Jump to content
  • Sign up for FREE! Become a GM-Trucks.com Member Today!

    In 20 seconds you can become part of the worlds largest and oldest community discussing General Motors, Chevrolet and GMC branded pickups, crossovers, and SUVs. From buying research to owner support, join 1.5 MILLION GM Truck Enthusiasts every month who use GM-Trucks.com as a daily part of their ownership experience. 

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Didn't I say, "..... it's not an argument worth having. " And now you want to make what was a conversation personnel? Okay. Let's run this down the rabbit hole as your insisting, eh?

 

Your statement above says that only those with experience can know the outcome of a thing with certainty. Thus as I have none (experience) with this device/procedure I lack any ability that would lead to an accurate conclusion. Thus I need to bugger off. 

 

How much actual experience did the NASA Apollo 11 engineers have at going to the moon? NONE! By your logic Neil Armstrong could not reach the moon. It would also imply if Neil and Buzz actually had,  that upon their arrival home they had acquired enough experience to send men to the moon themselves no longer in need of those pesky inexperienced engineers. 

 

In what world does seeing a 'change' in the fluids appearance equal a known percentage of that exchange? 

 

Quote:  In a 14 qt system it typically  uses about 15 to 17 qts to fully remove the old (to over 95%, including coolers etc.)).

 

Which is it?

 

Then there is this: Quote: There is some comingling, but usually only about 1-3 quarts worth.

 

That's 79 to 93%. Tell ya what this dummy knows. Your crawfishing and guessing. In just a few sentences and two post you've waffled from 100% (fully remove) to as little as 79%. (3 in 14). 

 

Quote: Pull new oil in one line, push old oil out the other. (cooler lines) 

 

You said this system used the transmissions own pump to do the exchange.  Well you can certainly push the old out but sucking the new in would be a trick. The pump suction is internal and the pan. Not the OTHER line. You know, the passage the filter is attached to. Wait, were you about to say there is an external tap into the suction line? Great then it pulls from both....Now were not comingled were are flat out mixing. 

 

It also says that this transfer is a differential dilution equation. You could calculate it or you could measure it but what you can't do is eyeball it. You can't guess a fact. Neil would have landed on Pluto. 

 

Try a fluid neutral titratable marker and measure it then tell me to bugger off IF I'm wrong. But not on the effluent sample. On a sample taken from the pan a thousand miles after the flush. That should not require an explanation. 

 

As it turns out I'm in a very good position for such a debate. I just didn't want to. 

 

 

 

 



I stand by my position; 
You haven't done this job, so you are not in a position to debate how the process actually works in the real world. I really don't care what you 'think' you know. I know what actually works, you don't. Spouting off theories doesn't change that.
Smarter people than you actually designed the fluid replacement process, the people that actually designed the transmissions. But yet you still somehow know better......? Good lord...
You don't even know what a trans filter looks like or what it's capabilities are, yet you're expounding about what you (wrongly) 'think' their capabilities are. 
You got the NASA analogy wrong, (as expected). They've blown up & lost a lot of stuff over the years & continue to do so. All that stuff was designed by 'book smart' engineers and middle management drones - who thought they knew more than they did. Relatives of yours? .......... But at least they (hopefully) learned by trying and doing. 
I'm not crawfishing or guessing anything- that is what you're doing. I said what actually works for the process at hand. You are unable to do so. 

You may fool a lot of people on here by cluttering up your posts with lots of technobabble, convoluted 1/2 facts and nonsense etc., but you don't fool me. You've posted a lot of blatant falsehoods on various threads over the years & you're doing it here. I usually keep quiet about it, but I think you've overplayed your hand this time.

For all those on here that are trying to learn, you can do it the Grumpy Bear way, who has never actually done it, or get sound usable advice from those who have actually done it. Your choice.

Grumpy - it's clear that your ego is going to force you to have to have the last word.  It's a powerful urge in you that you won't be able to deny.
So here ya go, the floor is yours. Pile it high, pile it deep, pile it wide, spread it around. Whatever makes ya happy......


