Discussion:
Trans control valve

Any other Toyota techs ever encounter a defective or perforated oil strainer (Toyota part # 32804-23330-71) inside the transmission control valve?
One of our trucks was pushed to the shop with a complaint of "Transmission does not work".
Trans would not operate in Forward or Reverse and pressure checks showed 165 PSI at the Main but 0 PSI at the clutch port.
Air pressure to the clutch ports with valve body removed showed clutches to be intact.
Tear down of the valve body revealed a stuck safety valve (Toyota part 32732-23330-71) and a stuck change valve (32735-23330-71). Both were bound up by debris and showed slight scratching. When I separated the valve body sections I discovered a 5mm sized section of the oil strainer missing completely.
I am just wondering if anybody else has ever found one of these strainers to be defective. I can't see any reason for this to happen unless it just vibrates and shakes a hole in the mesh or if it happens because of hydraulic "flow hammering" pulses.
Comments requested.
  • Posted 6 Jul 2012 03:40
  • By L1ftmech
  • joined 25 Apr'12 - 394 messages
  • Tennessee, United States
Showing items 1 - 1 of 1 results.
Did I drop this posting in the wrong place or is what I found simply the first time it has ever happened?
At any rate the unit has been returned to service (with a new strainer and scratches polished out of spools) and is functioning normally again.
  • Posted 15 Jul 2012 03:05
  • By L1ftmech
  • joined 25 Apr'12 - 394 messages
  • Tennessee, United States

Post your Reply

Forkliftaction accepts no responsibility for forum content and requires forum participants to adhere to our rules of conduct. Click here for more information.

If you are having trouble using the Discussion Forums, please contact us for help.

PREMIUM business

Libiao Robotics
Creating robotic warehouse solutions that automate and elevate your business.
Fact of the week
At the opening ceremony of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932, marching bands were instructed to walk out of step as they crossed the bridge. This unusual directive was given as a precaution due to concerns about the bridge's structural integrity during its early use.