Toyota WS fluid
- Thread starter cathy
- Start date
- Status
Do a Google search for Toyota WS MSDS and read my threads:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2716151
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762666
There's a copy of the WS MSDS floating around the intertubes somewhere that shows its base to be mineral. I'm not entirely sure myself, but it seems pretty lackluster. I suggest flushing it at 60k.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2716151
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762666
There's a copy of the WS MSDS floating around the intertubes somewhere that shows its base to be mineral. I'm not entirely sure myself, but it seems pretty lackluster. I suggest flushing it at 60k.
I will tell you what I do know about Toyota WS fluid change. I have a 2007 Camry 2.4L. I changed the transmission fluid at 80,000 miles. I drained the pan, refilled pan, pulled line off of the front of trans and pumped out fluid while adding to the dip stick tube. I was surprised how dark (dirty?) the fluid was. Very little if any red tint to the fluid. Does that mean anything? Don't know, but it made me feel warm and fuzy. I would personally not wait till 100,000 miles. I would have changed it around 60,000 miles if I had known how bad the fluid looked. I used Amsoil WS fluid with positive results. Hope this helps...
Changed out the WS in the XB at about 65,000 and it looked decent. Still had some red tint but was getting dark. Can't really tell the condition without an analysis though. I replaced with Idemitsu tls-lv. I thought that it improved the shift quality, confirmed by the wife.
I have changed my ATF fluid in my 2008 xB (4) times now... Every 15K or so. The process is SO easy with this car, half the work of an oil change. (Pull plug, drain, replace plug, refill fluid with 3.5qts).
That being said, I am at 80K and my fluid is very red. Shifts like it did new from what I can remember.
That being said, I am at 80K and my fluid is very red. Shifts like it did new from what I can remember.
I replaced the Toyota WS in my '11 Corolla at 10,000 miles. I discussed it here, http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2490053&page=1 I even have pictures that show the sludgy material that grows on the maganets. There was more on it than I had anticipated for a 10,000 interval. Not bad by no means, but sludgy. I did find good sized metal shavings in the pan as well.
Originally Posted By: cancov
I replaced the Toyota WS in my '11 Corolla at 10,000 miles. I discussed it here, http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2490053&page=1 I even have pictures that show the sludgy material that grows on the maganets. There was more on it than I had anticipated for a 10,000 interval. Not bad by no means, but sludgy. I did find good sized metal shavings in the pan as well.
BINGO! It's almost never too early to change transmission fluid on a new car.
I would highly recommend spending some time driving the car hard (heavy acceleration) for the first two tanks and then do a complete transmission fluid change. Second change would be at about 5000 miles (with a pan-removal if possible). From then on I would drain/fill every year or do a complete change every 2 or 3 years depending on mileage.
Find out what the OEM lists for 'Severe Duty' and use that as the absolute max time between fluid changes (not drain/fill).
I replaced the Toyota WS in my '11 Corolla at 10,000 miles. I discussed it here, http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2490053&page=1 I even have pictures that show the sludgy material that grows on the maganets. There was more on it than I had anticipated for a 10,000 interval. Not bad by no means, but sludgy. I did find good sized metal shavings in the pan as well.
BINGO! It's almost never too early to change transmission fluid on a new car.
I would highly recommend spending some time driving the car hard (heavy acceleration) for the first two tanks and then do a complete transmission fluid change. Second change would be at about 5000 miles (with a pan-removal if possible). From then on I would drain/fill every year or do a complete change every 2 or 3 years depending on mileage.
Find out what the OEM lists for 'Severe Duty' and use that as the absolute max time between fluid changes (not drain/fill).
Last edited:
On our RAV4 I drain 3 quarts and refill every 30K. The fluid that comes out is a darker purplish color, not black, but not nice a red like the new stuff. I know this means nothing...but it does indicate that some clutch material builds up in the fluid. The magnetic drain plug had a lot of gunk on it at 30K, but almost none at 60K, so the bulk was generated right from the beginning. Knowing this, I'd probably continue changing every 30K, or at least 30K at first, then perhaps every 50K.
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
Do a Google search for Toyota WS MSDS and read my threads:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2716151
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762666
There's a copy of the WS MSDS floating around the intertubes somewhere that shows its base to be mineral. I'm not entirely sure myself, but it seems pretty lackluster. I suggest flushing it at 60k.
I used to believe WS was inferior fluid optimized for fuel efficiency, but not anymore.
Why?
1. I read SAE papers about low viscosity ATF development by Toyota and wear control was a big priority there. They had to jump through a few hoops to provide for wear control in lower viscosity fluid.
2. I compared UOA results in WS vs T-IV in same or similar trannies. No difference I could see in wear results/mile.
3. Toyota warns in their TSB that WS is hygroscopic. That can only mean only one thing: esters.
As for the MSDS, They are commonly incorrect. QSUD's MSDS states 100% PAO for some weights. We know that is impossible.
Do a Google search for Toyota WS MSDS and read my threads:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2716151
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762666
There's a copy of the WS MSDS floating around the intertubes somewhere that shows its base to be mineral. I'm not entirely sure myself, but it seems pretty lackluster. I suggest flushing it at 60k.
