Changing tranny lines. Should I flush the tranny too?
10-19-2010, 06:34 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changing tranny lines. Should I flush the tranny too?
My truck is an '06 5.9 with about 66K on it. Should I flush the tranny/change the filter while I'm changing the lines? I'm thinking synthetic (Does Royal Purple? make it for these trannys?). How many qts. does my truck take? I haven't even looked it up yet. The plan is to plow this year, so I want to do what's best for the truck. Thanks in advance for any info!!
10-19-2010, 10:42 AM
#2
Just a plain ole guy
I would certainly flush the new lines with something to make sure there's no debris in them before installing. It'll never hurt to change any fluid and filter early.
10-21-2010, 07:56 AM
#7
Administrator ........ DTR's puttin fires out and workin on big trucks admin
Drop the pan and filter, adjust the bands, reinstall new filter and pan, leave the return line off the tranny and drop it in a bucket. Put a funnel in the fill tube, start it put it in neutral and start adding fluid to the tranny. I usually run 6-8 qts through the funnel wait a few seconds then shut the truck off and reconnect the return line, then restart and check fluid level. If I need to remove fluid I just pull the return line off the tranny and run it again.
Trending Topics
10-22-2010, 04:20 PM
#8
Registered User
I wish they would make it a sticky that ATF+4 is not and never has been synthetic, its made from group III petroleum base stock..
From ALL PAR and I quote:
The initial development was done using Shell's XHVI base oil. Only much later were other Group III base oils approved. (Currently, SK in Korea and PetroCanada are the only additional approved base oil suppliers.) The use of Group III base oils is probably the leading cause for ATF+4 being a more expensive fluid than ATF+3 (which according to the paper uses a Group II base oil).
Lubrizol developed a new shear-stable viscosity index (VI) improver
specifically for ATF+4. The initial tests of this VI improver in the
MS9602 test fluids were so remarkable that Chrysler modified the then-current ATF+2 spec (MS7176D) to include it. Thus ATF+3 (MS7176E) fluid was born; it remained the factory fill until ATF+4.
The paper noted that one alternative was to use synthetic Group IV base stock, which are even more expensive than the ATF+4 solution, which provided Group IV style performance from Group III stock.
OIL Groups:
Group I base oils can have a mix of different hydrocarbon chains, with relatively little uniformity; these oils are the least refined. They are usually not used for autos.
Group II are the most common base oils in “dino juice,” with good performance in most areas except cold temperature viscosity.
Group III are called synthetic, and have high molecular uniformity and stability. Group III oil bases are used in most synthetic oils.
Group IV are chemically engineered stocks, arguably with the highest performance and longevity.
From ALL PAR and I quote:
The initial development was done using Shell's XHVI base oil. Only much later were other Group III base oils approved. (Currently, SK in Korea and PetroCanada are the only additional approved base oil suppliers.) The use of Group III base oils is probably the leading cause for ATF+4 being a more expensive fluid than ATF+3 (which according to the paper uses a Group II base oil).
Lubrizol developed a new shear-stable viscosity index (VI) improver
specifically for ATF+4. The initial tests of this VI improver in the
MS9602 test fluids were so remarkable that Chrysler modified the then-current ATF+2 spec (MS7176D) to include it. Thus ATF+3 (MS7176E) fluid was born; it remained the factory fill until ATF+4.
The paper noted that one alternative was to use synthetic Group IV base stock, which are even more expensive than the ATF+4 solution, which provided Group IV style performance from Group III stock.
OIL Groups:
Group I base oils can have a mix of different hydrocarbon chains, with relatively little uniformity; these oils are the least refined. They are usually not used for autos.
Group II are the most common base oils in “dino juice,” with good performance in most areas except cold temperature viscosity.
Group III are called synthetic, and have high molecular uniformity and stability. Group III oil bases are used in most synthetic oils.
Group IV are chemically engineered stocks, arguably with the highest performance and longevity.
10-22-2010, 06:36 PM
#9
10-25-2010, 02:22 PM
#11
Registered User
I guess you missed where the info I posted was Quoted from ALL PAR, so if you or someone else has a problem with the descriptions used of how oil is grouped or any other of the words they used take it up with ALL PAR.
10-25-2010, 02:26 PM
#12
Registered User
Here in the USA they are allowed to call hydro cracked group III fluids synthetic based on a ruling in the Castro V Mobil suit years ago. I find it funny they can claim hydro cracked oil is synthetic here in the USA but they can not do so in other countries.
10-25-2010, 04:33 PM
#13
You decry calling ATF+4 synthetic then post that it is indeed called synthetic and grouped with a full synthetic fluid. I don't have a problem with any of the wording or descriptions. Confused why you maintain one poiint and post something that disproves it?
Even more confused why you would get defensive about your own contradictory posting???
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CACalomino
3rd Gen Engine and Drivetrain -> 2003-2007
16
03-22-2010 06:35 PM
Sam Turner2
3rd Gen High Performance and Accessories (5.9L Only)
8
11-18-2008 10:17 AM
DodgeDiesel61
12 Valve Engine and Drivetrain
7
09-18-2008 10:55 AM