automatic transmission failure question

#31

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

Quote:

jim beam wrote:

just because /you/ have been brainwashed with that detroit thinking,
doesn't mean the rest of us have to take it up the ass the same way. 11
years is nothing for a honda - unless it's rusty or crashed. repair and
get another 10 years of free motoring.

Who's "brainwashed" here? Detroit iron used to be built so that you could
repair it inexpensively and keep it working at top notch indefinitely (my
daily driver is 43 years old). Nothing Japanese has ever been like that
except the Land Cruiser (because its original engine was bought from GM
after WWII). But most modern sedans are built like "driving appliances."
They reach an end-of-life point where its not practical to keep fixing
them. He should fix it for as little as possible and then UNLOAD it ASAP.
Its going to be a money pit from now on.

Let me remind the newsgroup ASSHOLE you and I are arguing with that he might
want to look at that "detroit iron" from the 40's and 50's on the streets
EVERY DAY in Cuba.

#32

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:05:34 GMT, "krp" <krp34 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:rtebv4hmqi4lr324s1dtk23e759er2cefc (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:16:37 GMT, "krp" <krp34 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of
all
depending on what transmission you are talking about, American automatics
are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
(Late 80's) For the most part if you maintained a trans, changing the
fluid
and filter about every 24,000 miles they'd run forever.

Baloney. I had an '88 Celebrity, '85 Cav, and still drive a 90
Corsica. Those are the most common GM cars of the era.
No trans problems.

You might find a specific GM bad trans, but they weren't common.
Baloney on a trans lasting forever too. They wear out just like
anything else, no matter what brand.
And they can all be abused.

Front wheel drive. Need I explain the difference?

Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.

I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.

Quote:

Chrysler had some
problems with the transmissions on some minivans. Ford has had fairly
reliable if unspectacular automatics.

Baloney on Ford trans. The Taurus were notorious for that plastic
piece breaking. My brother had 2 Taurus. Paid big money to get both
trans fixed. Both the same plastic piece.
Biggest bitches I've heard about transmissions for years is the Taurus
and Accord. But Honda at least made an attempt to do something for
their customers.
Now I'm going to get me a sandwich. Baloney.

What "plastic piece?"

Might have been the VSS gear. Ask a trans expert. I'm not one.

The AXOD trans had a real bad rep. That's what my brother had.

--Vic

#33

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of
all
depending on what transmission you are talking about, American
automatics
are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
(Late 80's) For the most part if you maintained a trans, changing the
fluid
and filter about every 24,000 miles they'd run forever.

Baloney. I had an '88 Celebrity, '85 Cav, and still drive a 90
Corsica. Those are the most common GM cars of the era.
No trans problems.

You might find a specific GM bad trans, but they weren't common.
Baloney on a trans lasting forever too. They wear out just like
anything else, no matter what brand.
And they can all be abused.

Front wheel drive. Need I explain the difference?

Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.

The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and Jimmy
were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in 1989. It
was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home wigth the new
cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM was that backlogged
with replacements. When I got it back, it failed again within 3 months. I
gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the dash kept falling out and
the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in every respect.

Quote:

Chrysler had some
problems with the transmissions on some minivans. Ford has had fairly
reliable if unspectacular automatics.

Baloney on Ford trans. The Taurus were notorious for that plastic
piece breaking. My brother had 2 Taurus. Paid big money to get both
trans fixed. Both the same plastic piece.
Biggest bitches I've heard about transmissions for years is the Taurus
and Accord. But Honda at least made an attempt to do something for
their customers.
Now I'm going to get me a sandwich. Baloney.

What "plastic piece?"

Might have been the VSS gear. Ask a trans expert. I'm not one.
The AXOD trans had a real bad rep. That's what my brother had.

Everyone for years had problems with the trans in front wheel drive
cars.

#34

"Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒ*ã‚¯" <Trueno (AT) e86 (DOT) GTS> wrote

Quote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:16:37 +0000, krp wrote:

that fix is what i said - buy used low mileage jdm. great solution. a
solution not available for you detroit guys - ha ha!

First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of
all
depending on what transmission you are talking about, American automatics
are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!

It wasn't the tranny being shit.

