First off, I know this subject has been discussed in here before. But I can't get a good feel if there's any kind of majority opinion one way or another by automotive pros.
I have a 1999 Honda Accord V6 with 48,000 miles that came up with a PO740 code ("Lock-up clutch does not engage"). This car has been operated under "normal" conditions as defined by Honda. "Normal" service recommendations call for tranny fluid change at 90,000 miles. Bad idea. "Severe" service recommendation is 30,000 so I figure around 50,000 is probably about right. There are known problems with this tranny that Honda is hesitant to acknowledge, but that's another story. The dealer said the fluid smelled burnt and wanted to do a power flush (@ $210) on the transmission as a first step.
Before I let them do it, I checked with a respected independent transmission specialist in my community. He advised against the procedure. He said he was aware of catastrophic transmission failures on vehicles immediately after having this done. He recommended having a drain and fill, a couple days of driving, and another drain and fill. At 40 bucks a pop for the drain and fill, this was more cost effective than the power flush.
If the power flush is more effective than the multiple drain and fill method, and non-destructive, I would gladly pay for it. But if the drain and fill IS as effective, I obviously shouldn't take the risk the power flush may represent. So I guess the opinions I'd appreciate from you guys are:
- Are there risks involved in having a power flush performed? 2. If so, is there a difference in risk between a vehicle with 48,000 miles and one with significantly higher mileage that had never been serviced? 3. Is doing multiple drain and fills as effective as a power flush at purging the old fluid and contaminents?
Thanks for any help you can give me,
Rick