I used to believe WS was inferior fluid optimized for fuel efficiency, but not anymore.
Why?
1. I read SAE papers about low viscosity ATF development by Toyota and wear control was a big priority there. They had to jump through a few hoops to provide for wear control in lower viscosity fluid.
2. I compared UOA results in WS vs T-IV in same or similar trannies. No difference I could see in wear results/mile.
3. Toyota warns in their TSB that WS is hygroscopic. That can only mean only one thing: esters.
As for the MSDS, They are commonly incorrect. QSUD's MSDS states 100% PAO for some weights. We know that is impossible.
I used to be upset about the quick viscosity shear in WS, but as I could determine by UOAs, there is no wear issue even if it goes as low as 4.7 cSt @100C.
BTW, most VOAs show 5.5 cSt @100C and VI of 185.
BTW, most VOAs show 5.5 cSt @100C and VI of 185.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
Do a Google search for Toyota WS MSDS and read my threads:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2716151
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762666
There's a copy of the WS MSDS floating around the intertubes somewhere that shows its base to be mineral. I'm not entirely sure myself, but it seems pretty lackluster. I suggest flushing it at 60k.
I used to believe WS was inferior fluid optimized for fuel efficiency, but not anymore.
Why?
1. I read SAE papers about low viscosity ATF development by Toyota and wear control was a big priority there. They had to jump through a few hoops to provide for wear control in lower viscosity fluid.
2. I compared UOA results in WS vs T-IV in same or similar trannies. No difference I could see in wear results/mile.
3. Toyota warns in their TSB that WS is hygroscopic. That can only mean only one thing: esters.
As for the MSDS, They are commonly incorrect. QSUD's MSDS states 100% PAO for some weights. We know that is impossible.
Some good research you've done here. My biggest problem with WS is the cost. It's $10/qt at all of the dealers near me, and the analysis reports that I looked at made it seem... blah. Not poor, but not worth the cost. The flush on my Tacoma cost me $70 using Maxlife that is labeled synthetic. WS would have been $140, and the dealer service was $300. I'm happy with the performance. I've got 9,000 miles on it now.
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
Do a Google search for Toyota WS MSDS and read my threads:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2716151
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762666
There's a copy of the WS MSDS floating around the intertubes somewhere that shows its base to be mineral. I'm not entirely sure myself, but it seems pretty lackluster. I suggest flushing it at 60k.
I used to believe WS was inferior fluid optimized for fuel efficiency, but not anymore.
Why?
1. I read SAE papers about low viscosity ATF development by Toyota and wear control was a big priority there. They had to jump through a few hoops to provide for wear control in lower viscosity fluid.
2. I compared UOA results in WS vs T-IV in same or similar trannies. No difference I could see in wear results/mile.
3. Toyota warns in their TSB that WS is hygroscopic. That can only mean only one thing: esters.
As for the MSDS, They are commonly incorrect. QSUD's MSDS states 100% PAO for some weights. We know that is impossible.
Some good research you've done here. My biggest problem with WS is the cost. It's $10/qt at all of the dealers near me, and the analysis reports that I looked at made it seem... blah. Not poor, but not worth the cost. The flush on my Tacoma cost me $70 using Maxlife that is labeled synthetic. WS would have been $140, and the dealer service was $300. I'm happy with the performance. I've got 9,000 miles on it now.
I've seen quite a few cars with 100k+ on the original fill of WS that still shifted fine. There was one that had 150k+ and was still OK.
On the Prius side, few people replace the transaxle fluid and you do not see an alarming number of failures.
On my 2011 Prius, I replaced the fluid once at 15k, again at 32k, and will continue at 30k intervals thereafter.
On the Prius side, few people replace the transaxle fluid and you do not see an alarming number of failures.
On my 2011 Prius, I replaced the fluid once at 15k, again at 32k, and will continue at 30k intervals thereafter.
Originally Posted By: cathy
If WS nothing special, is there cheap subsittution?
Here you go Cathy (again).
If WS nothing special, is there cheap subsittution?
Here you go Cathy (again).
Originally Posted By: cathy
If WS nothing special, is there cheap subsittution?
I don't know about a cheap substitute. The WS isn't really that expensive though, and it's not garbage. It's just a 30K fluid, not lifetime. It is not synthetic. It says nothing about base oil on the bottles. Manufacturers aren't shy about the "synthetic" label when it comes to marketing and charging more money.
There are better ATF's on the market, but expect to pay more. BTW, I've been able to buy WS from the dealership at $99/case.
If WS nothing special, is there cheap subsittution?
I don't know about a cheap substitute. The WS isn't really that expensive though, and it's not garbage. It's just a 30K fluid, not lifetime. It is not synthetic. It says nothing about base oil on the bottles. Manufacturers aren't shy about the "synthetic" label when it comes to marketing and charging more money.
There are better ATF's on the market, but expect to pay more. BTW, I've been able to buy WS from the dealership at $99/case.
WS is similar to several other ATF's. I have a synthetic ATF that covers the following specs.
