TOYOTA T-IV ? TOYOTA ATF WS ? May i to replace?

Messages
11
Location
France
TOYOTA ATF WS = JWS 3324 TOYOTA ATF T-IV = JWS 3309 May I use TOYOTA ATF WS to replace TOYOTA T-IV ? My car : SX4 1.6 Auto transmission 4speed. ps:sorry My english very poor :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
47,526
Location
Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
 Originally Posted By: Kurt_Hectic
TOYOTA ATF WS = JWS 3324 TOYOTA ATF T-IV = JWS 3309 May I use TOYOTA ATF WS to replace TOYOTA T-IV ? My car : SX4 1.6 Auto transmission 4speed.
I would not. Amsoil ATF is recommended for T-IV, but not WS. This tells us hey are not that close or at least Amsoil has not evaluated the application.
 
Messages
25,172
Location
Upstate NY
Use the Amsoil ATF for your T-IV application. If your vehicle calls for Toyota WS, then you need to get that at the dealer.
 
Messages
4,622
Location
Western Washington
 Originally Posted By: Donald
Use the Amsoil ATF for your T-IV application. If your vehicle calls for Toyota WS, then you need to get that at the dealer.
Redline is now saying they have a compatible fluid for WS, I think it's called D-6. AZfireguy posted on this board about using it successfully in place of WS.
 
Messages
2,338
Location
Magnolia, TX
I'm not sure this is on topic, but I thought it was interesting. When I took my 2009 FWD RAV4 into the dealer for an unrelated issue, I mentioned that the car had a lot of gear whine at certain speeds. The service manager said that Toyota was well aware of the problem, and they were working on fixing it. He did not say what the fix might be, but I suspect that the WS fluid is not up to the task of proper lubrication for the tranny and final drive gears as the fluid heats up. Maybe a higher viscosity gear oil in the works from Toyota?
 
