Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost-Flame
I have heard that, but every manufacturer has a few lemons in the bunch.
My question is this, they build an engine that just sings along for many hundreds of thousands of miles with proper maintenance, why can't they beef up the transmission a little and have regular change intervals for the trans? It's not like a trans job is $1500 we're talking about $7,000 with labor. Is that asking too much.
|
I don't think you can put all transmission problems down to "a few lemons in the bunch"
Stepping back, though, the problem with many of these anecdotes is that posters are continually mixing up the terms reliability, and durability. They are two very different things. If you want to improve a vehicle, you have to look at the causes of failure, not just the fact that it stopped running.
If the problem was durability, the issue would essentially be that the transmissions were wearing out. We would expect to see transmissions with hard use wearing out sooner, and the ones with light use (as posted above) would generally last much longer. In other words, there would be a relationship between how hard the use was, and how long the transmission lasted. Among other things, we would see fluid breakdown and failures related to a lack of lubrication. We would expect to see overheating, and burnt clutch plates. If these were the problems showing up, then changing the fluid or adding a cooler would be reasonable preventative measures to extend the life.
If the problem was reliability, the issue would be that the transmissions had random failures, for a wide variety of reasons. They would be at all different mileages, with little in the way of statistically-significant patterns. Some would fail as early as 10,000 miles (check). Some would run 200,000 miles on the original fluid (check). Transmissions would fail whether they had hard use or easy use, towing trailers or not. The fluid would often look good, even on a failed transmission. There wouldn't often be signs of overheating on a failed transmission, such as burnt fluid and burnt clutch plates.
It just seems to me that these transmission issues we keep hearing about are far more related to reliability than durability. Yet people always seem to want to apply durability fixes to reliability problems. That is illogical.
Manufacturers would address reliability issues with more testing, with fewer product changes over time (more stable product), and with simplification. We all know how BMW feels about simplification. Why have a five speed transmission when you can fit a six speed or eight speed in there. Why have a mechanical linkage when you can use electronics for the same purpose. Why have a switch when you can have a micro-processor controlled signal. Why have a dipstick when you can have a sensor measure the capacitance of the fluid and its temperature, and then calculate the level. Etc, ad naseum. That complication breeds additional failure modes.
If it makes people feel better to change the fluid, they should do it. But I don't see why they would relate that to solving a problem of random failures that don't link back to a lubrication problem.