d2 trans reliability
10-16-2008, 06:28 AM
#1
AudiWorld Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d2 trans reliability
just read couple posts down about the transmissions on the 8s going bad...how widespread is this, makes it sound like a virus, i mean do many go, %wise, and would tip chips help?
10-16-2008, 02:31 PM
#4
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: d2 trans reliability
97-99 definitely has epidemic levels of failure beyond 120,000 miles.
I'm less convinced that the fundamental issue was solved in the post-facelift D2s (00-03), since my 2001 no longer goes into reverse at 110,000 miles.
There is a school of thought that says the transmission fluids make a large difference in longevity. Empirically, there appears to be some correlation, but the older ZF boxes definitely appear to be weak. If you replace fluids, definitely go with the factory service guidelines, as cheaper fluids seem to make them fail "earlier".
I'm less convinced that the fundamental issue was solved in the post-facelift D2s (00-03), since my 2001 no longer goes into reverse at 110,000 miles.
There is a school of thought that says the transmission fluids make a large difference in longevity. Empirically, there appears to be some correlation, but the older ZF boxes definitely appear to be weak. If you replace fluids, definitely go with the factory service guidelines, as cheaper fluids seem to make them fail "earlier".
10-16-2008, 07:22 PM
#7
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: I don't agree with that.
Tozo,
I'd definitely defer to your experience, as you've dealt with them more than the rest of us all put together. Some had conjectured awhile back that switching away from the Audi-specified fluid had contributed to the early (?) demise of their ZF boxes... and so were recommending the use of the (expensive) Audi stuff.
My own personal opinion is that the ZF boxes were clearly under-designed for a 300HP, 4200# car. Too many of the early D2's are failing before 150,000 miles for it to be a coincidence.
Thanks!
TT
I'd definitely defer to your experience, as you've dealt with them more than the rest of us all put together. Some had conjectured awhile back that switching away from the Audi-specified fluid had contributed to the early (?) demise of their ZF boxes... and so were recommending the use of the (expensive) Audi stuff.
My own personal opinion is that the ZF boxes were clearly under-designed for a 300HP, 4200# car. Too many of the early D2's are failing before 150,000 miles for it to be a coincidence.
Thanks!
TT
Trending Topics
10-16-2008, 07:41 PM
#8
Actually these trannyes are very strong/well built. The rubber seals give up easily.
They design all the clutches with a lot of clearance so the shifts are smooth. Bigger clearance means more travel/rubbing wear on the seals. BTW our tranny is ~350lbs. It is stronger and heavier than the suburban's tranny.
10-16-2008, 08:26 PM
#9
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trans maintenance?
So it is only the seals that wear out? I thought i had seen pictures of worn/burnt clutches as well?
If one were to pull the auto transmission and replace all the internal seals every 60k miles, would these transmissions be much more reliable? If so, what is the effort involved?
If one were to pull the auto transmission and replace all the internal seals every 60k miles, would these transmissions be much more reliable? If so, what is the effort involved?
10-16-2008, 08:34 PM
#10
Clutches burn when the seal fail and not able to hold pressure that applies the clutch.
It is a big job just for preventative maintenance. Auto tranny fails. If you reduce the clearances, it will last way longer, but it will shift like a Chevy. 70% of the cars in my friend's tranny shop is under 100K. My Honda accord had 120K and the tranny was ready to fail.