Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I bought the matic-J oil the other day was gonna do it myself today.. from the info i have found dropping the oil out the drain plug will only remove half then i can just top back up the exact amount i removed.

Or should i take it to a mech and get them to flush and fill with full amount??

im only asking coz i found mixed results, some saying not good to flush the system(unwanted pressure..etc) and others saying not good to just drain as your not removing all the old stuff..

I just want to know what others have done.

either way im happy to do myself, or take to mech as i have bought the expensive stuff.... matic-J is like the cost of liquid gold. :ermm::)

thanks

sorry to start new thread.. but the M35 info one is getting massive and without categories gets hard to find stuff..

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/334650-m35-transmission-fluid-change/
Share on other sites

This is for S1 but pretty sure M35 is the same (i.e. the sump will hold a lot less than half). You could do it without dropping the sump. This way you are just using the stock auto's pump (it has been suggested that the pwer flushing system of the auto shops can damage seals but I can't verify that):

Get yourself an auto sump gasket kit and a 20L drum of (ideally) quality synthetic atf. You need 12 to 14L for the auto and you can use the rest for your attessa and power steering. Drain the sump and drop it (easier said then done - you will have to support the box and remove the rear mounting). You will only get betweeen 1 and 2 litres this way. Check that the new internal filter is exactly the same (otherwise the sump won't go back on) and if not either modify the new one to suit or clean the old one and put it back. Put 2L of fresh oil down the dip stick tube.

Then pull a hose off the trans oil cooler and run the engine until you have pumped out 2L into a container. Pour 2L of new oil down the dipstick tube and repeat until you get clean oil coming out. This will take 12 to 14L in total.

I bought the matic-J oil the other day was gonna do it myself today.. from the info i have found dropping the oil out the drain plug will only remove half then i can just top back up the exact amount i removed.

Or should i take it to a mech and get them to flush and fill with full amount??

im only asking coz i found mixed results, some saying not good to flush the system(unwanted pressure..etc) and others saying not good to just drain as your not removing all the old stuff..

I just want to know what others have done.

You should be able to get quite a lot by draining (about 4L or so), unfortunately ours takes over 8L, so you could do it again the following weekend which is effectively just diluting the old oil with fresh stuff or alternatively take it to Nissan for a transmission flush and take the price of the oil off the bill (you will lose $$ though).

hmmm.... while I think about it, would something like the Liquivac work for removing all the transmission oil?

matic-J is like the cost of liquid gold. :D:(

Maybe look at getting some Matic-S from the US? We have yet to receive it in Australia, but it is the 100% synthetic replacement to Matic-J.

sorry to start new thread.. but the M35 info one is getting massive and without categories gets hard to find stuff..

Agreed.....

couldnt agree more with another forum for m35 stuff.

I keep confusing peoples comments about S1's and S2's until i notice either C34 in their list of cars or their avatar of a c34.. and im like meh doesnt apply to my s1!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Nah. For something like boost control I wouldn't start my design with PID. I'd go with something that originates in the fuzzy logic world and use an emergency function or similar concept. PID can and does work, but at its fundamental level it is not suited to quick action. I'd be reasonably sure that the Profecs et al all transitioned to a fuzzy algorithm back in the 90s. Keep in mind also that where and when I have previously talked about using a Profec, I'm usually talking about only doing an open loop system anyway. All this talk of PID and other algorithms only comes into play when you're talking closed loop boost control, and in the context of what the OP needs and wants, we're probably actually in the realm of open loop anyway. Closed loop boost control has always bothered me, because if you sense the process value (ie the boost measurement that you want to control) in the plenum (after the throttle), then boost control to achieve a target is only desirable at WOT. When you are not WOT, you do not want the the boost to be as high as it can be (ie 100% of target). That's why you do not have the throttle at WO. You're attempting to not go as fast as you can. If the process variable is measured upstream of the throttle (ie in an RB26 plenum, or the cold side pipework in others) then yeah, sure, run the boost controller closed loop to hit a target boost there, and then the throttle does what it is supposed to do. Just for utter clarity.... an old Profec B Spec II (or whatever it is called, and I've got one, and I never look at it, so I can't remember!) and similar might have a MAP sensor, and it might show you the actual boost in the plenum (when the MAP sensor is connected to the plenum) but it does not use that value to decide what it is doing to control the boost, except to control the gating effect (where it stops holding the gate closed on the boost ramp). It's not closed loop at all. Once the gate is released, it's just the solenoid flailing away at whatever duty cycle was configured when it was set up. I'm sure that there are many people who do not understand the above points and wonder wtf is going on.  
    • This has clearly gone off on quite a tangent but the suggestion was "go standalone because you probably aren't going to stop at just exhaust + a mild tune and manual boost controller", not "buy a standalone purely for a boost controller". If the scope does in fact stop creeping at an EBC then sure, buy an EVC7 or Profec or whatever else people like to run and stop there. And I have yet to see any kind of aftermarket boost control that is more complicated than a PID controller with some accounting for edge cases. Control system theory is an incredibly vast field yet somehow we always end up back at some variant of a PID controller, maybe with some work done to linearize things. I have done quite a lot, but I don't care to indulge in those pissing matches, hence posting primary sources. I deal with people quite frequently that scream and shout about how their opinion matters more because they've shipped more x or y, it doesn't change the reality of the data they're trying to disagree with. Arguing that the source material is wrong is an entirely separate point and while my experience obviously doesn't matter here I've rarely seen factory service manuals be incorrect about something. It's not some random poorly documented internal software tool that is constantly being patched to barely work. It's also not that hard to just read the Japanese and double check translations either. Especially in automotive parts most of it is loanwords anyways.
    • If you are keeping the current calipers you need to keep the current disc as the spacing of the caliper determines the disc diameter. Have you trial fitted the GTS brakes fit on a GTSt hub or is this forward planning? There could be differences in caliper mount spacing, backing plate and even hub shape that could cause an issue.
    • Hi there I have a r33 gts with 4 stud small brakes, I'm going to convert to 5 stud but keep the small brakes, what size rotor would I need?
    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
×
×
  • Create New...