Automatic transmission longevity: fluids & OCI

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
I won't give out my VIN online

I'm guessing you're the type that also covers the license plate when taking pictures, right?

No but my F150 with the 4.2 V6 has a 4R75E transmission in it.
Would you like me to PM my VIN to you so you can apologize on the forum that you were wrong?

 

[philipp10]

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.


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. Bingo!!

 

[meborder]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
I won't give out my VIN online

I'm guessing you're the type that also covers the license plate when taking pictures, right?

No but my F150 with the 4.2 V6 has a 4R75E transmission in it.
Would you like me to PM my VIN to you so you can apologize on the forum that you were wrong?


PM me you VIN and i'll enter it here:
Vehicle Lookup

you do the same.

if I'm wrong, i'll post it up.
if you're wrong, you do the same.

according to the tech data published for 2007 f150, the 4.2v6 and 4.6v8 got the 4r70E while the 5.4 got the 4r75E.
but I have found some wrong information in them before, so there is the possibility.
The owners manual only references the 75, but the build sheet from the web page should be the most accurate.

I don't think that I'd be butt hurt over having the 70 vs 75 ....

 

[Ramblejam]

Be careful with using ETIS as the definitive source; you won't find an '07 that doesn't list Q/4R75 as the transmission.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

WOW! That link tells you EVERYTHING about your Ford vehicle. And, everything that it stated was true about my truck. Even the transmission; LIVONIA 4R75E. I don't know what the LIVONIA part is but I do know that my truck came from Kansas City, Missouri with a 4R75E transmission bolted to the 4.2 V6 engine in my truck.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: meborder
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
I won't give out my VIN online

I'm guessing you're the type that also covers the license plate when taking pictures, right?

No but my F150 with the 4.2 V6 has a 4R75E transmission in it.
Would you like me to PM my VIN to you so you can apologize on the forum that you were wrong?


PM me you VIN and i'll enter it here:
Vehicle Lookup

you do the same.

if I'm wrong, i'll post it up.
if you're wrong, you do the same.

according to the tech data published for 2007 f150, the 4.2v6 and 4.6v8 got the 4r70E while the 5.4 got the 4r75E.
but I have found some wrong information in them before, so there is the possibility.
The owners manual only references the 75, but the build sheet from the web page should be the most accurate.

I don't think that I'd be butt hurt over having the 70 vs 75 ....

Looks like my butt is in A-OK shape!

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: meborder
PM me you VIN and i'll enter it here:
Vehicle Lookup

you do the same.

if I'm wrong, i'll post it up.
if you're wrong, you do the same.

according to the tech data published for 2007 f150, the 4.2v6 and 4.6v8 got the 4r70E while the 5.4 got the 4r75E.
but I have found some wrong information in them before, so there is the possibility.
The owners manual only references the 75, but the build sheet from the web page should be the most accurate.

I don't think that I'd be butt hurt over having the 70 vs 75 ....

CRICKETS!

 

[meborder]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: meborder
PM me you VIN and i'll enter it here:
Vehicle Lookup

you do the same.

if I'm wrong, i'll post it up.
if you're wrong, you do the same.

according to the tech data published for 2007 f150, the 4.2v6 and 4.6v8 got the 4r70E while the 5.4 got the 4r75E.
but I have found some wrong information in them before, so there is the possibility.
The owners manual only references the 75, but the build sheet from the web page should be the most accurate.

I don't think that I'd be butt hurt over having the 70 vs 75 ....

CRICKETS!

Relax, smart [censored]. I've got a 3year old and an 8month old. When family time comes, bitog has to wait. And if the kids both get to sleep at 9pm, so do I becaus sure as [censored], ill be up at 3am (check the time stamp, I've been up for an hour already. Daughter finally went back to sleep)

Build sheet says 75. Owners manual agrees with build sheet.( Not much of a ford guy if you don't understand what Livonia means in the Ford world.)

Which begs the question why the technical data disagree. My guess is that the engineers were referring to the trans that put behind the 4.6 and 4.2 as the 70 internally and the marketing department decided that it would be best to just call them all the same as they have done in the past.

A 4r75 behind a smaller engine will have less clutch plates than one behind a larger engine, so even though they ate called the same name, they are not interchangeable. This is true for AOD, AODE, 4r70w, 4r75, and 5r110.

So even though it has less torque capacity, some one upstairs decided they should carry the same platform name.

So, yes, they did indeed call it a 4r75, even though at one point it appears that it was more accurately called a 4r70.

 

[meborder]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Be careful with using ETIS as the definitive source; you won't find an '07 that doesn't list Q/4R75 as the transmission.


So far , ETIS is the beat source I've been able to find. Do you have a better look up?

My guess is that you are right, for all the reasons above, but so far it is the best I've been able to find in combination with the technical sheets posted at the hiller ford website (which I've found errors in the past as well)

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: meborder
Relax, smart [censored]. I've got a 3year old and an 8month old. When family time comes, bitog has to wait. And if the kids both get to sleep at 9pm, so do I becaus sure as [censored], ill be up at 3am (check the time stamp, I've been up for an hour already. Daughter finally went back to sleep)

Build sheet says 75. Owners manual agrees with build sheet.( Not much of a ford guy if you don't understand what Livonia means in the Ford world.)