It was taking a modified 2-speed Chevette transmission and attaching it to
an Olds V6 or a Caddy V8-6-4 that was the problem.

At least when Toyota puts in a transmission, it usually has about 65HP
overhead when rated against the motor. Not a 40HP 'deficit'!

I was thinking of that 4 speed monstrosity they put in the Blazers and
Jimmys. 3+ overdrive 4th. The damn thing was constantly shifting in the
city. Put it in 3 and your gas mileage went to shit. When mine failed, I was
always WAY back in line to get mine fixed under warranty. The owners would
hang out in the waiting room will the service manager came back and said the
trans was a gonner and they were getting a rental car for us. Often there
were anywhere from 6 to 10 of is waiting. NONE of us had even one kind word
for the cars. Rear main seals, paint sheeting off, transmission problems,
and the dashboards falling apart. Oh and on a hit Florida day you were lucky
IF the A/C could get the car below 90 degrees. Nice looking trucks but HELL
to own.

#35

Vic Smith wrote:

Quote:

The AXOD trans had a real bad rep. That's what my brother had.

--Vic

So bad they had to rename it. To AX4S

#36

krp wrote:

Quote:

I was thinking of that 4 speed monstrosity they put in the Blazers and
Jimmys. 3+ overdrive 4th. The damn thing was constantly shifting in the
city. Put it in 3 and your gas mileage went to shit. When mine failed, I
was always WAY back in line to get mine fixed under warranty. The
owners would hang out in the waiting room will the service manager came
back and said the trans was a gonner and they were getting a rental car
for us. Often there were anywhere from 6 to 10 of is waiting. NONE of us
had even one kind word for the cars. Rear main seals, paint sheeting
off, transmission problems, and the dashboards falling apart. Oh and on
a hit Florida day you were lucky IF the A/C could get the car below 90
degrees. Nice looking trucks but HELL to own.

If you think that trans (4L60E) was bad in a Blazer, think of all the
3/4 ton trucks stuck with it.

#37

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:24:38 GMT, "krp" <krp34 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message
news

2kbv4ti6n8r8cb5388nl43kjedj8u2it1 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

First of all I am NOT a "detroit guy." I own a Honda CR-V. Second of
all
depending on what transmission you are talking about, American
automatics
are VERY durable, with some GM transmissions being a rather notorious
exception. GM went through period when their automatics were pure SHIT!
(Late 80's) For the most part if you maintained a trans, changing the
fluid
and filter about every 24,000 miles they'd run forever.

Baloney. I had an '88 Celebrity, '85 Cav, and still drive a 90
Corsica. Those are the most common GM cars of the era.
No trans problems.

You might find a specific GM bad trans, but they weren't common.
Baloney on a trans lasting forever too. They wear out just like
anything else, no matter what brand.
And they can all be abused.

Front wheel drive. Need I explain the difference?

Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.

The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and Jimmy
were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in 1989. It
was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home wigth the new
cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM was that backlogged
with replacements. When I got it back, it failed again within 3 months. I
gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the dash kept falling out and
the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in every respect.

Fair enough. Never even considered a Blazer or other SUV.

Never heard anything good about them.
Except now and then a chick saying "I just love my Blazer!"
Or some feller saying he needed 4WD (yeah, allow GM to double your
drivetrain complexity) to prevent getting stuck on roads where I never
came close to getting stuck with my old RWD sedans.
Thought those SUV's were sucker plays from day 1.
GM fanatics term SUV popularity "Giving people what they want."
But GM marketing knows there's a sucker born every minute.

--Vic

#38

"Steve Austin" <saustin (AT) northnet (DOT) org> wrote

Quote:

krp wrote:

I was thinking of that 4 speed monstrosity they put in the Blazers and
Jimmys. 3+ overdrive 4th. The damn thing was constantly shifting in the
city. Put it in 3 and your gas mileage went to shit. When mine failed, I
was always WAY back in line to get mine fixed under warranty. The owners
would hang out in the waiting room will the service manager came back and
said the trans was a gonner and they were getting a rental car for us.
Often there were anywhere from 6 to 10 of is waiting. NONE of us had even
one kind word for the cars. Rear main seals, paint sheeting off,
transmission problems, and the dashboards falling apart. Oh and on a hit
Florida day you were lucky IF the A/C could get the car below 90 degrees.
Nice looking trucks but HELL to own.

