Pszemol wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:Sf7Ck.235210$102.140937@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>> Having no options to completely change fluid in one operation was a
>> stupid move on Honda's part. A simple converter drain plug/access
>> would have alleviate this issue entirely.
>
>
> I am curious...
> How do you imagine a torque converter drain plug?
> Where would it be located? :-)
>
> Do you know any auto transmission with such drain plug?


In the "old" days, all converters had drain plugs.

The reason they don't now is that a few cents in savings are realized in
the manufacturing process.

JT

 

Pszemol wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-56E0AA.06095623092008@news.x-privat.org...
>> In article <nYidnacJfeI68EXVnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Ask them how do they do the ATF change... and hope they did not
>>> "flush"
>>> > it with any flushing machine...
>>> > Honda original Owner's Manual specify that the transmission should be
>>> > drained and refilled 3-4 times, which means that on a single ATF
>>> change
>>>
>>> that's very misleading - it's not a single atf change - it needs to be
>>> done with a driving gap between each drain and fill so that the fluid in
>>> the torque converter circulates.
>>
>> hang on here. There's a difference between an ATF change and an ATF
>> replacement.
>>
>> Honda specifies ATF "change" at certain intervals. That's just a single
>> drain/fill. Yes, I know--it doesn't change the fluid the same way an
>> oil change changes the fluid.
>>
>> Honda also specifies that IF you want to "flush" all the fluid out, that
>> you do not FLUSH it out with a machine or other mechanical means. Honda
>> says if you want to "flush" all the fluid out, do the drain/fill/drive
>> thing several times. That is the ONLY manufacturer-approved method of
>> replacing all of the fluid (well, as much as you can).
>>
>> So the maintenance schedule does specify a single drain/fill procedure
>> at certain intervals. And while they do document the multiple
>> drain/fill/drive sequence, they don't specify it as a routine
>> maintenance.
>
> In my 2004 manual they say that when you use wrong fluid you need to
> replace
> as much of the fluid as possible. To do so, you need to drain and fill 4
> times using short trips in between drains. The wording is "do it three
> times
> and then final time". This whole operation, consisting of 4 drains, 4 fills
> and 3 short trips (in right order, of course) can be understand as a single
> service item when the fluid needs to be replaced. You will need 4 x 3 = 12
> quarts of fluid to do the job.

isn't it amazing what you can learn from reading the manual?



>
> If you have right fluid type, single drain/fill with 3 quarts seems to be
> enough.

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Pszemol wrote:
>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>> news:Sf7Ck.235210$102.140937@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>> Having no options to completely change fluid in one operation was a
>>> stupid move on Honda's part. A simple converter drain plug/access
>>> would have alleviate this issue entirely.
>>
>>
>> I am curious...
>> How do you imagine a torque converter drain plug?
>> Where would it be located? :-)
>>
>> Do you know any auto transmission with such drain plug?
>
>
> In the "old" days, all converters had drain plugs.

and they weren't anywhere near as good as we have them today.



>
> The reason they don't now is that a few cents in savings are realized in
> the manufacturing process.
>
> JT

that's not true. there are several reasons why they're not used these days:

1. lightweight modern torque converters are made of relatively thin
metal. that means it can flex a lot in use. to have a single point
with a rigid plug in it is going to be a fatigue problem around that point.

2. it can leak.

3. it's not necessary to change 100% of the oil when changing. even car
engines don't drain 100%.

bottom line, the "benefit" of having one is significantly outweighed by
the benefits of /not/ having one.