I'm out. 

PS - (2nd sentence in your post) the correct word is personal, not personnel.........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/19/2019 at 4:46 PM, 1SLOW1500 said:

I have had more then a few arguements on good trans temp. Had a few say 210-240. And their supporting fact was trans fluid D6 is built for that.
Well trans isn't and in fact GM add a hot trans pattern for when temp is 212*. Basically a limp mode for the trans. The fluid will go to that but it breaks down fast and then can't do it's job. Over 190* normal operating temp it states change fluid every 30-40k. Again compare that to what people are posting 50-60k or over 100k.
But I believe the engineers in all there infinite wisdom saw that 240* rating and got carried away.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

My thermostat was stuck closed and I saw 212 every single day for 20k miles.

 

I never noticed even the slightest difference in how the trans acted, and I am pretty intune with that sort of thing.

Edited by truckguy82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this horse is quite dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My thermostat was stuck closed and I saw 212 every single day for 20k miles.
 
I never noticed even the slightest difference in how the trans acted, and I am pretty intune with that sort of thing.
Then you drive slow. Because it lowers the shift rpm and the throttle %. So you stayed under that.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 1SLOW1500 said:

Then you drive slow. Because it lowers the shift rpm and the throttle %. So you stayed under that.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

Ok yeah so it doesnt effect anything except open loop?

 

i believe it changes some parameters, but hardly a “limp mode”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what is shows. ae435151a7a0ff9b9fd34c96aceb6e85.jpgf685b4402be6a7665df74957e09d41f9.jpg

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all agree changing fluid, whether it be fluid exchange or a pan drop/filter change is better than doing nothing at all. I declare a cease fire on the discussion of  what percentage of fluid is actually changed using a flush method, because the issue is not going to be resolved here. Everyone can decide for themselves

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nanotech Environmental said:



I stand by my position; 
You haven't done this job, so you are not in a position to debate how the process actually works in the real world. I really don't care what you 'think' you know. I know what actually works, you don't. Spouting off theories doesn't change that.
Smarter people than you actually designed the fluid replacement process, the people that actually designed the transmissions. But yet you still somehow know better......? Good lord...
You don't even know what a trans filter looks like or what it's capabilities are, yet you're expounding about what you (wrongly) 'think' their capabilities are. 
You got the NASA analogy wrong, (as expected). They've blown up & lost a lot of stuff over the years & continue to do so. All that stuff was designed by 'book smart' engineers and middle management drones - who thought they knew more than they did. Relatives of yours? .......... But at least they (hopefully) learned by trying and doing. 
I'm not crawfishing or guessing anything- that is what you're doing. I said what actually works for the process at hand. You are unable to do so. 

You may fool a lot of people on here by cluttering up your posts with lots of technobabble, convoluted 1/2 facts and nonsense etc., but you don't fool me. You've posted a lot of blatant falsehoods on various threads over the years & you're doing it here. I usually keep quiet about it, but I think you've overplayed your hand this time.

For all those on here that are trying to learn, you can do it the Grumpy Bear way, who has never actually done it, or get sound usable advice from those who have actually done it. Your choice.

Grumpy - it's clear that your ego is going to force you to have to have the last word.  It's a powerful urge in you that you won't be able to deny.
So here ya go, the floor is yours. Pile it high, pile it deep, pile it wide, spread it around. Whatever makes ya happy......


I'm out. 

PS - (2nd sentence in your post) the correct word is personal, not personnel.........

AMEN Brother.......!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Trans...I have no problem with keeping it cooler as some of you guys do.  As for the engine, I do agree more so with GM engineering on the hotter side.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 2:37 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

A.) It doesn't. Fluid will comingle in a straight pipe. (Soda Straw) It's why we use PIGS (physical separation) in pipe lines to change from one fluid to another (refining). Even small lines. Try the glass experiment.  That said, if you don't want to it's not an argument worth having. I'm good. 

