Automatic transmission longevity: fluids & OCI

[philipp10]

Originally Posted By: nicholas
I have never seen a transmission fail due to the fluid not being changed or failing.

Any reputable transmission shop will disagree with this statement -

I personally know of many, friends/acquaintances, whom lost their transmissions with dirty contaminated OEM fluid. Solenoid and clutch pack issues.

I honestly will never understand the idea of not changing the fluid in a system that has a very poor filtration design. Especially given the ease and simplicity to change the fluid in most ATF systems.

Also - when you change the fluid you can inspect the magnet and fluid for abnormal debris - - possibly saving components before catastrophic failure.

It is a win/win for me.
I routinely change ALL the fluids in my vehicles - not just the engine oil.


"Especially given the ease and simplicity to change the fluid in most ATF systems" Simplicity? I don't think so. Most of the time you can only do a partial change. Thats not a change and given the poor filtration, what is the point?

 

[skaughtz]

If Toyota has stumbled upon an indestructible ATF, they would have sold it out to the automotive industry for billions and billions of dollars, or you would be able to find their patent.

The truth is that they use World Standard ATF (the ATF they claim is "lifetime"), the specs of which you can find, and which do not describe anything unique in regards to invincibility.

Magic fluid doesnt exist. Change your ATF.

 

[philipp10]

Originally Posted By: skaughtz
If Toyota has stumbled upon an indestructible ATF, they would have sold it out to the automotive industry for billions and billions of dollars, or you would be able to find their patent.

The truth is that they use World Standard ATF (the ATF they claim is "lifetime"), the specs of which you can find, and which do not describe anything unique in regards to invincibility.

Magic fluid doesnt exist. Change your ATF.


what if it has NOTHING to do with the fluid. What if its proper sealing, venting and keeping the fluid cool....

 

[nicholas]

-Most of the time you can only do a partial change. Thats not a change and given the poor filtration, what is the point?-

You are removing the contaminants when you change the fluid - - even a partial drain and fill is better than leaving the fluid in and allowing the trans pan magnets to collect so much ferrous material that they no longer function.

Fluids degrade/oxidize/ and suspend/collect harmful particles - Leaving any fluid in a system for the life of the system makes zero sense. Synthetic or dino fluid.

I will never understand the aversion to leaving ATF in a system.

 

[nicholas]

-- Most of the time you can only do a partial change. --

All ATF systems can be flushed in your driveway - thereby replacing 100% of the fluid in the system.

True some are harder than others - but they ALL can be done with simple hand tools and buckets/funnels.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: nicholas
I will never understand the aversion to leaving ATF in a system.


Me neither, but go to the PCMO section and there are tons of threads with people asking for the best oil for their 10-15 year old, high mileage beaters. Go figure.

For the most part I trust the OEM maintenance recommendations, but ATF is one of the few items where I think they're totally off the rocker just to please the public with their seemingly low maintenance costs.
Needless to say, my 2015 Dodge will be having a cooler line ATF exchange sometime next year with about 10k miles on the odo. I'm still debating whether I should drop the pan and replace the filter, but the ATF will be change for sure.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ


For the most part I trust the OEM maintenance recommendations, but ATF is one of the few items where I think they're totally off the rocker just to please the public with their seemingly low maintenance costs.
Needless to say, my 2015 Dodge will be having a cooler line ATF exchange sometime next year with about 10k miles on the odo. I'm still debating whether I should drop the pan and replace the filter, but the ATF will be change for sure.



Since most of the wear metals are shed in an automatic transmission in the first 5,000-10,000 miles if you're going to swap the fluid I'd drop the pan and change the filter too. Been there done that.

 

[PandaBear]

The problem with today's transmission is they don't have much ATF in the pan, and they are hard to change (i.e. coolant goes into the transmission to cool the ATF instead of ATF goes into the radiator for cooling).

I would change ATF if it is easy to do, but I'll not pay a dealer $150 every 30k to change it hoping it will last 300k miles. The most I'd do is bring it in for a flush (if it has the right machine) every 100k or so.

Also how long would those gaskets and seals last? If they leak before the ATF is deteriorated, you can "technically" say the ATF is lifetime.

