Transmission Flush

[brokenot]

Don't know what to tell you. Owners manuals just tell you when to do something not how.

I've posted about eleventy-billion times now that if something is supposed to be flushed...they say so. They're not going to give you a step-by-step walk through in the owners manual, but if a procedure is recommended they will say so. Somebody, anybody....explain why "flushing" appears in the cooling system maintenance schedule, because oddly enough....they don't tell you HOW to do that either. And yet, they specify flushing as if there's a reason for it.

The days of the 350 and 400 turbo are long gone. They would probably last 30K on 20W50 if you tried it..These new precision trannies...Not so much.

These posts keep getting funnier. So....things have changed. These new precision trannies require servicing that previous ones did not. And yet, the text in the manuals has stayed the same, because they want people to be confused about what they should be doing. Got it.

This has gotten pretty ridiculous. It seems like it would be easy to prove your case by simply scanning and posting a page from a manual, or linking to a manufacturer's site that shows this practice is recommended. So far, the claims by owners saying their owners manuals have called out flushing specifically have been easily de-bunked by simply linking to the manufacturers' sites and doing about two minutes worth of reading.

So other than personal opinion, what else have you got? Giving examples of individual dealers or garages that do offer flushing services means little, well....'cept for this:

It means that manufacturers are very likely aware that the procedure exists, heck....some of their dealers already have the equipment. And yet, the practice still isn't being recommended, while the draining and flushing of another vehicle fluid IS recommended and specified as such.

Weird.

And FWIW, I'm not saying at all that flushing is automatically or necessarily "bad". What I am very much saying, is that at least 75% of what's posted on internet forums on the topic is incorrect. Time and time again, a curious vehicle owner bringing up the topic is bombarded with a lot of nonsense like actually being told their vehicle manufacturer or owners manual recommends the practice. People go away from these discussions being more confused than they were when they came in, because people tell them how to interpret what their manuals say in plain English. THEN, they start wondering what else the manufacturer "isn't telling them", or....how they should "interpret" other things that don't require interpretation.

Is that generally a good thing? I know I've seen lots more stuff mucked up by people following the tips and tricks of others, in comparison to reading and understanding the information supplied to them by the company that built it.

Either post up some manufacturer recommendations, OR...start subsequent posts with things like , "this is my personal opinion about trans flushing...".

That way, people wanting accurate information on the subject can easily separate what's *opinion* from what folks are *telling them* vehicle manufacturers recognize and recommend as appropriate.

:thumbsup:

 

[timswi]

Is that generally a good thing? I know I've seen lots more stuff mucked up by people following the tips and tricks of others, in comparison to reading and understanding the information supplied to them by the company that built it.

Either post up some manufacturer recommendations, OR...start subsequent posts with things like , "this is my personal opinion about trans flushing...".

That way, people wanting accurate information on the subject can easily separate what's *opinion* from what folks are *telling them* vehicle manufacturers recognize and recommend as appropriate.

You're taking this a bit personally...no? Honestly, I couldn't care less how anyone maintains their vehicle. It ain't my car, do what you want.

As I stated a billion times. I had the GMC/Hummer dealer, where both vehicles were purchased change the tranny fluid and they flushed both trucks. Not opinion, fact.

I'm pretty much done with this thread.

 

[Diamondpilot]

You're taking this a bit personally...no? Honestly, I couldn't care less how anyone maintains their vehicle. It ain't my car, do what you want.

As I stated a billion times. I had the GMC/Hummer dealer, where both vehicles were purchased change the tranny fluid and they flushed both trucks. Not opinion, fact.

I'm pretty much done with this thread.

I am with you. I personally flush. Its make no sense to me to only change 1/4 of the fluid.:confused2:

But like you said its to each his own.

Chris

 

[timswi]

I am with you. I personally flush. Its make no sense to me to only change 1/4 of the fluid.:confused2:

But like you said its to each his own.

Chris

Agree with you...Maybe that's why I haven't blown a tranny in 20 years.

 

[crazyal]

To me flushing a radiator is not the same as flushing the tranny. A radiator flush is when you drain all the fluid and then either with water or with the help of a flushing fluid you flush the cooling system to remove as much contaminates as possible.

A tranny flush the way most people talk about it is just the way to remove the trans fluid that's not currently in the pan. You drain the fluid, replace any filter. Fill the tranny back up. Disconnect the return line from the radiator and then start the motor to pump out the old oil.

A real tranny flush is when you use good fluid and circulate it through the tranny, either by draining all of the fluid and replacing it, running it, and then draining it a second time or with the help of a tool that will pump fresh fluid though the tranny and then through a filter before going back into the tranny. The only time I know of a real tranny flush being done is when the discs are falling apart and the transmission looks like sludge.

