A/T Maintenance

hmmmmm, "wallet" doesn't usually start with a "t"....

On 06/19/2012 07:38 AM, Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote:

as elmo says, the only people benefiting from any "flushing" are the
shop from your wallet.  honda factory [who is not the dealer who just
gets paid on selling you stuff] specifically say /not/ to flush, only
drain and fill.

as to mileage, it depends on the age of your vehicle.  if it's one of
the ones with all the transmission problems, you are definitely best
advised to go with a frequent change schedule.  i can't recall the
problem years, and you can probably look them up just as quickly as i
can, but if you have any doubts, do the drain and fill, and try to be
present when the drain plug is removed.  if the plug magnet is badly
fouled with metal particles, you might want to consider installing an
in-line filter on the oil cooler line.  if not, then just make a note of
the fact that the 60k schedule is going to be just fine.


--
fact check required

I agree completely with the previous posters but would add: Pull the
tranny dipstick and look at the condition of the fluid. Is it dark,
brown, smells burnt, and is there any indication of contaminates/bubbles
etc. Your fluid condition should tell you if there is a reason to "drain
and refill". I would definitely stay away from any sort of "flush".
DaveD

wrote:


To be fair:

a) Honda did have (I'm being gentle here) problematic transmissions for
a number of years.  V6 vehicles.  Generally, the 98 through mid-04
models.

b) as jim says, Honda says specifically not to "flush"--but Honda does
specify a routine for a more complete exchange of old fluid for new,
should you want to do that.  It's a simple drain/fill/drive cycle
repeated three times.

On 6/20/12 6:20 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

a) It's a 2007. The most recent Consumer Reports frequency of repair
stats-- based on 5 years of history-- show a less than 1% incidence of
major transmission problems and a 1%-2% rate for minor problems-- so I
guess I'm outside the problem range.

b) Do you recall where you saw the "don't flush" warning-- owner's
manual, TSB, news article? I'd really like to read it.


--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
                               ---George Orwell

On 6/20/2012 8:14 AM, Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote:

You can probably Google it and come up with more information than you
really want.

FWIW, my own mechanic - 35+ years with dealerships and now on his own -
told me several stories about the obscene profit margin to the dealers
on that single facet of the business.  He laughs and says it's really a
great deal for the dealers and, at best, "maybe won't mess up your
transmission."  The fluids used for the flushing aren't all that
expensive but even so, the manufacturer/distributors GIVES the expensive
equipment to the dealership just to get them to buy their product, mark
it up like gold, and sell it to the unsuspecting public.

Pretty much the Gillette principal.  Give them the razor and sell them
the blades!

Several years ago I acquired for virtually nothing a 94 Lexus with 125K
miles, with complete records.  At some point the owner (one owner car)
must have given the car to his wife to drive, because suddenly the
service records shifted from the dealer to the corner garage.

At some point later in its life, post-100K miles, that corner garage did
a transmission flush.  All I can say is that a couple of weeks after I
got the car, the transmission died and needed rebuilt.  $2400 later, I
was back in business.

That tranny ran until I got rid of the car at 175K miles.

You can bet it was the tranny flush.

On 06/20/2012 06:14 AM, Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote:

you might be out of the range, but, with respect, any form of reliance
on "consumer reports" is simply insane.



dig through the tsb's on tegger's website.


--
fact check required

Reliance on some of CR's conclusions and recommendations which are often
grounded in their underlying socialistic, "government regulation is good"
ideology is insane-- but me drawing my own conclusions based on their
presentation of substantial auto reliability data (albeit based on
subscriber self-report) puts me on pretty solid ground and far from a
straight-jacket wardrobe...

And that attitude is a bit strange. CR made its name as a reliable source
for unbiased, professionally-derived, consumer-protection information
BEFORE there were any substantial government regulations on anything.

My dad subscribed to CR in the '50s, before CR got really political, and
maintained his subscription until he died in 1977. And he never threw out
any of the issues. I, myself, subscribed to CR until about 1984. I read
every one of those issues.

