Help! Volvo 2004 S60 62.5k mileage Auto tranny problems

[TehMac]

Occasionally the auto transmission will undergo 'clunky' shifts which I'm used to in most automatic transmission cars but this is a borrowed car I have been using to commute 100 miles a day (both ways) starting this week.
I was experiencing some clunky gear shifts in stop and go traffic the first two days, and I felt confident I was able to avoid the clunky downshifts by depressing the accelerator more firmly and deeply.

Then this morning, there were some mild “clunky” shifts and then the warning light came on with the error message saying: “Transmission Service Required.” I was able to finish the commute (another 13 miles) but the power delivery definitely felt delayed, and the transmission didn’t seem able to shift to 5th gear (engine was @3,000RPM when the car was going 60MPH)

The car’s transmission has been flushed before (in the last 12 months), and the mechanic at that shop said that the only other option was to get a new transmission. When I take the car to the shop, are there any specific pointers I should ask or tell them so I can fix this problem?

 

[MiataNC]

Do a quick Google search, and you will see that this is a common problem with the S60, and not a cheap repair ($2000-$4500).

Is there any kind of extended warranty on the car?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Unfortunately, those 5-speed automatics that Volvo was using in the early-mid 2000s just weren't that good.

I know that Volvo issued a TSB with new programming for the transmission control unit for some of those cars, but I can't remember if the '06 S60 was one. Regardless, by this point it's probably new/rebuilt transmission time judging by your symptoms.

ZV

 

[TehMac]

Unfortunately, those 5-speed automatics that Volvo was using in the early-mid 2000s just weren't that good.

I know that Volvo issued a TSB with new programming for the transmission control unit for some of those cars, but I can't remember if the '06 S60 was one. Regardless, by this point it's probably new/rebuilt transmission time judging by your symptoms.

ZV

Thanks for this. Not sure how Volvo's brand has survived with this knowledge in mind. What crap! (also, why I prefer manual)

Any idea what lifespan looks like? Can I make it home tonight? (50 mi drive) Avoid load on the transmission helpful?

 

[NutBucket]

Every car maker seems to go through a phase with a failure prone transmission.

 

[MiataNC]

Every car maker seems to go through a phase with a failure prone automatic transmission.

FTFY

 

[imagoon]

FTFY

Actually he is more correct. There are bad batches of manuals out there also.

TSB for 6 speed MT Honda transmissions grinding in to the 3rd and Jeep manuals popping out of gear being fairly recent.

 

[MiataNC]

Actually he is more correct. There are bad batches of manuals out there also.

TSB for 6 speed MT Honda transmissions grinding in to the 3rd and Jeep manuals popping out of gear being fairly recent.

Bad manuals are extremely rare compared to the overwhelming number of bad autos that have plagued every auto maker. It isn't even close.

 

[tortillasoup]

What happened with these volvo transmissions and basically every automaker who attempted to add this function to their transmissions was that when the car detected the driver was slowing down to a stop, it would shift the transmission into neutral. By doing this, it would save gas as there would be less of a load on the transmission. Then when the brake is released, the transmission would shift into drive.

The problem is, if a driver was fidgity or undecided and got the car to think they were coming to a stop but changed their mind (or due to traffic conditions like rush hour) it would have to shift back into drive. Also if the driver releases the brake and quickly pushes hard on the accelerator before the transmission completes its shifting into drive, not aware of what the transmission was doing in the background, it would lead to harsher than necessary engagement (I.e. a Neutral drop)... Anyway, every time an automaker implements this function, their transmissions fail prematurely, they learn from their mistake and re-program their transmissions to no longer do this. That's what the software update from volvo does, it disables that function and they hope you haven't grenaded your transmission by the time you get the update.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Are you certain they do that? I thought modern gas engines with electronic fuel injection simply shut off fuel flow when coasting. It would be less fuel-efficient to shift to neutral since you'd have to continue sending fuel for the engine to keep spinning.

 

[imagoon]

Bad manuals are extremely rare compared to the overwhelming number of bad autos that have plagued every auto maker. It isn't even close.

If you say so. Considering that manual are rare on this side of the pond in the first place you wouldn't see it come up as often.

Miata had the stuck in reverse issue.
MX6, 626 has the shiftgate problem
6 had diff exploding issues.

It isn't really that rare.

 

[TehMac]

What happened with these volvo transmissions and basically every automaker who attempted to add this function to their transmissions was that when the car detected the driver was slowing down to a stop, it would shift the transmission into neutral. By doing this, it would save gas as there would be less of a load on the transmission. Then when the brake is released, the transmission would shift into drive.

This is really helpful, thanks so much! It sounds like the transmission is probably grenaded at this point. Wish the moron mechanics knew about the software update earlier in the car's lifespan.

 

[NutBucket]

If you say so. Considering that manual are rare on this side of the pond in the first place you wouldn't see it come up as often.

Miata had the stuck in reverse issue.
MX6, 626 has the shiftgate problem
6 had diff exploding issues.

It isn't really that rare.

Apparently only if you buy a Mazda!