If you think that trans (4L60E) was bad in a Blazer, think of all the 3/4
ton trucks stuck with it.

Like I said, every time I had to take it back in (3X) I was at the end of a
LONG LINE of other owners and NONE of us had anything kind to say about
those dogs. The piece of shit was constantly shifting. If you were in a 30
MPH zone it would shift thousands of times in a 10 mile stretch. Stop and go
traffic - that piece of SHIT would shift more times than the car I traded in
did in 10 years of driving. GM never DID figure out how to make that work.

#39

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

Just explain which late '80's GM auto trans were pure shit.
I don't care if it's attached to a transaxle or a drive shaft.

The TH_400 is a good start. The ones they used in the Blazers and
Jimmy
were TERRIBLE transmissions. Miine failed the day I bought in in 1989. It
was towed back to the dealership before I coulkd make it home wigth the
new
cehicle. It took 6 months to get a new trans because GM was that
backlogged
with replacements. When I got it back, it failed again within 3 months. I
gave it back to GM and bought a Dodge. Also the dash kept falling out and
the paint peeled. The 89 Jimmy was a DOG in every respect.

Fair enough. Never even considered a Blazer or other SUV.
Never heard anything good about them.

The earlier models with the OLD 4 speed worked fairly well. The later
ones in the later 90's worked. Just that period with the one transmission
with was at least the VERY WORST transmission ever made in America. Even the
old DYNASLUSH was better. It wated 99.(% of the engine's horsepower - BUT it
always worked. Eben tghe old Chrysler fluid drive was better. You could not
keep those things working. (Some of anything work, but by and large they
were shit.)

Quote:

Except now and then a chick saying "I just love my Blazer!"
Or some feller saying he needed 4WD (yeah, allow GM to double your
drivetrain complexity) to prevent getting stuck on roads where I never
came close to getting stuck with my old RWD sedans.
Thought those SUV's were sucker plays from day 1.
GM fanatics term SUV popularity "Giving people what they want."
But GM marketing knows there's a sucker born every minute.

I drive an SUV now. A Honda CR-V. Great car!'

#40

"jim beam" <retard-finger (AT) bad (DOT) example.net> wrote

Quote:

Let me remind the newsgroup ASSHOLE you and I are arguing with that he
might want to look at that "detroit iron" from the 40's and 50's on the
streets EVERY DAY in Cuba.

jeepers, you guys /really/ don't get it do you? with a honda, it's not
whether the thing can be rebuilt 50 times like in cuba, it's whether the
thing runs perfectly for the first 500k miles or not. no rebuilds.

Don't let me break this to you. NAPA doesn't have a BIG operation in
Havana. There is no Auto Zone stores with ring sets. You don't seem to GET
that whatever they had in parts in 1959 were the LAST parts Cuba saw. If you
think they are constantly rebuilding the cars you are nuts. Sure they fix
things. Know what they use for brake fluid? A combination of shampoo and
cooking oil. Don't even ASK how they make brake shoes.

Quote:

i love it when clowns stand in line to bleat about how "reliable" their
ford turnip truck is. but it's amazing how quickly they vaporize again
when the specifics of broken half-shafts, stub axles, springs, kingpins,
transmissions and engines that piece of crap has needed. yeehaw! mah
truck is /that/ reliable folks!

Guy there were many extremely reliable old cars. I know people with old
Kaisers with that old Continental Read Seal 6 that are well on their way for
the second 500K with the original rings etc. Some folks with the old BIG 6
Nashes report the same longevity. It was later in the 60's that SELF
DESTRUCT (planned obsolescence) reared its ugly head on American cars. By
the 70's the cars were DNF.

Did I start in on Ford's? I had some really nice Chryslers. A 66 Dodge
Coronet with a 318 and torqeflight. GREAT CAR. I also had a 68 AMX with a
390 + 4 speed. PHENOMENAL CAR!
From there it was downhill. I did have a 85 Dodge Caravan that I had 250K
on. Loved it. I was a 4 banger. WAY underpowered but ran forever. You
measured zero to 60 times with a calendar.