"Transmission Flush": Required ?

Have a question or want to start a discussion? Post it! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View


Hello:

Have a '97 Buick Le Sabre with 60,000 miles on it.

Brought it back to the dealership today for an oil change, and they
recommended (strongly) that I also have a "transmission flush" due to having
60K on it.

Didn't have it done.

Should I have ?
Is this a good idea after only 60K ?

Guess in a way I was a bit concerned about lousing up the trans any, as it
works fine.

Thoughts on ?

Thanks,
Bob



Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


While I'm not a fan of flushing the transmission (I much prefer dropping the
pan and changing the filter and gasket), regular maintenance is essential.
I've heard of too many problems after a power flush, especially in vehicles
like yours that have gone an extensive number of miles without proper
service, so that's why I don't like it.  You should probably go no further
than 30,000 miles before having the fluid and filter changed - or less under
severe driving conditions.  60,000 miles in 8 years doesn't sound too
severe, however.  You can look in  your owner's manual for the recommended
sevice intervals.

If you've not had any tranny service done in 60,000 miles then you're living
on borrowed time.  Tranny fluid does break down over time and can get
contaminated.  The internal filter will plug up over time which only hurts
your tranny, causing loss of performance and overheating.

Cheers - Jonathan

Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?



Robert11 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I always wonder how the myth got started with the old timers that
transmission fluid should never be changed. The dealer was acting in
your best interest in suggesting a flush. If you can't trust him to
work on your car that's another matter.
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


"Al Bundy" wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No myth, the only time you need to do it is if it has been cooked and
in the old days for us "old timers" they used to put drain plugs in
torque converters so you could drain about everything out and they had
plug on tranny pans too. Then they started to say that was because it
really does not nedd changing and now they say they need flushing I
have seen flushing cause problems and it is best not done as the only
one that really benifits form flushing every time is the dealer and
his bank account.

--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?



SnoMan wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You could shift those 1951 Fords into reverse with the vehicle moving
30mph. As long as you were careful not to touch the gas it wouldn't
kill the trans either. Lots of them would go 100,000 miles and people
did not change fluids. That's not good enough today. Maintenance is
never a bad thing when done properly.


Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


SnoMan wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

At 60,000 miles he is due for a fluid change, IMHO the dealer was trying
to suggest a useful service.  If the OP doesn't want to pay for it he
can drop the pan and change the fluid and filter himself, but I would do
something.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


Nate, the complete myth involves more than the cost. That's just his
reason dejure. The myth says that it's a sealed system and nothing can
enter unless someone opens the tranny up and then all hell can break
lose. They qualify it by agreeing that if the fluid turns coal black
then something could stand to be done. They overlook the fact that
debris develops from within the system and does not show on the stick,
if the car has one. And they assume that all the additives are working
if the fluid is red. No amount of reasoning can change this belief.


Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


Al Bundy wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well... IMHO that is backwards.  By the time the fluid is burnt looking
there's likely enough varnish in there that doing a flush or fluid
change *could* be harmful.  Better to do preventative maintenance IMHO.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


Al Bundy wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Every system has to have some kind of breather opening to the atmosphere
to allow for expansion and contraction pressure equalization.  Even RWD
differentials have a vent which opens to the outside air.

These are not "sealed" systems as all.

Also, transmission fluids are subject to oxidation just like any lubricant.

The one thing I agree with is that keeping transmission temperatures
down is a big benefit both to transmission life and to fluid life.

It also makes plenty of sense to periodically change out the ATF by one
means or another.  Automatic transmission failures seem to be far more
common on modern vehicles than are major engine failures, yet most
people pay far more attention to engine oil chanes and other engine
related preventative maintenance than they do to the transmission.

A similar situation exists with brake systems.  Many of the European
makers schedule a brake fluid flush once ever 2 years, yet most US and
Japanese makers have no scheduled brake fluid flush.  In this case the
Europeans have it right.  Brake fluid accumulates contaminants and
looses the effectiveness of anti-corrosion additives which are in the
fluid.  Changing it periodically addresses these issues.  There would be
significantly fewer failed master cylinders and calipers if this basic
fluid maintenance were carried out on all vehicles once every two years.

I really liked the old Shell advertising series back when the gas
station was also a service station:  "You can pay me now, or you can pay
me later."  The point was that the relatively minor cost of routine
preventative maintenance is much less than the long term cost of more
major repairs.

Now if only we could have greasable suspension joints installed
routinely on modern cars!

John

Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?



Quoted text here. Click to load it


(snippage of_finally_an intelligent post on the trans. flush issue.)


Quoted text here. Click to load it

And if they'd put drain plugs back in torque converters, there'd be little
need for a trans. flush.  Wonder how much they saved per vehicle when they
screwed the consumer out of that transmission access?

Garrett Fulton



Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Except one still should replace the filter.



Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


Literally millions, even if it only saved two dollars per
vehicle.
Over seventeen million new vehicles are sold annually in the US.


mike hunt

gfulton wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


  The difference in cost between flushing vs. changing fluid & filter:
  You could change the F&F more times for the money...it wouldn't get
ALL the fluid, but would provide a fresh filter every time.
  Flushing changes all the fluid but not the filter, and is more
expensive.
  Right?
  Just do one or the other.
  But I will say that if a tranny is waaay up there in miles without
having been serviced--fluid really dirty, etc.--I wouldn't be surprised
if a flush took it out within a short time (if you had such a car, would
YOU flush it?)


Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, I most assuredly would flush it.  About 4 years ago I found a '79 El
Camino for my son that seemed to have been well-maintained by a mail
carrier.  All work done by a dealer and all receipts.  I neglected looking
at the trans. fluid, however, which was a mistake.  When I got it home, I
pulled the stick and it was worse than any trans. fluid I'd ever seen.   I
spent some time as an auto mechanic back in the '70's and I'd seen some bad
fluid.  This stuff stunk_bad_and looked like pink mud.  The trans. was
slipping some between shifts, not to the point that I wouldn't have bought
the car, though.  (THM-200 trans., 305 4 bbl.)  I had it flushed at a place
locally that I trusted.  The fellow running the machine told me when he was
finished that it took 32 qts. of fluid to clean it up.  That's not a
misprint.  I asked him,"Man, how much is this going to cost me?"  He
replied,"Don't worry about it."  If his boss knew he threw that much fluid
at a job without tacking on an extra charge, he'd probably have been fired.
Anyhow, that trans. shifted much better and lasted many, many more miles
until we swapped it out for a THM 350 and a 400 small block.  So the
internet myth about never flushing a trans. that has been neglected is, in
my opinion, total horseshit.  I have all the trans. flushed regularly on all
my cars, and change the filter when I get it home.  They work good and last
a long time.

Garrett Fulton



Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


  How many miles did the El Camino have on it when you did that?  How
did long did it run afterwards?
   Having the trans fluid need changing that badly seems like a pretty
glaring omission for a car that was otherwise serviced well.
  You actually didn't just have it flushed--you had it flushed about
five times consecutively :-)


Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

As close as I can figure, from the records with the car, it had approx.
160,000 miles on it when I bought it.  Plenty of reciepts for everything,
all dealer work, but I didn't find anything about trans. fluid or filter
changes.  I could only assume it had the original fluid in it.  I believe it
got in excess of another 60,000 m. on it after the flush.  Was shifting fine
until the day we pulled it out.  A THM-200 is not the trans. you want behind
a heated up 400 small block.

Garrett



Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


Robert11 wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Before GM started going on their "extended" maintenance interval
kicks.....the standard transmission "service" was done at about
40K klms.  You are at about twice that mileage, so a transmission
service or "fluid exchange" would certainly not hurt.  In your case,
I'd be wanting to drop the pan and change the filter at the very
least.

Ian



Re: Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


"shiden_kai" wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
due
case,

You miss the point here, the main reason they push the power flush is
$$$ in their pocket and you are nieve to think otherwise. Suddenly it
is a good idea after all of these years. Detriot wants more excause to
do more expensive maintaince on your vehical because with greatly
reduced margins on new car sales they are looking more to service for
additional revenues. A filter and fluid refill every 30 to 40K is just
fine (you want to do that about every 15 to 20K in HD and towing use
though) If doen improperly (which is possible as long a human is in
the loop) it is possible to do more harm than good and best not done
unless once again you have burnt fluid in it.

--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


SnoMan wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about.  I happen
to work at a dealership and am quite familiar with why we recommend
trans services or flushes.  All fluid maintenance procedures are money
in our pockets and you are "naive to think otherwise".  So what?  That's
what we are in business for, to make money.  The fact of the matter is
that both procedures, a transmission service, and completely exchanging
the fluid, are both acceptable ways of maintaining your transmission.
The reason we use a machine is for productivity reasons, just like we
use hoists to lift cars now, along with a whole host of other special
tools that have been developed so that we can do more work in less
time.  Novel idea, eh?

It's only idiots like you that are still living in the 70's that caution
people
not to have this type of maintenance done.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, you show your complete lack of knowledge about what forces
are driving things like fluid maintenance.  Typical!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Anything that is done improperly can do more harm then good.  What's
your point, Einstein!

Ian



Re: "Transmission Flush": Required ?


Robert11 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


The pan should be dropped so that the filter can be changed and
accumulated sludge cleaned out of the bottom of the pan.   Shops all
love the power flush machines because they are quick and very profitable
to run.  However, the machine does not replace the filter or clean the
pan properly.   I also do not trust the solvent many of those machine
proceedures run through the transmission.

That said, a power flush is far better than doing nothing at 60,000
miles.  GM (and almost every other company) puts far too long of a
recommended usefull life on the factory fill ATF IMO.

John

Site Timeline