 

[tortillasoup]

Are you certain they do that? I thought modern gas engines with electronic fuel injection simply shut off fuel flow when coasting. It would be less fuel-efficient to shift to neutral since you'd have to continue sending fuel for the engine to keep spinning.

What you're describing is deceleration fuel cut off. For that to be engaged, the engine has to spin above a pre-determined rpm, typically above 1500 rpm with a negative load (wheels are turning the engine). But once it goes below that rpm and load (from slowing down) the engine kicks back in to idle speed. I don't know the exact parameters for every transmission computer for when it shifts into neutral as it's anticipating you're coming to a stop. But the primary issue is the # of neutral drops that essentially happen with the driver unaware of how their driving habits are causing it (though I don't blame the drivers for this issue).

 

[Zenmervolt]

Are you certain they do that? I thought modern gas engines with electronic fuel injection simply shut off fuel flow when coasting. It would be less fuel-efficient to shift to neutral since you'd have to continue sending fuel for the engine to keep spinning.

The deceleration fuel cut-off is only above a certain RPM. For many automatics, it's only if the engine is above at least 2,000 RPM. Below that, fuel flow begins again.

The transmission would generally only go into neutral if the driver was also using the brakes, not just coasting.

Basically, the idea was to reduce the load on the engine when the car was stopped with the brake on and thereby reduce fuel consumption somewhat. Unfortunately, it didn't work well.

The transmission is an AisinWarner unit (specifically an AW55) that was also used in many other cars, including the '04-'06 Nissan Maxima, and several GM family (including Saab) models of the time.

ZV

 

[imagoon]

Apparently only if you buy a Mazda!

Lol, I only have owned Mazda for quite a few years so that is where a lot of my knowledge comes from.

I tend to buy and drive it until it explodes.

 

[TehMac]

Unfortunately, those 5-speed automatics that Volvo was using in the early-mid 2000s just weren't that good.

I know that Volvo issued a TSB with new programming for the transmission control unit for some of those cars, but I can't remember if the '06 S60 was one. Regardless, by this point it's probably new/rebuilt transmission time judging by your symptoms.

ZV

Not that it makes much of a difference at this point, but I just realized the Volvo is a 2004 S60, not an '06. Trying to dig up more info on Google about the auto tranny and the TSB...

 

[iamwiz82]

Bad manuals are extremely rare compared to the overwhelming number of bad autos that have plagued every auto maker. It isn't even close.

Where is your proof? What data do you have?

I'd guess that the per-transmission failure rate is quite similar between manuals and autos.

 

[NutBucket]

Bad due to bad design or abuse? I would argue that manuals that fail are far more likely to be due to the operator.

 

[Hartle4]

Bad due to bad design or abuse? I would argue that manuals that fail are far more likely to be due to the operator.

This is true most of the time automatics fail more to design flaws while the manuals are usually more driver's error tearing it up. however there are a couple manuals that had design flaws too, that skew that argument a little. The Suzuki swifts had much better autos in them than the manuals, they grenaded pretty often with manuals.

 

[tortillasoup]

Where is your proof? What data do you have?

I'd guess that the per-transmission failure rate is quite similar between manuals and autos.

automatics by design are inherently more complex and what with a torque converter involved, you put a too powerful of an engine into there and you'll start seeing a rash of transmission failures. True synchro failure and whatnot can happen but that's usually from abuse, not just bad design.

 

[Zenmervolt]

what with a torque converter involved, you put a too powerful of an engine into there and you'll start seeing a rash of transmission failures.

Huh?

The failure points in automatic transmissions are usually the bands, clutch packs, valves, and the lockup clutch. The torque converters themselves are almost never a failure point. A torque converter is ridiculously simple. It's basically nothing more than a turbine.

ZV

 

[tortillasoup]

Huh?

The failure points in automatic transmissions are usually the bands, clutch packs, valves, and the lockup clutch. The torque converters themselves are almost never a failure point. A torque converter is ridiculously simple. It's basically nothing more than a turbine.

ZV

True... My point was a little bit nuanced but the reason I mention the torque converter is that it's the nexus of all heat produced in the transmission. If you burn out the transmission fluid due to overloading, fluid gets thin/burnt/etc then everything else in the transmission fails. Driving up steep hills with a heavy load won't burn out a manual transmission because once the clutch is released, there should be no frictional losses going on in the clutch while there is a ton in an automatic unless you manage to get the torque converter to lockup while ascending a hill with a heavy load. With the more gears and more advanced transmissions in consumer cars today, it's less of an issue than in years past with fewer geared transmissions and limited to no torque converter lockup.

These are just problems inherent with torque converter based automatic transmissions, doesn't even factor other such abuse such as neutral drops, fun with the parking pawl and other such abuse/failures. I mean yes there are synchros, shift forks and whatnot in a manual transmission but there is a lot more warning (horrible noises) to shifting into 1st gear when rolling in reverse on a manual than on an automatic where I've seen it happen with many different drivers far too often.

Automated manuals with dry clutch should be more reliable (assuming you don't consider clutch replacement as a factor in terms of reliability) but initial offerings from Ford showed they need more practice and fine tuning to get that down.