Think of a toilet. The purpose of flushing it is not to drain the water in it but to remove what's mixed in with the water. :laughing:

 

[timswi]

To me flushing a radiator is not the same as flushing the tranny. A radiator flush is when you drain all the fluid and then either with water or with the help of a flushing fluid you flush the cooling system to remove as much contaminates as possible.

A tranny flush the way most people talk about it is just the way to remove the trans fluid that's not currently in the pan. You drain the fluid, replace any filter. Fill the tranny back up. Disconnect the return line from the radiator and then start the motor to pump out the old oil.

A real tranny flush is when you use good fluid and circulate it through the tranny, either by draining all of the fluid and replacing it, running it, and then draining it a second time or with the help of a tool that will pump fresh fluid though the tranny and then through a filter before going back into the tranny. The only time I know of a real tranny flush being done is when the discs are falling apart and the transmission looks like sludge.

Think of a toilet. The purpose of flushing it is not to drain the water in it but to remove what's mixed in with the water. :laughing:

That's true...It isn't recommended to push solvents through, just fresh fluid. That's what I've been trying to say. There's no real magic here, just getting as close to 100% new fluid as possible while washing out any misc stuff. I really don't know why this is something to argue about. If guys want to dump what's in the pan and that works for them..Fantastic, no harm here.

I hope to never find what's in the loo in my tranny though.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Agree with you...Maybe that's why I haven't blown a tranny in 20 years.

I can not say I have not. Had a transfer case go out on my 89 S-10 Blazzer when it had about 30,000 miles. I also went though 2 trannys on my Dodge 2500. One at about 30,000 miles and another at 68,000 miles but it was a Dodge.:laughing:

Thing is with all these I never changed the fluid. It happened to all 3 gear boxes before the change intervals were hit.

Chris

 

[timswi]

I can not say I have not. Had a transfer case go out on my 89 S-10 Blazzer when it had about 30,000 miles. I also went though 2 trannys on my Dodge 2500. One at about 30,000 miles and another at 68,000 miles but it was a Dodge.:laughing:

Thing is with all these I never changed the fluid. It happened to all 3 gear boxes before the change intervals were hit.

Chris

Well...Can't say I've had that happen...just the 1st yr 700R4 in an '82 or '83 Blazer (don't remember) it was a design flaw. It did let go around 125K though.

Anyway...We're off to Disney for a few days...Have a good rest of the week.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

That's true...It isn't recommended to push solvents through, just fresh fluid. That's what I've been trying to say. There's no real magic here, just getting as close to 100% new fluid as possible while washing out any misc stuff. I really don't know why this is something to argue about. If guys want to dump what's in the pan and that works for them..Fantastic, no harm here.

I hope to never find what's in the loo in my tranny though.

Both of you make a good point here. What I call the bucket flush is not flush at all in that an external machine is used. It really is just draining the oil out of another port vs. the dropping the pan or using the pan drain plug if equipped. I like the idea of filling the TC with fresh ATF.

It may have been on rv.net a few years ago a guy that had worked in a Ford transmission testing lab said Ford learned when using the transmission pump to remove the ATF where the return line connects to the cooler that the torque converter after the fact contained 97% new ATF.

For my emotional side 97% new ATF sounds better than 33% new ATF. When I take a bath I would prefer 97% new water instead of only 33% new water in the tub. :thumbsup:

 

[brokenot]

To me flushing a radiator is not the same as flushing the tranny.

That's where a lot of misconception/misinterpretation comes from, and that's my whole point. The last couple of posts, (for example), have included information on the differences between flushing methods....as if a curious and unfamiliar vehicle owner didn't already have enough mumbo-jumbo to process from this, (and other), transmission flushing threads on the 'net. Here's the thing: It isn't recommended, no matter how you want to parse the "flushing" term to suit the argument you support.

Maybe that's why I haven't blown a tranny in 20 years.

Me neither.

It may have been on rv.net a few years ago a guy that had worked in a Ford transmission testing lab said Ford learned when using the transmission pump to remove the ATF where the return line connects to the cooler that the torque converter after the fact contained 97% new ATF.

Here we go again. So a manufacturer realizes it's "better" or "the way to go about it", and yet they still don't recommend it. Why? Not only that, but you can visit any forum you like and find posts from "a guy that worked in a lab". Read enough of 'em and you'll soon discover how much hooey they contain. Real, tested, proven documentation from testing labs isn't hard to find. Relying on what "some guy" said that was subsequently posted on a forum is an amazingly unreliable way to gather information.

For my emotional side 97% new ATF sounds better than 33% new ATF

This keeps getting repeated, and once again the manufacturers are not unaware of it.