Yeah but the volume of fluid that commingles is what’s important

 

your glass example is not applicable because the commingling of fluid is much greater.

 

your math assumed the glass was mixed with the two fluids entirely

 

if you have a 100ft garden hose full of dirty trans oil, and you push fresh trans oil through one end, it’s going to be like 98% clean oil after 1 gallon goes through.

 

you can’t math your way through the trans cleaning unless you are extremely familiar with the internal fluid passages. Filling up a glass with a different fluid and allowing them to mix is the worst example ever in regards to a trans flush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, txab said:

We all agree changing fluid, whether it be fluid exchange or a pan drop/filter change is better than doing nothing at all. I declare a cease fire on the discussion of  what percentage of fluid is actually changed using a flush method, because the issue is not going to be resolved here. Everyone can decide for themselves

the flush from the coolant port will get rid of 60% fluid , i'm guessing, most sits in the torque converter, you can drill a hole in the torque converter and install 1/4 pipe tap and plug. i've seen a guy flush all fluid out of the trans using the coolant return line but he had to keep adding good fluid until the flush port turned bright red. 

 

truth is, it's far cheaper to add a super dense bi-pass filter in line of the trans coolant line port.  companies like Amsoil make  the whole kit and Frantz or motorguard are other options

Edited by flyingfool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, txab said:

We all agree changing fluid, whether it be fluid exchange or a pan drop/filter change is better than doing nothing at all. I declare a cease fire on the discussion of  what percentage of fluid is actually changed using a flush method, because the issue is not going to be resolved here. Everyone can decide for themselves

 

I think I can land this bird without loosing a feather. And comply with txab wishes of letting be exact percentages. 

 

Nanotech cannot deny what his eyes are telling him. It IS a strong argument. It's the same sort of proofs a father would use with a child..."look at this and tell me what you see".  I NEVER called him a liar. I said his the conclusion was flawed

 

Mook, I believe points to the water glass experiment. Glad he did as this experiment will provide some insight. The point of which will show both an explanation and point to an assumption I had to make in my first post.

 

A container has both height/length and diameter. That is called the L/D ratio. Years of research by anyone interested in both fluid dynamics and mixing/blending will attest the this ratio is the prime key in how two 'like' fluids behave under the circumstances being discussed.

 

Mook was not wrong is his observation that a garden hose is indeed different than a water glass and would mix differently. I did not say it wouldn't. What I did say was that EVEN in a garden hose, soda straw, some mixing occurs. Maybe it would be easier to visualize if we used a bathtub pouring colored water in one end and allowing the overflow to do it's job at the other. Repeat with a soda straw in a very narrow glass observing only what happens in the straw. Mook intuited this. Good visualization sir. 

 

This tells us that shape is everything. You get a slightly different result if the container is square or rectangular. Directionally the same. Go back to the tub and add a mixer and you have a new ball game...see where this is going? 

 

The pump discharges both to the cooler and the TC and the valve body and takes suction from the pan. The pan holds roughly half the fluid and the TC nearly the remainder. The TC is by design, a pump, and pumps mix. The pan is a rectangle with a very low L/D ratio...like the tub. The remainder is like a garden hose. HIGH mixing is unavoidable. 

 

So it would look like we have to knowns saying different things and that is our rubbing spot. 

 

When I did my 6 quart dump and fill (pan removed) of the 12.6 quarts my 6L80E holds and after driving a few hundred miles to intentionally mix these two I came back for a second and the fluid on the dip stick and in a glass container looked very fresh. The oil we removed looked on it's way out. Point is the 'eye' could not tell the difference between 48% and 100% BUT it could tell it was different and greatly so. On the second exchange we compared again with the same result. You could see a difference but unable to quantify it. Thus the fluid neutral marker titration would be needed to know the exact value which brings me to my assumption.

