QUESTION: Are fluid changes really necessary in a sealed transmission? My dealer wants to change the fluid in my pickup but the owner's manual and other literature claims the transmission is sealed for life.
Terry
That depends on the definition of life. When the transmission was under development and testing, the engineers worked with a set of parameters known to represent the average life of the vehicle it would be used in - i.e., number of years and kilometres, operating temperatures, etc. The issue is not so much the length of life in miles or years, but the quality of that life.
One hour of towing a load well in excess of the rated capacity of the transmission will do more damage than 10 years or 150,000 km of regular use. Similarly, even if towing within the recommended weight range, towing up a long hill at high altitude can wreak havoc on the internals of the transmission - in both cases heat is the enemy.
Lubricating fluids are developed according to specific guidelines, especially with respect to temperature. Exceeding these temperatures limits will modify the fluid, causing it to lose its designed properties and ability to protect critical moving parts.
A conventional automatic transmission employs a series of wet clutches that are designed to slip to ensure smooth shifts. This "slippage" generates heat. But that is not an issue as long as the transmission and vehicle are operating within engineered limits. The slippage and resultant heat are part of the development and testing process. But, as I said, only one improper use outside those limits can cause damage.
A fluid change is a lot less expensive than a new or even rebuilt transmission. If you have towed with the truck or bought it used and don't know about previous use, change the fluid.
THE COST OF CLEAN
QUESTION: Are today's cars really any cleaner than in days past or is this all an excuse to charge more.
Danny
Sorry, but all the hype - and extra expense - is justified. Today's passenger vehicle is demonstrably cleaner than a similar one from the past - a whole lot cleaner.
According to Ford's Environmental Engineering department, a 1970 Mustang emitted the equivalent of 3.67 grams of hydrocarbons per mile just sitting in the driveway with the engine off. Materials used in the build were giving off that much merely through evaporation. Compare that to a new 2010 Mustang - which is certified as producing less than 0.055 grams of hydrogen per mile while travelling down Highway 401 at 110 km/hr. From 3.67 sitting still with the engine off to 0.055 under power at speed is a serious reduction in emissions!
Federal emission regulations in effect in 1970 required cars of the day to produce no more than 4.3 grams of hydrocarbons (HC), 39.6 grams of carbon monoxide (CO), and 4.1 grams of oxides of nitrogen NOx) per mile. Compare that to the standards in place for a 2010 model - less than 0.055 grams of HC, 2.1 grams of CO and 0.07 grams of NOx per mile. Each of those current numbers is at least 94.7 per cent lower than the 1070 regulation.
Ford says the new Mustang, and this is just an example, produces 98.5 per cent fewer emissions while driving down the highway than the 1970 model did sitting in your driveway with the engine shut off.
Ford engineers say the biggest contributor to this reduction is the catalytic converter. Others include high-tech gaskets that provide a better seal, evaporative emission canisters that capture fuel vapours while filling your tank and electronic fuel injection systems. The latter pull only enough fuel from the tank to satisfy engine demand and conditions whereas carburetors used to bring in lots of fuel and send what went unused back to the tank through return lines.