Dealers, UGH!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
4,812
Location
The Garden State
My wife went to the purchasing Ford dealer this morning to have a drain and fill for the transmission and PTU plus tire rotation and Nav update. I was going to have them do a rear diff fluid change but they wanted too much money for an a apparently easier job, I'll have my indie do that and I'll use full synthetic fluid instead of the mineral/blend gear Mercon fluid they use. The 2017 2.3 EB Explorer has about 9,000 miles on it. We keep our vehicles for a long time so I change wearable fluids early to get rid of early contaminants from wear in. The dealer did the PTU drain and fill but refused to do the transmission drain and fill. They said it was a "sealed" transmission and they could only do a flush, by machine or remove the tranny and split it open
confused2.gif
confused2.gif
crazy2.gif
crazy2.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif
shocked2.gif
shocked2.gif
. That is a bunch of hogwash. It looks fairly easy to do a drain and fill, I'll do it cold so I can measure cold what comes and put in cold the same amount. I've lost all confidence in this dealer because of this. I guess they assume we're all stupid, especially women
mad.gif
. If I'm wrong and this transmission is totally sealed, than the drain plug and fill cap are just decorations
smirk.gif
. This kinda makes you lose faith in some dealers. In the "way" past I've had good experiences with dealer service, but those dealers have been bought by mega/larger dealers it seems.

Whimsey
 
Does it have a drain for the PTU? I know the older Ford Edges don't. Also, are you sure it has a drain for the trans? Some transmissions don't. Not that you're wrong, just saying i've seen it. Even on higher vehicles. The older SRT jeeps didn't have one.
 
At least they didn't lie and bill you for a bogus tranny change.
Of course the above statement is now politically incorrect...
 
A lot of cars these days are labeling the transmission fluids as "lifetime" or "non-serviceable". In most cases it isn't impossible to service, but the dealer is told not to do it.

For example, in my old M3, the dual-clutch transmission had lifetime fluid. The shop manual does have a procedure to change the fluid, but it's actually under the "fill" section of the transmission replacement instructions and BMW only sells the fluid in huge containers for filling a dry (new) transmission.
 
The AW55 in her Volvo has a lifetime fluid. The dealer wouldn't be lying if they said it was sealed and/ or needed a machine flush.
 
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
Does it have a drain for the PTU? I know the older Ford Edges don't. Also, are you sure it has a drain for the trans? Some transmissions don't. Not that you're wrong, just saying i've seen it. Even on higher vehicles. The older SRT jeeps didn't have one.


They drained the PTU and refilled it so I guess it does have a drain plug. I hear the newer ones do, you are right about the older ones not having a drain plug. And yes it does have a drain plug for the tranny, I saw it while I changed the oil. I ordered the Mercon LV from Rock Auto so I should have it soon, they're good. This is the most common maintenance service friendly vehicle we've owned in a long time, I'm shocked!

Whimsey
 
Most dealers use a flush type system to service transmission. It's faster-and leaves no liability for when they have to drop a pan and potential for leaks.

Changing transmission fluid at 9,000 miles is absurd.
 
Originally Posted By: CKN
Most dealers use a flush type system to service transmission. It's faster-and leaves no liability for when they have to drop a pan and potential for leaks.

Changing transmission fluid at 9,000 miles is absurd.



Your comments are absurd. Dealers want to "flush" cars that have dipsticks and drain plugs too.

There is more wear particles in that 9000mile fluid than will be produced in the next 50000 miles.. so why not change it early. Hardly absurd.
 
Originally Posted By: CKN

Changing transmission fluid at 9,000 miles is absurd.



Agreed. OP, if you want to throw money away, I'll send you my address.
 
I can't wait for the thread that tries to define what "absurd" is in relation to factory fill fluids. Subjective becomes objective "in stone" if someone thinks it's a waste of money or doesn't agree with the particular fluid or change interval.
 
Originally Posted By: Rand

There is more wear particles in that 9000mile fluid than will be produced in the next 50000 miles.. so why not change it early. Hardly absurd.


I think you're wrong.

Modern manufacturing, when done properly, won't really produce any "wear particles" (your words).

You're "shootin' from the hip" there, partner - - You're employing "it makes me feel good" philosophy when it doesn't have any fact (in a "real world" sense) behind it.

Now, YES - some turbine engine components and main/tail rotor helicopter gear boxes are assembled, bench run under load, and then disassembled to flush out any "wear particles" - but these are also $100,000+ components. You's be REALLY surprised to learn just how FEW "wear particles" are generated.

"breaking in of parts" is a philosophy that started 30-40-50+ years ago, but doesn't apply anymore today, like you think it does.
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: CKN

Changing transmission fluid at 9,000 miles is absurd.



Agreed. OP, if you want to throw money away, I'll send you my address.


Well maybe some of us PURCHASE our vehicles with the intention of keeping them long past the warranty period. I'm that person. If you keep throwing your money away every few years on a "new" vehicle that's your choice, it's cheaper to keep, especially if you like the vehicle.

Whimsey
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: Rand

There is more wear particles in that 9000mile fluid than will be produced in the next 50000 miles.. so why not change it early. Hardly absurd.


I think you're wrong.

Modern manufacturing, when done properly, won't really produce any "wear particles" (your words).

You're "shootin' from the hip" there, partner - - You're employing "it makes me feel good" philosophy when it doesn't have any fact (in a "real world" sense) behind it.

Now, YES - some turbine engine components and main/tail rotor helicopter gear boxes are assembled, bench run under load, and then disassembled to flush out any "wear particles" - but these are also $100,000+ components. You's be REALLY surprised to learn just how FEW "wear particles" are generated.

"breaking in of parts" is a philosophy that started 30-40-50+ years ago, but doesn't apply anymore today, like you think it does.
SO you don't need chip detectors any longer?
 
9k seems a tad bit short to me. Different transmissions, but my jeep's weak 42RE got it's transmission fluid replaced at 100k right as it turned dark (42RE has 100k service interval), and almost 50k miles later it hasn't blown up.

Rest assured, I think you can extend that out a bit. But it's your vehicle, do what you please.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Whimsey
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: CKN

Changing transmission fluid at 9,000 miles is absurd.



Agreed. OP, if you want to throw money away, I'll send you my address.


Well maybe some of us PURCHASE our vehicles with the intention of keeping them long past the warranty period. I'm that person. If you keep throwing your money away every few years on a "new" vehicle that's your choice, it's cheaper to keep, especially if you like the vehicle.

Whimsey


I buy new vehicles because I can afford them. Period. And my first truck I changed the transmission fluid out at 50,000 miles-half of which were under load towing a 5,500 pound travel trailer. And guess what? At that interval the fluid still looked bright red.

Yep-changing out transmission fluid at 9,000 miles is silly-based on a flawed philosophy. If it wasn't a failed philosophy we would see a lot of failed transmissions out there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top