Transmission fluid: To Change or Not to Change

I have a 2000 Mazda Protoge ES, automatic transmission, with only 45K
miles. I'm not having any transmission problems. The local oil change
chain has commented several times that my transmission fluid is dirty,
and should be changed. They recommend the flush. I called two big local
Mazda dealers. The first doesn't even own a flush machine and charges
$50 for a fluid change. The second has the flush machine and would
charge about $200 for the change- of note, this second dealership is
extremely honest, and they were basically trying to convince me that I
didn't really need the fluid changed, and warned me about the
possibility of the transmission suddenly giving problems after a fluid
change.

So what's the deal? I get different messages from different dealers.
Mazda doesn't even recommend a transmission fluid change in its
maintenence schedule. Is the flush better, or is the pan removal/filter
change/partial fluid change better? Does either have an increased risk
of post-fluid change problems?

Thanks in advance. (pls respond to the board, not to my email)

Yank_fan_2965 > wrote:
>So what's the deal? I get different messages from different dealers.
>Mazda doesn't even recommend a transmission fluid change in its
>maintenence schedule. Is the flush better, or is the pan removal/filter
>change/partial fluid change better? Does either have an increased risk
>of post-fluid change problems?

If you have an old transmission that is in bad shape, and has never had
a fluid change, changing the fluid could cause problems.

If you have a transmission that has low mileage on it and is in good shape,
doing a periodic change is a good idea. Check the "severe duty" schedule
in the manual.

I personally don't think the flush is worth the extra money, and the
chances of something going wrong due to poor workmanship is greater.
The standard change is hard to mess up. But that's just me.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

a good question, whose advice do you trust?

You might do the following - just as a lark, after driving the car at
hiway speed for

thirty minutes, stop, and with the foot on the brake,

and the emergency brake engaged, "shift" through the gears, stopping in
the park

mode, wait a minute or two, and then raise the hood.

Remove the x-mission dip stick, wipe, insert, remove, and view the fluid
on the

stick, it should be a bright red color with no "burnt" odor, if
otherwise, the

x-mission may need attention. Also the fluid level reading is

important. It is best checked after driving at highway speed for 15
miles in moderate temperature.

Too much fluid in the x-mission is a no-no, after going through the
above suggested routine,

the reading on the dip stick should be even with the full mark or just a
tad

below.Under normal use x-mission fluid is thought to be stable. If there
is any

evidence of abnormal shifting / leaking, or any other abnormalities,
then you might

want to have the $200 buck job pulled on the bugger.

At 45K miles, under normal use, without signs of need,

you'd think the x-mission was good until proven otherwise.

There is other preventative maintenance that should be done on the car
at periodic
inter

vals, that is outlined in the owner's manual, more important than those
not listed.

"if it ain't broke - don't fix it, an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure".:--)

mho
vfe

"Yank_fan_2965" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I have a 2000 Mazda Protoge ES, automatic transmission, with only 45K
> miles. I'm not having any transmission problems. The local oil change
> chain has commented several times that my transmission fluid is dirty,
> and should be changed. They recommend the flush. I called two big local
> Mazda dealers. The first doesn't even own a flush machine and charges
> $50 for a fluid change. The second has the flush machine and would
> charge about $200 for the change- of note, this second dealership is
> extremely honest, and they were basically trying to convince me that I
> didn't really need the fluid changed, and warned me about the
> possibility of the transmission suddenly giving problems after a fluid
> change.
>
> So what's the deal? I get different messages from different dealers.
> Mazda doesn't even recommend a transmission fluid change in its
> maintenence schedule. Is the flush better, or is the pan removal/filter
> change/partial fluid change better? Does either have an increased risk
> of post-fluid change problems?
>
> Thanks in advance. (pls respond to the board, not to my email)