You're taking this a bit personally...no? Honestly, I couldn't care less how anyone maintains their vehicle

I don't care how other people maintain their vehicles either. But when folks post up about how somebody else should maintain their vehicle, the information ought to be accurate. And saying vehicle manufacturers recommend the procedure is inaccurate. Implying manufacturers are unaware of the volume of fluid changed with *this* procedure versus *that* procedure is inaccurate. Implying that the manufacturer means "flush" when they say "change" is inaccurate.

See where I'm coming from?

We're some 5 pages deep into this now, and nobody has provided a scan or a link or anything supporting their point. (And don't try and say there hasn't been some searching going on.)

I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of how widely-recognized and manufacturer-supported this *obviously-better* procedure is. So there you go.....all you curious and inquisitive vehicle owners, another multi-page internet forum thread chock-full of "useful" information for you to try to digest.

Good luck with that.

:thumbsup:

 

[deerefan]

That's where a lot of misconception/misinterpretation comes from, and that's my whole point. The last couple of posts, (for example), have included information on the differences between flushing methods....as if a curious and unfamiliar vehicle owner didn't already have enough mumbo-jumbo to process from this, (and other), transmission flushing threads on the 'net. Here's the thing: It isn't recommended, no matter how you want to parse the "flushing" term to suit the argument you support.



Me neither.



Here we go again. So a manufacturer realizes it's "better" or "the way to go about it", and yet they still don't recommend it. Why? Not only that, but you can visit any forum you like and find posts from "a guy that worked in a lab". Read enough of 'em and you'll soon discover how much hooey they contain. Real, tested, proven documentation from testing labs isn't hard to find. Relying on what "some guy" said that was subsequently posted on a forum is an amazingly unreliable way to gather information.



This keeps getting repeated, and once again the manufacturers are not unaware of it.



I don't care how other people maintain their vehicles either. But when folks post up about how somebody else should maintain their vehicle, the information ought to be accurate. And saying vehicle manufacturers recommend the procedure is inaccurate. Implying manufacturers are unaware of the volume of fluid changed with *this* procedure versus *that* procedure is inaccurate. Implying that the manufacturer means "flush" when they say "change" is inaccurate.

See where I'm coming from?

We're some 5 pages deep into this now, and nobody has provided a scan or a link or anything supporting their point. (And don't try and say there hasn't been some searching going on.)

I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of how widely-recognized and manufacturer-supported this *obviously-better* procedure is. So there you go.....all you curious and inquisitive vehicle owners, another multi-page internet forum thread chock-full of "useful" information for you to try to digest.

Good luck with that.

:thumbsup:

Man, you ok? Have a drink and calm down. Way bigger things to worry about than how someone services their tranny. Do what works for you and the heck with everyone else.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Well...Can't say I've had that happen...just the 1st yr 700R4 in an '82 or '83 Blazer (don't remember) it was a design flaw. It did let go around 125K though.

Anyway...We're off to Disney for a few days...Have a good rest of the week.

Enjoy that warm weather. You driving the new truck or flying?

Either way have a safe trip.

Chris

 

[Bird]

I've read most, but not all, of this thread. And I just got back from picking up our 2002 Ford Crown Victoria that I left with the dealer yesterday. It was due for a state safety inspection sticker and 60k mile service, so I just had them do it all. And they do machine flush the transmissions now. Of course, they also flushed the coolant system, changed oil & filter, changed air & fuel filters, cleaned fuel system, rotated tries, etc., etc. I may spend a little more than a lot of people but I'd rather spend a little more on preventive service than repairs.

 

[Mace Canute]

Well, when I have my tranny serviced, my mechanic simply pulls off a return line from the rad cooler and lets the tranny pump push the old oil out into a bucket. That changes as much of the oil as possible without "heroic efforts".

Life is good.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Well, when I have my tranny serviced, my mechanic simply pulls off a return line from the rad cooler and lets the tranny pump push the old oil out into a bucket. That changes as much of the oil as possible without "heroic efforts".

Life is good.

That is what I have done myself for years. Like mentioned before from a study done they averaged 97% fluid changed doing it this way.

Chris

 

[Highbeam]

I agree with the vast majority of posters to this thread that changing trans fluid is the same thing as flushing the tranny fluid. Any challenge to that has been weak at best and should be abandoned. You are sinking with the ship.

The only way to change a high percentage of fluid in one shot is to either use a flushing machine or to drain everything possible and then use the trans pump to push old fluid out with new. I prefer the second method since the speed of fluid draining out as well as the direction and pressure are provided by the trans pump which should not exceed normal limits. I would hate to reverse flush, high speed flush, or chemical flush a trans.

 

[brokenot]

I agree with the vast majority of posters to this thread that changing trans fluid is the same thing as flushing the tranny fluid. Any challenge to that has been weak at best and should be abandoned. You are sinking with the ship.