Messages
4
Location
Ontario, Canada
Hi folks, I had to join this discussion because I have some experience in the lubricants world (having working in R&D and sales for a major lubricants manufacturer). I just want to clear up a few concerns raised here the best I can. Toyota's WS vs T-IV - Toyota (see link to Service Bulletin < http://www.etimago.com/yaris/TSB/TS-TC01...20Fluid%20).pdf >) does clearly indicate that THEIR own ATF-WS is NOT compatible with T-IV or Dexron ATF and they recommend only the WS be used in vehicles that call for it. It makes perfect sense that they are not compatible because the additive chemistry is different. This is the same reason you should never add "magic" additives to ATF's to convert one to meet another spec - leave the chemistry work to the reputable ATF manufacturers since they spend enormous amounts of money in engineering and testing of their products. - It is also true that the viscosity is very different, WS is a fair bit lighter viscosity. The Japanese are big into fuel efficiency and so the WS is designed with a lower viscosity which tends to result in a gain more fuel economy and it is also designing with a different additive cocktail to be a longer life fluid (similar benefits to GM's Dexron VI). - Why they have not backspec'd the WS for T-IV applications is interesting but I think this is simply to avoid potential confusion especially seeing as the 2 fluids are not compatible - it is easy to see the possibility of dealer filling/top up mistakes. So to use a "multi-vehicle" ATF (from a reputable company - ideally one that is known to make ATF's) with a slightly higher viscosity, the only real trade off will be fuel efficiency. Fuel Efficiency gains from lower viscosity ENGINE oils is proven with standardized tests but it which is much more difficult to quantify such savings between different viscosities of ATF's as there are so many other variables. If you make a switch to a different product and you experience undesirable "shifting" issues, then you might consider changing it back to the OEM product but I can assure you this is highly uunlikely if you use a reputable brand product. More of a concern is ensuring the old fluid is removed before adding a different one. Early, Petro-Canada's DuraDrive MV (Multi-Vehicle) product was mentioned and there were concerns of it working in both T-IV and WS applications. Believe me, a major ATF player like Petro-Canada would not put their name on a product unless it was fully tested. Petro-Canada is a major world supplier of many different ATF's - most notably Dexron VI (they co-developed the product with GM and provide factory fill throughout the world)< http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000384801.cfm?x=b11,0,w >. Another thing to keep in mind, those oil company's that supply the big automotive OEM's have to be very careful when marketing a "multi-vehicle" product because they are also licensed to make specific OEM labelled products. It is possible that their "multi-vehicle" product meets other spec's but they cannot show it because they risk losing their licensing of "specific" products. The ATF world is becoming very complicated as new designs of transmissions are developed. It is even more complicated because classic universal oils such as the old Dexron III/Mercon have been replaced with OEM specific products. The OEM's make a lot of their money on parts and lubricants are treated as a part so it is in their interest to market and protect their own labeled products.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,573
Location
earth
Originally Posted By: Devo
Hi folks, I had to join this discussion because I have some experience in the lubricants world (having working in R&D and sales for a major lubricants manufacturer). I just want to clear up a few concerns raised here the best I can. Toyota's WS vs T-IV - Toyota (see link to Service Bulletin < http://www.etimago.com/yaris/TSB/TS-TC01...20Fluid%20).pdf >) does clearly indicate that THEIR own ATF-WS is NOT compatible with T-IV or Dexron ATF and they recommend only the WS be used in vehicles that call for it. It makes perfect sense that they are not compatible because the additive chemistry is different. This is the same reason you should never add "magic" additives to ATF's to convert one to meet another spec - leave the chemistry work to the reputable ATF manufacturers since they spend enormous amounts of money in engineering and testing of their products. - It is also true that the viscosity is very different, WS is a fair bit lighter viscosity. The Japanese are big into fuel efficiency and so the WS is designed with a lower viscosity which tends to result in a gain more fuel economy and it is also designing with a different additive cocktail to be a longer life fluid (similar benefits to GM's Dexron VI). - Why they have not backspec'd the WS for T-IV applications is interesting but I think this is simply to avoid potential confusion especially seeing as the 2 fluids are not compatible - it is easy to see the possibility of dealer filling/top up mistakes. So to use a "multi-vehicle" ATF (from a reputable company - ideally one that is known to make ATF's) with a slightly higher viscosity, the only real trade off will be fuel efficiency. Fuel Efficiency gains from lower viscosity ENGINE oils is proven with standardized tests but it which is much more difficult to quantify such savings between different viscosities of ATF's as there are so many other variables. If you make a switch to a different product and you experience undesirable "shifting" issues, then you might consider changing it back to the OEM product but I can assure you this is highly uunlikely if you use a reputable brand product. More of a concern is ensuring the old fluid is removed before adding a different one. Early, Petro-Canada's DuraDrive MV (Multi-Vehicle) product was mentioned and there were concerns of it working in both T-IV and WS applications. Believe me, a major ATF player like Petro-Canada would not put their name on a product unless it was fully tested. Petro-Canada is a major world supplier of many different ATF's - most notably Dexron VI (they co-developed the product with GM and provide factory fill throughout the world)< http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000384801.cfm?x=b11,0,w >. Another thing to keep in mind, those oil company's that supply the big automotive OEM's have to be very careful when marketing a "multi-vehicle" product because they are also licensed to make specific OEM labelled products. It is possible that their "multi-vehicle" product meets other spec's but they cannot show it because they risk losing their licensing of "specific" products. The ATF world is becoming very complicated as new designs of transmissions are developed. It is even more complicated because classic universal oils such as the old Dexron III/Mercon have been replaced with OEM specific products. The OEM's make a lot of their money on parts and lubricants are treated as a part so it is in their interest to market and protect their own labeled products.
great post.
 

Kestas

Staff member
Messages
13,820
Location
The Motor City
Agreed. It's refreshing to get new posters in here who realize they have unique knowledge to add to old posts.
Originally Posted By: Devo
... The ATF world is becoming very complicated as new designs of transmissions are developed. It is even more complicated because classic universal oils such as the old Dexron III/Mercon have been replaced with OEM specific products. The OEM's make a lot of their money on parts and lubricants are treated as a part so it is in their interest to market and protect their own labeled products.
This is what troubles me as a consumer. OEM-specific ATF fluids are nearly always more expensive than the old DexIII/Mercon fluids we're so familiar with. The manufacturers would do the driving public a huge favor by designing the transmission to the fluid. I imagine any benefits to their OEM-spcific fluid are offset by the extra cost. But alas, the auto manufacturers discovered yet another way to profit from the aftermarket... along with replacing expensive headlamps, newfangled keys that get lost, tire pressure systems, and other things that didn't suck money from our wallets in the past.
 
