|
|
2000 - 2003 Suburban Transmissions OK???
|
|
|
| |
|
|
singletons11
New User
Oct 28, 2011, 5:27 PM
Post #1 of 2
(2258 views)
|
|
2000 - 2003 Suburban Transmissions OK???
|
Sign In
|
|
I am currently selling my 03 Trailblazer so that I can get a vehicle with a 3rd row - I have been looking at the Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, etc. but I am worried about some of the premature transmission problems that I have been reading about online (i.e transmission replaced at only 60k mi, etc)
I have an older 2000 Lexus ES300 and I purchased it for its reliability at high mileage.
My wife and I need the 3rd row vehicle (whichever we end up purchasing) to last at least 2-3 years and we were looking to stay at about 130k mi or less and thus looking at the 2000 - 2003 year range.
Does anyone know much about the transmission in these vehicles being PRONE to transmission problems?
I was also considering the Acura MDX's but they are much harder to find at great prices and they are a bit smaller inside.
Thanks
|
|
| |
|
|
Discretesignals
Ultimate Carjunky
/ Moderator
Oct 28, 2011, 8:53 PM
Post #2 of 2
(2228 views)
|
|
Re: 2000 - 2003 Suburban Transmissions OK???
|
Sign In
|
|
Depends on the mileage, what it was used for, and how it was taken care of.
If it is high mileage, usually the 4L60E on those are iffy, especially if it was used for towing. They tend to burn 3-4 clutches at higher mileages.
4L80E is a much stronger transmission, but they have issues with 3rd gear clutches too.
Of course, if it was abused, not serviced every 30K, or used for heavy towing and not serviced under a severe service schedule , it doesn't matter what transmission is behind the engine, it will have problems at higher mileages.
Since we volunteer our time and knowledge, we ask for you to please follow up when a problem is resolved.
(This post was edited by Discretesignals on Oct 28, 2011, 8:54 PM)
|
|
| |
|
Auto Repair Home
SEARCH
WHO'S 
LOG 