 

[GaleHawkins]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: Leo99

Has Toyota backed off those claims?

I'm still trying to gather data comparing untouched lifetime ATF to maintained ATF and I'm unable to find any data that shows changing the data will extend the life of the tranny.

I read a post on here a week ago that said the ATF failed but the tranny was fine. Have no idea what was meant by the fluid failed.


I'll add another example.

Friend of mine had a Ford Taurus that she owned since new. At about 87k miles, she reported transmission problems. The transmission would shift erratically, slam-shift at any time, and also go into lockup whenever it felt like it, even at 5 mph, or at a dead stop. Sitting at the traffic light, it felt like an elephant was ramming the car from the back as the transmission was trying to lock up and force the car forward. Releasing the brakes resulted in a nasty chirp of the tires, and gear hunting like Elmer Fudd after a wabbit.

Doing a cooler line exchange of all fluid turned it back into a very well behaved transmission that lasted another 78k miles until she sold the car.

Other known issues?

Clogged passages due to solid contaminant
Stuck check valves/solenoids due to solid contaminant
Torque converter clutch shudder (which will result in transmission destruction) due to worn fluid
Slamming/excess wear of clutch packs due to worn fluid which usually leads to mechanical destruction of other components and then failure



I have been doing the cooling line exchange/some call it a bucket flush for total ATF exchange for about 10 years. We just did it on the "new" 2006 Ford Five Hundred with that Aisin Warner AWF21 six speed auto.

it only holds about 8 quarts total and requires Mobil 3309. The old ATF @ 110K miles was dark but it shifted OK. My concern it would be be shifting well at 220K miles. Following that Seafoam Trans Tune bucket flush the next week we drove it 1600 miles to MN and it worked fine even in single digit temps of 8F degrees.

Most of our RWD transmissions hold more like 12 quarts. I went back with Lubegard Platium in the AW transmission and Lubegard Red of the rest. If it does lower max temps by 20F degrees is it helpful.

Technically I see no need for Lubegard where one does a bucket flush every 50K miles more or less.

 

[meborder]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: nicholas
I will never understand the aversion to leaving ATF in a system.


Me neither, but go to the PCMO section and there are tons of threads with people asking for the best oil for their 10-15 year old, high mileage beaters. Go figure.

For the most part I trust the OEM maintenance recommendations, but ATF is one of the few items where I think they're totally off the rocker just to please the public with their seemingly low maintenance costs.
Needless to say, my 2015 Dodge will be having a cooler line ATF exchange sometime next year with about 10k miles on the odo. I'm still debating whether I should drop the pan and replace the filter, but the ATF will be change for sure.


Check to see if you have a thermostat in the trans before you do. Unless you can heat the fluid going in and keep the trans hot you may be wasting your time with this method.

Most new vehicles have a thermostat in the transmission.

 

[philipp10]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: nicholas
I will never understand the aversion to leaving ATF in a system.


Me neither, but go to the PCMO section and there are tons of threads with people asking for the best oil for their 10-15 year old, high mileage beaters. Go figure.

For the most part I trust the OEM maintenance recommendations, but ATF is one of the few items where I think they're totally off the rocker just to please the public with their seemingly low maintenance costs.
Needless to say, my 2015 Dodge will be having a cooler line ATF exchange sometime next year with about 10k miles on the odo. I'm still debating whether I should drop the pan and replace the filter, but the ATF will be change for sure.


Yeah that's in Toyota's best interest to worry about low maintenance costs early on at the expense of a tranny later that the second owner then incurs...thereby ruining Toyota's good reputation in the long run....right...got anymore B$?

 

[curious2]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The four lines you have written contradict themselves.
What are you trying to say ??? Try it in one sentence.

 

[philipp10]

Originally Posted By: curious2
I have no idea what you are trying to say. The four lines you have written contradict themselves.
What are you trying to say ??? Try it in one sentence.


you are asking me? Some posters claim Toyota sets their ATF change intervals based upon the goal of reducing maintenance costs for their cars over the first 100k miles not caring that the transmissions fail early as long as it does not happen to the original buyer. I am arguing that Toyota is not that stupid...that a transmission failure anytime during the life of their vehicles would be counter productive to Toyota's good reputation. In other words...they set the ATF change intervals to maximize their transmissions lives, not base on some extended change interval just to look good when the car is new.

