Last post on Oct 07, 2013 at 1:21 PM
You are in the Toyota Matrix
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Matrix, Transmission, Wagon
#540 of 573 Clutch slipping at 32K miles
Dec 24, 2012 (10:27 am)
The clutch started to slip on my 2006 Matrix at just 32K miles.
Only going up hills ~3500rpm, near the engine's torque peak.
The previous owner must have dogged it in the 8,100 miles they had it.
Unfortunately no way to know that time bomb was there.
Got the car back today. (Excellent indie shop in College Park MD)
The flywheel and pressure plate had blue color from overheating.
The flywheel had to be resurfaced.
The friction disk was not worn down much.
The pressure plate springs apparently were weakened from the heat.
I can really feel the difference.
#541 of 573 Transmission konks at 100K
Jan 18, 2013 (5:42 pm)
I purchased a Matrix or specifically a Toyota because I thought they would last forever. I also took the vehicle to the shop where I purchased the vehicle, and the shop guy said yeah they tend to do that at 100k.
#542 of 573 Re: Transmission konks at 100K [timslewis]
Jan 20, 2013 (6:48 am)
well, I would totally disagree with that simplistic logic from your dealer. What I hope he meant was that it is a very bad idea leaving the original fluid in the transmission (automatic) to the mileage outlined in the owner's manual. Many transmissions, to include Toyota's, are indeed failing around that point because owners don't believe they need to exchange the fluid until sometime around the 100,000 mile mark and beyond. I had the same thing happen to me in a Hyundai. Fact is, leaving the second most important fluid in your car "forever" will ensure a premature transmission failure. Exchange the fluid at 60,000, not at 100,000 or even worse, leaving it in "forever."
#543 of 573 Re: Transmission konks at 100K [maxx4me]
Jan 20, 2013 (7:14 am)
I think he meant they all "tend to blow up" around then. But I have read of many failures long before 100k. It is a bad design flaw and Toyota (surprisingly to me as I guess I always had placed them on an undeserved pedestal) simply won't acknowledge the flaw.
In fact, I am recalling this as I shop for a car now. Also remembering Mazda screwing loyal owners of rusted Proteges, Honda with their autos in Oydessy and Civics, Hyundai with their auto in Santa Fe and some Elantras, Chrysler and Ford with their sketchy autos and all the other non tranny related issues etc as almost all brands seem to have their issues in one way or another.
I didn't know what to think when I first learned of GM not having a drain available on their "sealed for life" auto trans in their Malibus etc many years ago now. I suppose it helped idiot-proof them by ensuring that no one puts engine oil or something else in there or overfills etc. but it still seems like a drastic solution to that.
But at least there is one big difference between oils/fluids in an auto tranny vs an engine...at least in a tranny there are no by-product contaminations from combustion, so helps in not having sulfuric acid etc eating away at bearings...but there are still sources of contamination from gear wear and clutch pack debris.
And also, I suspect that there must be additives in an auto trans fluid that assist seals in the tranny to keep their shape and pliability to resist leaks and ruptures.
I used to think that if you bought a standard, you're set for 400k + if you didn't abuse it and replaced the gear oil every 60k or so. But not so..there are good standards and poor ones. Same with autos..there are good designs and poor designs. Pays to read up before a car purchase.
If you use heavy trucks/buses etc as an example, standard transmissions last easily 3 to 4 times longer than a similar torque-capable automatic in the same application. This tells me that the standard will always be capable of greater longevity, providing the original design is good to start with.
#544 of 573 Re: Transmission konks at 100K [maxx4me]
Jan 20, 2013 (11:21 am)
If you are suggesting that these manual shift Toyotas are failing due to something the owners did or didn't do, then your logic is the one that's simplistic and flawed. I feel sorry for those that still believe that Toyotas are anything like what they were 20-30y ago. I guess you must live and learn on your own.
ps-my standard 2003 Matrix died in 2007 with 84,000km
#545 of 573 Re: Transmission konks at 100K [marjo]
Jan 20, 2013 (12:47 pm)
Did you ever change the gear oil?
No one with these failures seems willing to answer that question.
#546 of 573 Re: Transmission konks at 100K [circuitsmith]
Jan 20, 2013 (1:00 pm)
You must work for Toyota..
The trans FAILED at 50000 miles! and theirs wasn't the only one to fail that early. What part of that has to do with changing trans oil? First change isn't even due by then. Now if they all failed at 300+ k km (180000 miles) and never had an oil change, then maybe you'd have a point.
Come back and try to defend if you want but if you feel you must, please do so AFTER you have researched this DESIGN FLAW first. You will find out that the MANY failures have nothing to do with neglected maintenance.
Perhaps you could also tell us why replacement trans didn't last any longer than the first one..or if they did was not much longer.
To save you some time...there is a bearing that is in a bad spot that goes oil starved due to design. If it was just a bad batch of bearings, the replacements would last longer wouldn't they?
#547 of 573 Re: Transmission konks at 100K [gimmestdtranny]
Jan 22, 2013 (12:00 pm)
More noise but no answer to my question.
I'm looking for information, not bluster.
Often (not)changing the oil has EVERYTHING to do with failure.
You ASSume I'm trying to blame the driver.
Maybe Toyota should spec trans oil changes every 30k miles like my previous 3 Hondas did.
Many companies now claim "lifetime" trans fluid in their automatics.
Honda once claimed 105k mile valve lash adjustments in the CRV that led to failures.
Big mistakes to make the cars seem cheaper to maintain.
Do these transmissions fail if the oil is changed like in days of old?
I still have no answer to that question, your venting not withstanding.
I changed my trans oil at 21k miles after reading about the failures.
It looked "dirtier" than the oil from one of my Hondas at 30k miles.
Maybe there's some break in wear particles that need to be cleared out early on.
#548 of 573 Re: Transmission konks at 100K [circuitsmith]
Jan 22, 2013 (12:18 pm)
"I changed my trans oil at 21k miles after reading about the failures.
It looked "dirtier" than the oil from one of my Hondas at 30k miles. "
And there ya go, you answered your own question. Dirtier oil at fewer miles means more wear than its competitor. Excessive wear is due to either inferior components or poor design of the package. I too change my oil prematurely when I buy a new (or used for that matter..first thing I do is swap fluids if I buy used) but you can't deny (not if you have researched as I have..you still haven't said) that instead of an averaged neglected trans (representing the masses) lasting 200k miles, these ones are crapping at even less than 50k. What's so hard to understand? For comparisons sake a Fiesta calls for an oil change at 150000 miles. It's first change! And far be it from me to defend Ford as I am no fan.
It is not a reasonable expectation to have to change your manual tran oil only twice fewer times as you change your crankcase oil in order to get 200k out them.
Anyway, not going to debate with you further..have last word if you want.
#549 of 573 Junker. DO NOT BUY TOYOTA
Jan 22, 2013 (3:28 pm)
I changed my trans oil at 51k, still at 60k got dreaded torque converter, stuck solenoid.
Car was always hard to get out of first gear. When changed ts oil -> oil was dark black.
Called toyota, support claiming they never heard about this problem. What kind of car has transmission issues at 60k 2012? The worst junker transmission would last longer.
Oh but they gave me case number if I want to complain: 1301222774.
This company does not stand by they products.
People buying Matrix are stupid. They are not quality cars.