If you change the oil in your car when you should, then you should
also change the tranny fluid. Just because there are no problems, does not
mean you can't do preventative maintenance. Thats basically why you change
your oil right? So that you don't have engine problems later down the road
(hopefully not a dark deserted road either).
Personally, I change my oil every 2000 miles on all my vehicles, except
my motorcycles which get changed each riding season along with the rest of
the fluids except brake and fork. (I don't put that many miles on either of
them). I also change my tranny fluid every 24,000 miles, although lately
i've stretched it to 25,000 miles (its just easier for me to keep track).
Here is the kicker on the tranny fluid.... I still had my tranny **** the
bed and had to have it rebuilt (at 126,000 miles) but I believe that is
typical of the type of dodge tranny I have. So go figure, but at least I
have peace of mind knowing I do preventative maintenance.
Do you have to change the tranny fluid? No, you don't. It's not
against the law if you don't, but I would recommend it. If you want to do
it yourself, its only around 30 bucks or less to do.

Fwed

What's "dirty" about it? Does it smell burnt, or feel gritty, or have
a different color than new transmission fluid of the type recommended
for that car? (I don't think it should after such low time and
mileage, BTW).

I do believe in changing the fluid every several years or tens of
thousands of miles, but not necessarily in flushing it. Many cars have
a filter in the transmission, and changing it almost always requires
dropping the transmission's pan -- a mere flush won't do it.

Some cars also have routine adjustments to be performed while you're in
there, following a procedure given in the shop manual, though that
seems to be falling by the wayside.

Another risk of just a flush is that you might stir something up.

You could do both -- pan removal and therefore partial fluid change as
well as a new filter (and wiping clean of the normal small deposit of
guck on the bottom of the pan -- unless it is huge or contains obvious
metal shavings, do not let anybody point to it and say you need an
overhaul; one of the older tricks in the book), and THEN a flush, just
as a convenient way of getting the rest of the fluid.

Frankly, if there is nothing wrong, I do just the filter/partial-flush
routine on my own cars.

Best of luck,
--Joe

"Yank_fan_2965" > wrote in message
> So what's the deal? I get different messages from different dealers.
> Mazda doesn't even recommend a transmission fluid change in its
> maintenence schedule. Is the flush better, or is the pan removal/filter
> change/partial fluid change better? Does either have an increased risk
> of post-fluid change problems?
>


Have the tranny serviced according to the manufacturers time or
mileage schedule.

This means, for many transmissions, dropping the pan and cleaning it,
replacing the filter (if it has one), and adjusting the transmission IF it
is the type that has band adjustments adjustments.

I do not recommend flushes...they aren't needed. Some here have claimed
they can cause problems, and that is certainly a possibility, however
slight.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

the pan removal/filter
change/partial fluid change better?

You answered your own ? right there at such low mileage.


--
Knifeblade_03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knifeblade_03's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...?userid=262826
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=552361

http://www.automotiveforums.com

I prefer the flush; I've done it on all my auto cars; my parents cars; and
on many customers. I've never had an issue with a transmission because of
it.


--
Stephen W. Hansen
ASE Certified Master Automobile Technician
ASE Automobile Advanced Engine Performance
ASE Undercar Specialist

http://autorepair.about.com/cs/troub...l_obd_main.htm
http://www.troublecodes.net/technical/
"Yank_fan_2965" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I have a 2000 Mazda Protoge ES, automatic transmission, with only 45K
> miles. I'm not having any transmission problems. The local oil change
> chain has commented several times that my transmission fluid is dirty,
> and should be changed. They recommend the flush. I called two big local
> Mazda dealers. The first doesn't even own a flush machine and charges
> $50 for a fluid change. The second has the flush machine and would
> charge about $200 for the change- of note, this second dealership is
> extremely honest, and they were basically trying to convince me that I
> didn't really need the fluid changed, and warned me about the
> possibility of the transmission suddenly giving problems after a fluid
> change.
>
> So what's the deal? I get different messages from different dealers.
> Mazda doesn't even recommend a transmission fluid change in its
> maintenence schedule. Is the flush better, or is the pan removal/filter
> change/partial fluid change better? Does either have an increased risk
> of post-fluid change problems?
>
> Thanks in advance. (pls respond to the board, not to my email)
>

just a question on what a flush consists of, the benefit of a flush job,
and how

does the system handle the residual flush agent?

some transmissions create a "debris / foreign matter" that seems like it
should be - flushed out.

mho
vfe