JASO 1-A
Dexron® VI
Mercon® LV
Mercon SP
Aisin Warner AW-1
Honda DW-1
Hyundai/Kia SP-IV
Hyundai NWS-9638
JWS 3324
Mitsubishi SP-IV
Mitsubishi ATF J2
Nissan Matic-S
Saab 93 165 147
Toyota WS
JASO 1-A
Dexron® VI
Mercon® LV
Mercon SP
Aisin Warner AW-1
Honda DW-1
Hyundai/Kia SP-IV
Hyundai NWS-9638
JWS 3324
Mitsubishi SP-IV
Mitsubishi ATF J2
Nissan Matic-S
Saab 93 165 147
Toyota WS
I think the vehicles that is designed for WS has a different programming of the clutch and torque converter engagement that doesn't stress the fluid as much as before, and therefore can extend the life even with a lesser fluid.
So, the old T-IV may last 30k and the WS lasting 90k may not be because WS is better. If T-IV has a lower viscosity it too may last 90k like WS in this application. I've read somewhere here that WS is just a lighter T-IV.
My main concern about using a different fluid is not if they are better or worse, but if their friction profile is identical or at least similar enough that the transmission can work well with it. Without seeing a clutch pack / transmission dyno chart of different fluid I think we can only put faith in the vendor of the fluid.
To be honest, Redline's recommendation change from D6 to D4 for WS substitute scares the heck out of me. If Redline couldn't get that right the first time, what about others?
So, the old T-IV may last 30k and the WS lasting 90k may not be because WS is better. If T-IV has a lower viscosity it too may last 90k like WS in this application. I've read somewhere here that WS is just a lighter T-IV.
My main concern about using a different fluid is not if they are better or worse, but if their friction profile is identical or at least similar enough that the transmission can work well with it. Without seeing a clutch pack / transmission dyno chart of different fluid I think we can only put faith in the vendor of the fluid.
To be honest, Redline's recommendation change from D6 to D4 for WS substitute scares the heck out of me. If Redline couldn't get that right the first time, what about others?
If you look at amsoil's site, you'll see that they carry a new ATF *just* for the WS standard.
While the local toyota dealer uses BG universal synthetic ATF instead of WS, I can tell you from experience that the trans behaves differently in it. The specs show WS as being a lower viscosity fluid than the other standards.
For Amsoil to carry a new fluid specifically for WS applications, suggests to me that WS may be similar but is NOT the same.
I just posted in another link how the dealer installed BG universal syn in the tundra I have now under a previous owner. I swapped to the Amsoil WS and the trans, while it was perfectly driveable before, improved dramatically in quickness, shift quality and feel after putting the amsoil in.
If you have a WS-specced trans, I would try very hard to stick with the right fluid specs, not just "compatible" specs.
M
While the local toyota dealer uses BG universal synthetic ATF instead of WS, I can tell you from experience that the trans behaves differently in it. The specs show WS as being a lower viscosity fluid than the other standards.
For Amsoil to carry a new fluid specifically for WS applications, suggests to me that WS may be similar but is NOT the same.
I just posted in another link how the dealer installed BG universal syn in the tundra I have now under a previous owner. I swapped to the Amsoil WS and the trans, while it was perfectly driveable before, improved dramatically in quickness, shift quality and feel after putting the amsoil in.
If you have a WS-specced trans, I would try very hard to stick with the right fluid specs, not just "compatible" specs.
M
Originally Posted By: meep
If you look at amsoil's site, you'll see that they carry a new ATF *just* for the WS standard.
While the local toyota dealer uses BG universal synthetic ATF instead of WS, I can tell you from experience that the trans behaves differently in it. The specs show WS as being a lower viscosity fluid than the other standards.
For Amsoil to carry a new fluid specifically for WS applications, suggests to me that WS may be similar but is NOT the same.
I just posted in another link how the dealer installed BG universal syn in the tundra I have now under a previous owner. I swapped to the Amsoil WS and the trans, while it was perfectly driveable before, improved dramatically in quickness, shift quality and feel after putting the amsoil in.
If you have a WS-specced trans, I would try very hard to stick with the right fluid specs, not just "compatible" specs.
M
I'd switch dealer if they do not use factory fluid. That IMO is a big nono.
If you look at amsoil's site, you'll see that they carry a new ATF *just* for the WS standard.
While the local toyota dealer uses BG universal synthetic ATF instead of WS, I can tell you from experience that the trans behaves differently in it. The specs show WS as being a lower viscosity fluid than the other standards.
For Amsoil to carry a new fluid specifically for WS applications, suggests to me that WS may be similar but is NOT the same.
I just posted in another link how the dealer installed BG universal syn in the tundra I have now under a previous owner. I swapped to the Amsoil WS and the trans, while it was perfectly driveable before, improved dramatically in quickness, shift quality and feel after putting the amsoil in.
If you have a WS-specced trans, I would try very hard to stick with the right fluid specs, not just "compatible" specs.
M
I'd switch dealer if they do not use factory fluid. That IMO is a big nono.
- Status
Similar threads
