Transmission Flush

I recently acquired a 2000 metro lsi 1.3l automatic. It is going to replace our aging minivan and hopefully get a ton better mpg.

I got the car for a song and dance since it has a few issues. It has 151,000 miles, some dents and scrapes on the body, needs brakes and tie-rods. Before we start driving it daily and get rid of the van, I want to get it in pristine mechanical condition. The car has obviously been driven hard with little to no maintenance. I was debating over getting the tranny flushed (not just a fluid change). There are a few schools of thought on this...one being with a car with this many miles that has never had it done, flushing the transmission is just asking for trouble. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. The transmission currently shifts fine, fluid is not burnt, still looks pretty clean (little darker than new fluid), and it does not leak.

Brad,
If it was me, I would not do it.
I have a 95 1.3 auto that had 180,000 miles on it (of that put about 95,000 mile of that on it) I thought a flush would be good for it. Well, after the flush, I only got 15,000 miles before the trans failed.

Carl

Why fix it if it ain't broke...?

Why not just drive it until the AT is good and hot, then immediately drain the fluid for SEVERAL HOURS
to insure it is all out, and replace with new, good AT Fluid ?

THEN - (I love repeating this message!) - do a Compression Test on the engine!

The compression test will let you know if the engine has heart trouble.

At 151,000 miles, more than likely, the engine has burned valves or about to be burned valves.

These cars have valve problems at about 150,000 miles, I am told. My 3 cylinder '93 did!

Once that happens, you have to have a Head rebuild.

If low compression, you can have the Head rebuilt for $250 and replace the Rings
without removing the engine....I did it and I'm a clutz.

THEN you will have a dependable vehicle and the AT would be next - but is 'probably' fine.

Heart Surgery first...

Just my two cents worth.

DoctorBill

Doc is right, except for the fact that draining an automatic transmission only changes one third of the fluid.

An automatic with 150K miles is like a manual with 200K miles, your engine has a lot of revolutions behind it.

Why change your oil if your engine isn't broke? Same theory. Automatics are just as hard as engines on the fluid, minus the combustion byproducts. I am pretty big on PM, and that is probably the reason that this is the lowest mileage car that I have. Of course, the others I have complete records on.

You can (on most cars) drain the torque converter as well which will get nearly all of the fluid out, but still not all. The theory behind a flush is to get all of the fluid out and any stray particles that were not trapped in the filter.

I have done a ton of reading here and elsewhere on this car, and I am aware of the EGR/valve failures. I am going to check all that over and fix what is needed as well. What I haven't heard about is the reliability of the auto trannys. My experience with most autos has not been the best, especially fwd, and had if my wife's could drive a manual I would have got one. Not trying to argue, just trying to get a discussion going on this. What cal058 has said is a pretty common thing going around, although generally I have heard of transmissions going out much much sooner, usually less than 5,000 miles after a flush/fluid change. It is pretty hard to get any evidence that changing the fluid causing the transmission failure but in theory it has its merits, just like not switching to synthetics on a high mileage car.

As far as I know, Metro automatic transmissions are just like any other, too heavy, waste power and fuel, and give up between 150K and 200K miles costing about $2,000 to replace or rebuild. They also wear out engines much faster than manuals.