Re: Transmission Dip Stick for Late Model GM Cars

Ray wrote:


> I guess I'm one of the few that sees the lack of a dipstick as a step 
> forward.  As long as there's no leaks, the fluid's not going anywhere.

And therein lies the rub.  Quite a few cars are in situations where 
they're parked in lots, parallel to the street, or in not-so-pristine 
driveways where leaks can't be promptly detected or distinguished from 
whatever other fluids from other cars have leaked onto those surfaces. 
In such cases, the best way to check for leak is to have a disptick to 
check the level; if fluid is missing, then there's a problem.

By extension of your logic, we could eliminate engine oil dipsticks too 
and assume that the only reason for a loss of oil is either the engine 
is burning it and we'd see the smoke, or there would be a leak.  DItto 
for coolant. Yet GM seems to want people to check the dispstick and the 
surge tank level on every fuel fill.   So, why the double standard?


> And it's not like anyone changes their tranny fluid on a regular basis 
> anyway, so they may as well make it a sealed system.

If people were told in frank terms about the need to change tranny fluid 
every so often, then the people who don't know any better might actually 
*start* to know better.  Unfortunately GM's position seems to be don't 
worry about it, just drive till the tranny falls out and then ditch the 
car for a new one.



-- 
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.