 

ON the back of the napkin this differential equation requires some shapes or shape (L/D) to be entered. Using a standard reference WILL NOT provide accuracy a boast would require but it does tell me that it, in this context, does not provide the results ones own eyes would leave you to believe. Which brings me to my reason for argument.

 

When I do a drop and fill and use proper procedure mixing between services I know to a mathematical CERTIANTY to outcome of what I can not know with this purge method without LABRATORY TESTING. 

 

Let me put it this way. I know for a CERTIANTY that 2 + 2 = 4 and yet one versed in algebra can manipulate the sequence to show a visually verifiable answer of 5. As convincing as that trick is I'll keep my certainty. 

 

And with that I believe every reasonable person gets home with their pants on and a smile. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I think I can land this bird without loosing a feather. And comply with txab wishes of letting be exact percentages. 

 

Nanotech cannot deny what his eyes are telling him. It IS a strong argument. It's the same sort of proofs a father would use with a child..."look at this and tell me what you see".  I NEVER called him a liar. I said his the conclusion was flawed

 

Mook, I believe points to the water glass experiment. Glad he did as this experiment will provide some insight. The point of which will show both an explanation and point to an assumption I had to make in my first post.

 

A container has both height/length and diameter. That is called the L/D ratio. Years of research by anyone interested in both fluid dynamics and mixing/blending will attest the this ratio is the prime key in how two 'like' fluids behave under the circumstances being discussed.

 

Mook was not wrong is his observation that a garden hose is indeed different than a water glass and would mix differently. I did not say it wouldn't. What I did say was that EVEN in a garden hose, soda straw, some mixing occurs. Maybe it would be easier to visualize if we used a bathtub pouring colored water in one end and allowing the overflow to do it's job at the other. Repeat with a soda straw in a very narrow glass observing only what happens in the straw. Mook intuited this. Good visualization sir. 

 

This tells us that shape is everything. You get a slightly different result if the container is square or rectangular. Directionally the same. Go back to the tub and add a mixer and you have a new ball game...see where this is going? 

 

The pump discharges both to the cooler and the TC and the valve body and takes suction from the pan. The pan holds roughly half the fluid and the TC nearly the remainder. The TC is by design, a pump, and pumps mix. The pan is a rectangle with a very low L/D ratio...like the tub. The remainder is like a garden hose. HIGH mixing is unavoidable. 

 

So it would look like we have to knowns saying different things and that is our rubbing spot. 

 

When I did my 6 quart dump and fill (pan removed) of the 12.6 quarts my 6L80E holds and after driving a few hundred miles to intentionally mix these two I came back for a second and the fluid on the dip stick and in a glass container looked very fresh. The oil we removed looked on it's way out. Point is the 'eye' could not tell the difference between 48% and 100% BUT it could tell it was different and greatly so. On the second exchange we compared again with the same result. You could see a difference but unable to quantify it. Thus the fluid neutral marker titration would be needed to know the exact value which brings me to my assumption.

 

ON the back of the napkin this differential equation requires some shapes or shape (L/D) to be entered. Using a standard reference WILL NOT provide accuracy a boast would require but it does tell me that it, in this context, does not provide the results ones own eyes would leave you to believe. Which brings me to my reason for argument.

 

When I do a drop and fill and use proper procedure mixing between services I know to a mathematical CERTIANTY to outcome of what I can not know with this purge method without LABRATORY TESTING. 

 

Let me put it this way. I know for a CERTIANTY that 2 + 2 = 4 and yet one versed in algebra can manipulate the sequence to show a visually verifiable answer of 5. As convincing as that trick is I'll keep my certainty. 

 

And with that I believe every reasonable person gets home with their pants on and a smile. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grumps...I think you got me mixed up with another feller?  Anybody using inline filter for these Transmissions?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mookdoc6 said:

Grumps...I think you got me mixed up with another feller?  Anybody using inline filter for these Transmissions?  

Sorry Mook.  My memory failed me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.