On 27 Nov 12 20:46, Mark Hofmann wrote to Chris Krascek:



 CK>> Hey all,
 CK>> I'm just wondering if the transmission should be flushed versus
 CK>> drained. I had heard a lot of talk with the process to flush and the
 CK>> caustic fluid used which could harm. In talking to the mechanics at
 CK>> the lube shop, he assures me this is not the case. I had it done on
 CK>> another vehicle and it was fine. I think the machine used may have
 CK>> sucked and pumped at the same time but I could be wrong. Also, does
 CK>> brake fluid need to flushed or are they just trying to make money of
 CK>> me?

 MH> The only time I have ever had anything done with transmission fluid
 MH> was I had to get a flush after my radiator failed and allowed the
 MH> antifreeze to mix with the transmission fluid.  Even after the flush,
 MH> the transmission fluid was not perfect in red color.

It should be.

 MH> I have heard two schools of thought on the tranmission fluid
 MH> flush/drains. Some people swear that not doing either is the best.
 MH> Not sure there is a right answer.

I've seen it done both ways and would prefer a pan removal, an inspection
of the pan 'contents' and a filter change before it went back together.
This method leaves a quart or so of fluid in the converter, but the
inspection is the most important part to me.

If there's a lot of debree in the pan, you can expect small amounts
because of clutch wear, I'd be thinking of a rebuild in the future.

 MH> Never heard of replacing brake fluid.

Should be done occasionally. My Silverado is ten years old and the brake
fluid is getting a bit dark...I'll change out what's in the master
cylinder and replace that fluid soon.


            R\%/itt


   NASCAR - Everything else is JUST a game? AHRA? IHRA? NHRA? INDY? F1?


--- Hate Mongers and Morons, get your coffee and keyboards ready!