Messages
442
Location
Monument, CO, USA
I disagree. These new fluids are much better than the old fluid standards at a relatively small cost. $4-8/qt for the increased performance is cheap. While few at BITOG buying into the 100k fluid idea, not too long ago 100k was fairly average for transmission life not fluid life. Dex-VI can be had for $4 a quart with good performance guaranteed. Dexron was always a GM standard that happened to get picked up by much of the industry. The same may yet happen with Dex-VI.
 

Kestas

Staff member
Messages
13,820
Location
The Motor City
I would agree with you at $4 per quart. Some fluids are up to $16 per quart where the application requires 8 to 12 qts. I can only hope that manufacturers move to Dex-VI on a wholesale basis. My 30K fluid exchanges with Dex-III cost $28 max in fluid. Some applications (e.g., Mercedes and Volvo) cost $128 min in fluid every 60K. Thanks to this site, I pay no more than is necessary for the proper fluid.
 
Messages
8,756
Location
RI
Dealers are clueless. So, I wouldn't ever ask them anything. May you? Its a free country and you can if you want. One of the issues with back spec'ing an ATF is testing it. There is no reason to waste that expense, or to offend an owner by telling them their $2 fluid isn't good enough and you have to use a $7 fluid. And, I wouldn't use a 7.4cst ATF in a transmission that requires a 6cst fluid since the selection of thinner ATF's like Redline D6, Amsoil ATL, and Amalie would be better choices. I am glad to see additional universal multivehicle ATFs on the market. I find it funny that sometimes the 'maker' won't offend other manufacturers. Why is Duradrive good enough for WS but not DexronVI, MerconLV/SP or....? Wishful thinking if you think all automakers will allow you to buy fluid at a local store. How would the dealer parts department stay in business? Most of the industry already dumped Dexron and there is nothing that says they'll adapt DexVI.
 
Messages
6,318
Location
Canton, GA
Originally Posted By: unDummy
Dealers are clueless. So, I wouldn't ever ask them anything. May you? Its a free country and you can if you want. One of the issues with back spec'ing an ATF is testing it. There is no reason to waste that expense, or to offend an owner by telling them their $2 fluid isn't good enough and you have to use a $7 fluid. And, I wouldn't use a 7.4cst ATF in a transmission that requires a 6cst fluid since the selection of thinner ATF's like Redline D6, Amsoil ATL, and Amalie would be better choices. I am glad to see additional universal multivehicle ATFs on the market. I find it funny that sometimes the 'maker' won't offend other manufacturers. Why is Duradrive good enough for WS but not DexronVI, MerconLV/SP or....? Wishful thinking if you think all automakers will allow you to buy fluid at a local store. How would the dealer parts department stay in business? Most of the industry already dumped Dexron and there is nothing that says they'll adapt DexVI.
Not for much longer,its already going social! smirk
 
Messages
9,448
Location
USA
That is funny because Walmart's brand of Dex VI clearly states onthe front of the bottle that it is acceptable replacement for T-IV and and WS???? So what to do know? On top of that my Mom's Tundra calls for Dex III right on the dip stick and that is what we have used since day one was Mobil-1 ATF Dex-III and one time I had to use Maxlife ATF Dex-III.....Later on that some transmission with no material changes internaly went to T-IV and I am going to guess that if it has not gone to WS it shortly will? So one has to really wounder what is the major difference in formula's if Dex-VI, Dex-III, T-IV,WS and Redline D4 all seem to be able to produce suitable performance from a durability and normal functionality stand point???? My Mother's Camry is a 2007 and I am guessing it calls for WS and I have heard nothing but good things about people useing Dex-VI in it. Like wise I have only heard good things about Dex-VI in Toyota truck tranines calling for Dex-III or T-IV? So I think often we get into a situation where while their is a major difference in viscosity inthe bottle the operating viscosity that the transmission see's is acceptable. You have to consider what viscosity a given product is at -30°F and at 120°F and once you look at that large of a range then anything that falls into that ball park will more then likely work so long as the coefficient of friction is close then the viscosity deviation is really not a big deal! This is why so many products can claim so many different acceptable use's in so many different models! The products that are never listed are the ones that need a particular and drasticly different coefficient of friction then most other ATF's like Chrysler's ATF+4 or Fords Mercon etc....
 
Top