 

[meborder]

All manufactures are artificially extending service intervals based on operating costs to compare more favorably to other brands rather than using the intervals suggested by their engineers.

This is nothing new.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: meborder
All manufactures are artificially extending service intervals based on operating costs to compare more favorably to other brands rather than using the intervals suggested by their engineers.This is nothing new.


+1

Somehow there is a feeling in me that ,this is prevalent in N American markets ....

 

[Leo99]

Originally Posted By: meborder
All manufactures are artificially extending service intervals based on operating costs to compare more favorably to other brands rather than using the intervals suggested by their engineers.

This is nothing new.



Is this fact or just your opinion? If this was fact, we'd be seeing a lot of failing transmissions in Toyotas. We are not seeing that.

It preposterous to think that Toyota would rather claim low maintenance cost instead of long-term reliability.

What would you rather have:

A. A tranny that lasts 300k miles with $500 in PM
B. A tranny that lasts 150k miles with $100 in PM
C. A tranny that lasts 300k miles with $0 in PM

Will you claim C does not exist?

Cracks me up when people post on there that they've drained and filled their ATF every 10k miles and it shifts flawlessly at 120k miles as if their maintenance was the cause for the longevity. I've not touched my ATF factory fill for 230k miles and it shifted flawlessly. Maybe you just don't want to admit you've been wasting your time and money.

 

[GaleHawkins]

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: meborder
All manufactures are artificially extending service intervals based on operating costs to compare more favorably to other brands rather than using the intervals suggested by their engineers.This is nothing new.


+1

Somehow there is a feeling in me that ,this is prevalent in N American markets ....


I agree.

We just picked up a 2006 Ford with the Aisin Warner AWF21 six speed auto that is a common brand use in Toyota's. Ford state change the ATF at 150K miles. At 110K miles it was still shifting fine but when we pumped it out into a 5 gallon bucket in the driveway it was dark.

Since we plan to drive the car to over 200K miles we spent the $75 (requires Mobil 3309 that WM does not stock) to do a total fluid exchange.

Removing 10 year old oil is a good thing in my old mind.

Adding $10 worth of Lubegard Red may have done as much good as the total fluid exchange however. We did both for the heck of it.

I will check it cold with the engine off a few times a year due to dip stick placement in the AWF21 transmission.

 

[meborder]

Originally Posted By: Leo99
Originally Posted By: meborder
All manufactures are artificially extending service intervals based on operating costs to compare more favorably to other brands rather than using the intervals suggested by their engineers.

This is nothing new.



Is this fact or just your opinion? If this was fact, we'd be seeing a lot of failing transmissions in Toyotas. We are not seeing that.

It preposterous to think that Toyota would rather claim low maintenance cost instead of long-term reliability.

What would you rather have:

A. A tranny that lasts 300k miles with $500 in PM
B. A tranny that lasts 150k miles with $100 in PM
C. A tranny that lasts 300k miles with $0 in PM

Will you claim C does not exist?

Cracks me up when people post on there that they've drained and filled their ATF every 10k miles and it shifts flawlessly at 120k miles as if their maintenance was the cause for the longevity. I've not touched my ATF factory fill for 230k miles and it shifted flawlessly. Maybe you just don't want to admit you've been wasting your time and money.


it's a fact, jack.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1403769-a-transmission-question-2.html#post15743784

Quote:
Trans fluid wears even at lower loads. And it is much less complicated to recommend the same service intervals for one transmission model then to make different intervals for different engines tied to the same trans.


Quote:
Do what you propose. The fluid change intervals are at least partially driven by Consumer Report's cost of maintenance. Longer intervals results in a lower cost.


Quote:
They will eventually reach end of life where the clutch material has worn off. Normally that's above a quarter million miles.


You aren't going to get any closer to the source than Mark, and he never obfuscates his opinion.