Really? "Changing" is the same as "flushing"?

Then please tell me what manufacturers are recommending owners do, because....well, read on:

The only way to change a high percentage of fluid in one shot is to either use a flushing machine or to drain everything possible and then use the trans pump to push old fluid out with new. I prefer the second method since the speed of fluid draining out as well as the direction and pressure are provided by the trans pump which should not exceed normal limits. I would hate to reverse flush, high speed flush, or chemical flush a trans.

I would also hate to do something that isn't proper, so if we decide to use the "flush" and "change" terms interchangeably, then the next question a curious person reading threads like this needs to ask themselves is:

-bucket flush?

-reverse flush?

-high speed flush?

-chemical flush?

What we "like to do" or "prefer to do" to our own vehicles is all well and good. But seriously people, put yourselves in the position of someone who came to this thread looking for an answer. Now we've divided the flushing thing up into several different types, and yet we still cannot show that a manufacturer recommends any of them. Why?

Like mentioned before from a study done they averaged 97% fluid changed doing it this way.

It's amazing what we can make ourselves believe, if it's something we're *sort of* inclined to go along with anyway. Here's the thing: The "study" mentioned before wasn't linked to. We weren't given any details or shown any data. The statement went a little something like this:

"I remember reading a post from some guy, (I think it was on an RV forum somewhere), about a lab study that Ford did years ago. And it said...."

Let's set the transmission topic aside for a sec. Ask yourselves if *information* from a *study* like that would convince you of anything you were trying to make a decision about? You didn't read the study yourself. You didn't get to look at how it was done, nor how the data was collected and conclusions were arrived at.

You simply read a forum post on the 'net about the study that was allegedly done. That's all the information you really have. There wasn't anything more.

So basically what's going on is that you're sooooo ready to cite that bit of internet gossip, because it happens to jive with what you already believe yourself. Now, let's apply it to another situation:

"I read on the internet, (I don't remember where though, so I can't post a link or anything), that a guy in a lab ran some tests and determined that Dodge is better than Ford. So that should really put that whole debate to bed."

We kind of need to be careful about what we cite just because it happens to be something we agree with...don't we?

Still waiting for a link/scan/anything from a manufacturer that shows the flush procedure is recommended. Until then, I'm gonna have to say it isn't my ship that's sinking....because I see a whole lot of other people patching holes and bailing to stay afloat.

I really must apologize to anyone reading this thread looking for real, concrete answers to their questions. But I invite them to stick it out and see where this ends up. It might take us a while to get there though, because I guess we've now got to break the various "flush" types into "good" and "bad" categories.

Try to keep up and not get confused or discouraged, just keep in mind that manufacturers do recommend fluid changes. Some folks think that when they say "change" they mean "flush". Some folks prefer *this* flush type over *that* flush type, because, well....the wrong *flush* type is obviously not what you want to do.

:confused2:

 

[Bird]

I've owned a lot of cars, both high and low mileage vehicles. And I've had automatic transmission "trouble" (I guess you'd say) exactly twice. In 1960, I bought a 1955 Cadillac Coupe DeVille with a bad transmission and had the transmission replaced. Then I bought a new 1968 Plymouth Roadrunner and in 1973 it got very sluggish backing out of the garage when cold. Really worried me initially, but the dealer said it only needed a fluid and filter change.

Now it is truethat I find nothing from Ford Motor Company recommending "flushing" the transmission, but I've also found nothing from them recommending that flushing not be done. Now I did not go back in the shop and personally see what my dealer did, but this is a dealer I trust (don't know of many I could say that about), especially the service writer I deal with. So he described for me the filters they used to change vs. the current filter design, told me a lot of things I already knew about fluid that would be left if you just drained it, etc. And he described the machine chemical flush they currently use.

Now I'm not a mechanic or engineer, so maybe the transmission in this Crown Vic will disintegrate next week, but this same dealer flushed the transmission on my Ranger pickup 2 years and a month ago and it's still going strong.

 

[brokenot]

Now it is truethat I find nothing from Ford Motor Company recommending "flushing" the transmission, but I've also found nothing from them recommending that flushing not be done.

This is the point I've been trying to get across. They also don't say to "not do" a lot of things. So....do we do what they recommend, or do we do what they don't specifically either omit recommending or "don't not" recommend?

he described the machine chemical flush they currently use.

Whoops! From a few of the other "pro-flushing" posts, it seems that that "type" of flush isn't the preferred method.

Just sayin'.

Now I'm not a mechanic

I am.

 

[Illini22]

Brockenot, sounds like your in favor of dropping pan, changing filter and the fluid that is in the pan. If the manual says to change the fluid ( not some of the fluid), how do you do it?