Which begs the question why the technical data disagree. My guess is that the engineers were referring to the trans that put behind the 4.6 and 4.2 as the 70 internally and the marketing department decided that it would be best to just call them all the same as they have done in the past.

A 4r75 behind a smaller engine will have less clutch plates than one behind a larger engine, so even though they ate called the same name, they are not interchangeable. This is true for AOD, AODE, 4r70w, 4r75, and 5r110.

So even though it has less torque capacity, some one upstairs decided they should carry the same platform name.

So, yes, they did indeed call it a 4r75, even though at one point it appears that it was more accurately called a 4r70.

(Looking at rear end....yep, it's smart!)

And, no, I am NOT much of a Ford guy. (Is that the best dig you could come up with?) I only drive a Ford truck because IMO they are a better truck. But, I do have Chevy Orange running through my veins.
BTW, God Bless you, your children, and the rest of the family!

 

[meborder]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: meborder
Relax, smart [censored]. I've got a 3year old and an 8month old. When family time comes, bitog has to wait. And if the kids both get to sleep at 9pm, so do I becaus sure as [censored], ill be up at 3am (check the time stamp, I've been up for an hour already. Daughter finally went back to sleep)

Build sheet says 75. Owners manual agrees with build sheet.( Not much of a ford guy if you don't understand what Livonia means in the Ford world.)

Which begs the question why the technical data disagree. My guess is that the engineers were referring to the trans that put behind the 4.6 and 4.2 as the 70 internally and the marketing department decided that it would be best to just call them all the same as they have done in the past.

A 4r75 behind a smaller engine will have less clutch plates than one behind a larger engine, so even though they ate called the same name, they are not interchangeable. This is true for AOD, AODE, 4r70w, 4r75, and 5r110.

So even though it has less torque capacity, some one upstairs decided they should carry the same platform name.

So, yes, they did indeed call it a 4r75, even though at one point it appears that it was more accurately called a 4r70.

(Looking at rear end....yep, it's smart!)

And, no, I am NOT much of a Ford guy. (Is that the best dig you could come up with?) I only drive a Ford truck because IMO they are a better truck. But, I do have Chevy Orange running through my veins.
BTW, God Bless you, your children, and the rest of the family!

Wasn't a dig, just a statement of fact.

And I did make oome technical error above.

My daughter is 5 mo. Not 8. The rest is all correct, though.

Thank you for your blessings.

 

[RPMster]

With modern factory transmission fluids as good as they are, I think the mildest of driving conditions would allow for never changing ATF: mostly highway driving or driving in quiet suburban or rural areas, gentle acceleration, no passing, no heavy towing or hauling, staying locked in O.D. most of the time, you get the picture. With these types of driving conditions, I'll bet most modern vehicles can get 200K or even 300K miles on their factory-fill ATF.

But how many drivers can say they fall into all these conditions? Maybe 10% of the driving population at best?

For the majority, ATF replacement should match driving conditions. For example, a typical 50/50 city/highway daily driver would in most cases be best served with at least a drain/fill every 80K to 100K miles. On the other hand, a sporty driver who accelerates quickly and does a lot of passing, or someone who tows or hauls heavy loads frequently would probably be better off doing a 30K to 50K drain/fill as a bare minimum. As the old saying goes: YMMV.

 

[philipp10]

Originally Posted By: RPMster
With modern factory transmission fluids as good as they are, I think the mildest of driving conditions would allow for never changing ATF: mostly highway driving or driving in quiet suburban or rural areas, gentle acceleration, no passing, no heavy towing or hauling, staying locked in O.D. most of the time, you get the picture. With these types of driving conditions, I'll bet most modern vehicles can get 200K or even 300K miles on their factory-fill ATF.

But how many drivers can say they fall into all these conditions? Maybe 10% of the driving population at best?

For the majority, ATF replacement should match driving conditions. For example, a typical 50/50 city/highway daily driver would in most cases be best served with at least a drain/fill every 80K to 100K miles. On the other hand, a sporty driver who accelerates quickly and does a lot of passing, or someone who tows or hauls heavy loads frequently would probably be better off doing a 30K to 50K drain/fill as a bare minimum. As the old saying goes: YMMV.


I would say a lot of drivers drive in very gentle conditions. Highway driving is ideal for a transmission...low HP input and steady state. Everyone seems to think they are driving so severely....I don't buy it.

 

[Stewie]

What about those transmission who are sealed and can only be change by dropping the pan?

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Stewie
What about those transmission who are sealed and can only be change by dropping the pan?


I don't buy that there is a difference. Oh they may have done things to get fluid to last much longer--but IMO changing is still prudent. At any rate, I have a "sealed" setup and changed the fluid. The old fluid may have gone 200k with how I drive. Or not.