Full_Name wrote:
>
> Although it's routine for most folks to check the level on automatic
> transmissions the likelihood that they will require being topped up
> between fluid changes is extremely rare. I imagine that the logic
> behind the removal of the dipstick is one of lowering risk.
>
> If you allow many owners to "fix" the cars themselves they invariable
> do (much to the benefit of service centers I might add). Removal of
> the dipstick & fill tube virtually eliminates the possibility of
> overfilling or contamination by the owner.
Yes, that is typical GM-speak for "we'd rather require that an dealer
service your car, than a knowledgeable owner or even an independent
mechanic." And that's part of the problem.
The likes of Ian may call people like myself paranoid, I just don't see
it as being acceptable to assume that the transmission fluid will never,
ever need to be looked at, and that the average person is going to be
able to park their car in a pristine spot every night so that they may
discover leaks in the morning that indicate a problem. I might miss
leaks on the ground... I *won't* miss a significant drop in the fluid
level on a dipstick telling me there's a problem.
But again, GM would rather we ignore it, wait for the whole system to
fail, and then tow it back to a GM dealer so that we can be charged for
a whole new transmission (or be goaded into trading in the heap for a
****ny new model that's even more "maintenance free" than what we had
before) when early detection could have made the remedy cheaper and
easier.
I can assume the philosophy here is to make the public embrace the idea
that cars are disposable, and not fixable. However some of us intend to
keep our cars for a while, and would like very much to be able to
monitor things.
Also: why isn't GM so worried about us "contaminating" the oil? Maybe
sometime soon, GM will remove engine oil dipsticks too, and just tell us
that only a GM dealer can change the oil with some hocus pocus,
super-duper GM-specific oil blend. And why not gas gages? Let's
require every GM owner to roll into the service department every 75
miles so that a tech can charge you a labor fee while they top off the
tank with GM-specific fuel, hmm? :)
> For all the die-hard tranny fluid checkers out there: When was the
> last time that you HAD to add fluid to your transmission during a
> routine check?
Well let's see. My '87 and '89 Buicks back in the day would miss ****fts
once in a while back in '93. Turned out somehow I had low fluid. Where
the fluid went, I'll never know as they were both one-time only
occurrences, but I did have to top both off with tranny fluid. They ran
great for years afterwards, with no leaks near as I can tell.
My '92 Mitsubi**** Montero, piece of junk as it was, leaked tranny
shortly after I got it, and the shop couldn't figure it out for a while.
It took a few visits and a lot of monitoring the level to get it
right. Thankfully, it had a dipstick.
I drove a Ford Ranger for a while. Let's not get into how many quality
problems I had with that thing. But the dipstick helped, when the
transmission was an issue.
Now? I have newer cars... an '02 Grand Am, and an '04 Cavalier. Tranny
problems on either? I certainly hope not; I'd be mighty angry if my
transmission were falling out on the Cavalier at 3200 miles, through my
Grand Am at 35,000 is starting to get up there.
But then, I'm not really *sure* how the transmissions are doing on each.
I can't check the levels. I have to assume, since they continue to
****ft reasonably well, that all is good. Haven't found any leaks, but
y'know, being human, a lot of times I kinda forget to get on my hands
and knees and check under the body of the cars for fresh drops of DEXRON
III glistening on the concrete/pavement/whateer I parked the car on today.
I guess we'll find out when the Pontiac reaches 50k and I opt to get the
fluid flushed.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
|
