I looked over the stickys and noticed some difference of opinion with regard to flushing vs. drain and filling the transmission (5 speed). Is there a consensus?

Just for fun I went to AAMCO and they offered a flush and fill with synthetic ($199). I asked and they would drop the pan and replace the filter for another $79.

Does anybody do both?

What is the best preventative maintenance practice for an out-of-warranty, 65K car with a problem free transmission?

Thanks!

 

While there have been reports of ATF flushes being done in Europe I am not aware of any US shops with the capability to flush the ZF transmission. Everyone just drains, replaces the filter and refills.

Please verify that AAMCO can, indeed, do a flush.

Lots of discussions on flushing an old, over 100k mile, transmissions with the consensus being that it should not be done. Not sure I agree with that but . . . at your 65k miles I would not hesitate to do so.

I have always flushed several Ford cars at the recommended 30K mile intervals with never a transmission problem.

 

The local AAMCO guy said, no problem to do a flush, that's his preferred method.

The next one I called said "I've never done a ZF, they are sealed for life".

I'll explore some more...

 

If your old oil is still clean when you drain it, a drain and fill is all you really need. A new filter cannot hurt either. You will likely have many more trouble-free miles.

 

Yes, a flush can be done and BG makes a system to do so. That is the method that one of the local Jag dealers here in Central Florida is using. However, as Test Point notes there are two camps here on the Forum: the "drainers and flushers". The "drainers" are of the opinion that just draining and replacing the filter/pan is enough, particularly in the case of older units that might not stand up to a full flush. Of course this method only gets to about 5-7 quarts of the fluid, leaving about 3-4 quarts of the old fluid in the unit, depending on which ZF transmission you have. The Flushers are of the opinion that you need to get all of the old fluid out and replace with new to achieve the best longterm effect. And still others are of the opinion you should add a bottle of friction modifiers to the mix. I did the drain and new filter/pan and have been very satisfied with the results. And, at 40k miles the fluid was almost black. In my opinion replacing the fluid is money well spent given the cost of having to replace a failed unit. There are now several sources available for the correct fluids and filters/pans and it is really not that difficult to do, just a little tedious.

 

I know I have been around many car forums through the years and this issues seems to come up across all car makes.
Seems that most folks say NOT to flush if you are around 90k and above. Just drop, filter, refill.
Personally have had three cars FLUSHED at 120 or more and two (Fords, same trans) have held up. My GM Caprice did not like the flush and died months later, ha ha ha. But then again those trans in the 94-96 Bbody chevs, even the f body's (auto's) never did hold up well much past 100k. GM CRAP!

 

I was told recently that a full flush is not recommended. I know that you are going to ask why and I do not know. I know when Tom (my trans guy) and I were talking about flushing my 2000 s-type trans he told me that both it and my 99xk8 are not recommended for a full flush. I will try to get additional info on it and get back with you.

 

In my research of different trans flushing techniques I discovered there are two (2) distinct types of flushes:

The first is a true power flush wherein an external pump unit is introduced into the system, often at one of the radiator connectors. New fluid is pumped in, forcing the old fluid out. In order to remove as much contamination as possible, the fluid is often introduced in a direction opposite to its normal flow.

The second technique is a more passive flush, It is accomplished by inserting a reservoir of new fluid into the system, starting the engine and trans, and letting the pump in the transmission pull in the new fluid, while pushing out the old. When the fluid changes color, the operation is considered a complete exchange of fluids.

Some think the first pressurized method is too forceful and may dislodge debris, but not flush it completely out of the system. Ergo, doing more damage than good. They believe the second method avoids this problem in that it is simply a continuation of normal operations, just introducing new fluids.

 

Does anyone know whether the transmissions are "sealed for life" in Mexican market cars?

The Mexican market is considered a severe service environment and the spec calls for heavier weight full synthetic oil to maintain the warranty.

Heat is the mortal enemy of automatic transmissions, so if Jaguar specifies something different for cars operated in Mexico, it might be a good direction to follow.

 

Does a flush of either type replace the fluid in the torque converter?

 

The "passive" method seems safer.

If you stumble across the BG sales literature it's all about how fast and handsfree their machines can make a flush. So, its all about how to shave time for the shop and technician. It makes no claims at all thiat it is better for the transmission. Just that you can run more cares through the bay in a shorter period of time.

#