This is just one thread, there are others you can find if you wish.

as to your question about service intervals and costs, to me you are missing the point.

if Ford says you need to flush the trans at 60k and dodge says you don't need to do it until 150k, then consumer reports is going to tell you that the ford costs more to operate - which would be true.

ford isn't dumb enough not to extend their service intervals to match the other's. consumer reports is not taken lightly, and for those not knowing any technical details, they will take that as gospel. and if service intervals don't match the other maker's they will lose sales. period. and they aren't that dumb.

don't kid yourself, the final product you see in the owner's manual has passed the corporate filter, your opinion notwithstanding.

the other piece you are over looking is that, ultimately, the service interval is dictated by the driver. 3 of my co-workers all use the same shop for their PM. That shop suggests replacing trans and transfer case fluids at 60k, regardless of what the owner's manual suggests. Their experience shows that their customers are happy with the long term reliability of that service interval, and they get the business two.

so to say that a lack of failing transmission proves your point is down-right silly. Not everyone follows the service schedule in the book. many have their own opinion (like you and me), others follow the advice of a shop they trust as they can afford it.

are you going to say the fact that the transmission in my truck hasn't failed is proof that the manufacturer's suggestion works while ignoring the reality? the FIRST major PM I did was a transmission flush at 107,982 miles one month after purchase. The fact that it hasn't failed has nothing to do with the specified interval. you can't say that the lack of failure indicates a success of long drain intervals because you simply don't know what the owners are actually doing.

 

[Leo99]

Originally Posted By: meborder
Originally Posted By: Leo99
Originally Posted By: meborder
All manufactures are artificially extending service intervals based on operating costs to compare more favorably to other brands rather than using the intervals suggested by their engineers.

This is nothing new.



Is this fact or just your opinion? If this was fact, we'd be seeing a lot of failing transmissions in Toyotas. We are not seeing that.

It preposterous to think that Toyota would rather claim low maintenance cost instead of long-term reliability.

What would you rather have:

A. A tranny that lasts 300k miles with $500 in PM
B. A tranny that lasts 150k miles with $100 in PM
C. A tranny that lasts 300k miles with $0 in PM

Will you claim C does not exist?

Cracks me up when people post on there that they've drained and filled their ATF every 10k miles and it shifts flawlessly at 120k miles as if their maintenance was the cause for the longevity. I've not touched my ATF factory fill for 230k miles and it shifted flawlessly. Maybe you just don't want to admit you've been wasting your time and money.


it's a fact, jack.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1403769-a-transmission-question-2.html#post15743784

Quote:
Trans fluid wears even at lower loads. And it is much less complicated to recommend the same service intervals for one transmission model then to make different intervals for different engines tied to the same trans.


Quote:
Do what you propose. The fluid change intervals are at least partially driven by Consumer Report's cost of maintenance. Longer intervals results in a lower cost.


Quote:
They will eventually reach end of life where the clutch material has worn off. Normally that's above a quarter million miles.


You aren't going to get any closer to the source than Mark, and he never obfuscates his opinion.

This is just one thread, there are others you can find if you wish.

as to your question about service intervals and costs, to me you are missing the point.

if Ford says you need to flush the trans at 60k and dodge says you don't need to do it until 150k, then consumer reports is going to tell you that the ford costs more to operate - which would be true.

ford isn't dumb enough not to extend their service intervals to match the other's. consumer reports is not taken lightly, and for those not knowing any technical details, they will take that as gospel. and if service intervals don't match the other maker's they will lose sales. period. and they aren't that dumb.

don't kid yourself, the final product you see in the owner's manual has passed the corporate filter, your opinion notwithstanding.


Your source of the truth is one former employee of Ford who posts on internet forums?

I'll take the official word from Toyota or Ford over Mark's. No offense to Mark.

 

[meborder]

Originally Posted By: Leo99


Your source of the truth is one former employee of Ford who posts on internet forums?

I'll take the official word from Toyota or Ford over Mark's. No offense to Mark.


your source is a corporation that has nothing to gain by telling you the truth?

i'll take the word of someone that has nothing to gain over someone that has everything to lose every time.

in the interest of full disclosure, go back and re-read my reply above. I added to it after you quoted and responded.

not that it will matter much in the end as I can already tell your opinion won't be changed, but if there is something more there to talk about then it could be worthwhile.