Even in my pre-political days, I noticed over the years CR's slow change
from alerting consumers to shortcomings in consumer products, and how to
deal with them, to calling for government regulation of those consumer
products. Essentially, CR was calling for the government to put CR out of
business, the way the Mobilgas Economy Run was rendered redundant by the
EPA in the '70s.



When it comes to Honda automatic transmissions, CR has it dead-on.

Whatever the reason for Honda's '98-'04 automatic troubles, Honda suffered
mightily from them, and lost substantial ground to Hyundai during them. But
Honda learned its lesson, and now makes automatic transmissions that are
probably the very best in the industry for reliability.

--
Tegger

That's tough to prove when buyers have moved on.

Honda got what it deserved.

On 06/21/2012 03:43 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

tough to prove indeed - show me the hondas with the 300, 400 and 500k
miles on these new transmission like the generations from the late 80's
and early 90's would routinely do, then we can call them "reliable".



or what their trojan horse management wanted...


--
fact check required

$4od$1@news.albasani.net:



From the February 2006 issue of "Honda Service News", the publication
produced by Honda for its franchised American dealers (the Canadian edition
is called "Shop Talk", or "Le Talk du Shop", in French):

Flush Systems: A Big Taboo
--------------------------
In Honda vehicles, the transmission, as well as the
systems that handle lubrication, cooling, fuel, and
power steering, are designed to give thousands of
miles of trouble-free service if you follow the
maintenance schedule to the letter.
Flush systems are a popular aftermarket offering
these days. These products look impressive and
make lots of claims, but American Honda strongly
recommends you avoid using them on any Honda
vehicle. Here’s why:
• The maintenance schedule neither requires
nor approves of aftermarket flush systems.
• Flush systems take time to do; this adds to
your service customer’s wait time.
• Flush systems haven’t demonstrated an
improvement in vehicle performance or
reliability.
• Flush systems using solvents may leave
solvent in the system you’re flushing. This will
dilute the fluid or lubricant and degrade its
performance.
• Flush systems using filters can filter out vital
additives and degrade the fluid’s or lubricant’s
performance. This is particularly true for
coolant.
• Any damage caused by flush systems isn’t
covered by warranty.


PS: I might have made up the French name for the Canadian edition...

--
Tegger

Thanks for the text and cite.

On 6/20/2012 6:12 PM, Tegger wrote:

 > ...

Do you also have something official from Honda about how to store a car
for 2-3 months and then restart it again without any damage to the car?

Not that I can find. Storage of a Honda would be no different from any
other car.

Generally speaking, for short-term storage of 3-months, you shouldn't need
to do any more than change the oil and make sure the engine is good and hot
when the car is parked.

If the car is newer than 1995, you should put a trickle-charger on the
battery to keep it from going dead during its idleness. If you can't put a
charger on it, you can disconnect the negative cable, but there are
cautions which go with that approach.

--
Tegger

On 6/22/2012 1:19 PM, Tegger wrote:

Well, I don't know the procedure for other cars, either.


What do you mean the engine being hot? Every parking starts with a hot
engine, right? (Unless the car is towed to the parking place, that is.)


I was concerned mainly about starting the engine after its injection
system dried out during months of non-use. (I remember the carb days
when I had to spray some carb fuel into the dry carb throttle to get it
started after long storage.)

I meant the difference between running it for 5 minutes and driving it for
a half-hour. The 5-minutes is bad; the half-hour is good.




Won't happen. I've pulled injectors from cars that have been sitting for
years, to discover that they were still wet with gas.

Make sure the tires are properly inflated, change the oil, top-off the gas
tank, drive the car for at least a half-hour, then park it out of the
weather. Other than putting a charger on the battery, that's it.

And don't bother with having somebody start the engine every so often.
There's no real benefit to that for just 3-month's idleness.


--
Tegger

On 6/23/2012 1:29 AM, Tegger wrote:


Thanks, for the clarification. Makes sense.


I seem to remember from an old article that recommended to keep the car
on some blocks so its weight is not on the tires to avoid permanent
deformation in their prophile. Is this now also an old wife's tale if
the tires are inflated properly?

I suppose in case of a '94 Accord a simple battery disconnect will also
be OK.


The fresh oil at recommissioning of the car might be a problem if I
first have to drive it to a shop to change the oil though.