BTW 200K miles is nothing
for a good car; with fluid changes and band adjustments every 50K a
good auto trans should last double or triple that before requiring any
(prefers stickshifts anyway, and yes I do change my gear oil and am
partial to Redline. Good clean synthetics never hurt anyone.)
I didn't say it was the cause, but that is the only one I ever had a problem
with. Waste of the $65 I paid if it was going to fail anyway as this did not
prevent it. Again, from FACTS, not hearsay, I don't see the need Many
cars, no service, no failures. I'm happy.
Hate to break the news to you but my 1997 Dodge van has bands that have to
Admittedly, this is not a GM application, and this vehicle is older than the
car the OP referenced,
but in generic terms, some transmissions one may encounter nowadays still
have adjustable bands.
No matter what you say on here, somebody will come up with an exception,
I pretty much knew where you were coming from.
My 'plenty fine' Dodge van is beginning to be an old car now, not modern at
but tough as dirt.
I've always followed a schedule of changing tranny oil and filter every
three years, ever since I bought my first car 35 years ago. I've never had a
tranny failure - ever. I've always done it myself to keep costs down, but it
isn't that hard to do. If any of your cars went over 200K miles with no
trans maintenance and didn't have a problem, you were very fortunate.
I too service my tranny at regular intervals but the fact of the matter is
that car are all over the road that are just like what Edwin describes - no
tranny service at all and still running strong at 200K+. Look - it's one
thing to believe in performing maintenance but to start throwing hobgoblins
out in the dark and suggesting something that is just plane contrary to
every day experience is simply bullshit. Plenty of trannys that have been
adequately serviced have failed. I know - I too am the owner of one that
failed after proper service.
I had two that failed at 100K, with good service. Both freaking GM Metric
shitteaux 440T4's. Many in that series didnt make it to 100K, just as some
Ford and Chrysler transmissions of late have been very prone to failure, no
matter what you do to them.
Still, given the option of buying a well maintained and serviced used car,
and buying one from an owner that chooses NOT to service the transmission,
or to run extended oil intervals, etc...the choice for me is clear.
You would have a valid point if it made a difference. I do change engine
oil on a regular basis, but at the intervals suggested by the manufacturer,
not some Quickie Lube place that wants you back every three weeks to take
In my years of ownership of cars with automatic transmissions, following
your suggestion I'd have had service at least 15 times, maybe more. At
today's dollar it would have cost me $1200+ and have NO gain. Why should I
spend the money? It made no difference in the life of the car. Sounds
silly to me, but your money is your money.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.