WS Tranny Fluid and Lifetime Change Interval

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Nottajeep

Nottajeep

SILVER Star
10 Year 15 Year
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Threads
102
Messages
3,422
Location
BFE
What are most folks on here with the WS fluid doing for tranny service?
Leave it untouched or perform some kind of regular change intervals?
It just seems odd to me that anyone would never change their tranny fluid...
I found this UOA of someone changing the WS fluid in their LS430 after the 1st 100k miles. There are multiple take aways from this report. I have my opinions but wanted to see what others with more technical knowledge believe.

Are there any negatives to opening a sealed tranny system to humidity or other environmental concerns?

What do you think Toyota means by the definition of "Lifetime Fluid"

edit: TAN report showed acid level of 1.9.

edit2: add history of ATF with some WS background info.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
When I was working for Lexus, we recommended 60k miles.
 
It's not anymore sealed than any other trans, it just doesn't have a dipstick, so opening it up and inspecting the filter/flushing the fluid isn't much different than one with a dipstick, you just fill and check the fluid differently.

Regular service intervals are important, as no fluid is "Lifetime", it may last a while, but fresh fluid keeps things cleaner and working better over the whole lifetime of the vehicle.

Side note 1:

I read some stuff in the past on 'Mud about WS fluid not being all that great, and in doing more research found Dexron VI to be a suitable Full Synthetic replacement. I used Dex VI in my rig a month ago or so (106k mi), and in two friends 4runners a year ago or so (one a 4 speed with T IV, and one a 5 speed with WS), and so far I haven't heard complaints, and my rig seems to like it so far too.

Side note 2:

A friend of mine has a '99 Mecedes E300 Turbo Diesel he purchased new. He never had the trans fluid changed, as they sold it to him as having "Lifetime" fluid. I did the trans flush/replaced the filter last year with 246k on the odometer. the fluid was pretty brown/amber, but the pan and fluid were surprisingly clean as far as debris goes, and the trans still worked okay (has a cold delay into 1st when coming to a stop). I think I used 16-18qts while flushing to get the fluid looking good.
 
Mine was *supposedly* done at 60k if you go by the "60000 mile service" indication on the online service history, though I have learned to be a little more critical of the service entries listed on the Lexus Drivers site (not sure if Toyota has an equivalent offering for owners) after the 90k was listed, but the tbelt wasn't done. The fluid in this trans still appears to be red or reddish in color.

Personally, my thinking is that if you didn't start with 30k to at most 60k service intervals (don't feel bad, almost no one ever does anymore) from day one, trying to get started at 80, 90, 100k or more is not going to be of much use so long as your fluid remains at the correct level and you aren't putting extreme towing demands on the transmission. The most fluid related impact I've ever seen is from fluid being LOW, especially at low speeds. Topped the fluid and all the low speed bucking and resistance stopped, and trans was like new. This was on a 2005 Crossfire SRT6 with 30 or 40k miles, and a known defect in the trans which leaks fluid from the electrical connector.

By contrast, I've done numerous fluid changes in the hope of improving shift quality in transmissions that weren't necessarily broken, but just didn't shift very smoothly, and it has never helped. By the time you feel symptoms from a transmission that aren't related to LOW fluid or outright contamination, changing fluid is almost surely going to do nothing but drain your wallet. I will say that on a forum like this, the "contamination" aspect is important, because serious wheelers can get into situations occasionally that might cause water ingress to transmissions. I used to see it on occasion on the Jeep forum I'm also on, so I'm not discounting the importance of immediately changing fluid if you have any suspicion whatsoever that anything has gotten in. Torque converters are also another story. There are some good products out there like Shudder Fixx that really do make a difference in cases of TC chatter or other lockup issues.

My 2000 LX has 150k and the shifts are really firm sometimes. Especially the 1-2 and the 2-3. Sometimes I don't feel the 2-3 at all and the only way I'll even know that it has shifted is seeing the tach needle drop down out of the corner of my eye, other times it's quite noticeable. In the past I would have changed fluid for this, but I have found on this forum that as far as Land Cruiser transmissions go, this particular transmission is basically waiting to fall apart and is fairly unreliable. So at this point, I may as well just wait for it to die. It's still way cheaper than having bought a 2003 or newer truck with the newer trans. Ironically, I traded off my 740iL for the UZJ because of transmission paranoia and the bulletproof reputation of the Land Cruiser brand... Go figure.
 
Last edited:
I did a drain and refill about 3-4x in 50mi just to get most of the old stuff out. The first drain and refill was at 90k and the it looked horrible. Right now I do a drain and refill every 15k. there is a thread with pix on this topic
 
I thought 100s do not have the WS fluid in them...Isnt the recommended flush interval like 30,000 miles for the 100 series (with the A343 at least, not sure about the A750)

playdrv4me said:
In the past I would have changed fluid for this, but I have found on this forum that as far as Land Cruiser transmissions go, this particular transmission is basically waiting to fall apart and is fairly unreliable.
Click to expand...

You should probably go learn some more about the tranny in your truck and what the failure rate actually is.....
 
Last edited:
pman said:
I thought 100s do not have the WS fluid in them...Isnt the recommended flush interval like 30,000 miles for the 100 series (with the A343 at least, not sure about the A750)
Click to expand...

the 2004-2007 A750 uses WS
 
My Mechanic (Safari-Ltd) recommended that I do a trans fluid exchange at 90K. I had them do it at 100k when they did my timing belt. The fluid still looked good but I feel better about the change. If the truck lasts 400K miles, every 100K is not too hard to swallow. The fluid was hella expensive but I don't have numbers in front of me. Safari doesn't recommend "stupid" services at low intervals so I trust that their recommendation was a good one. 100K miles is a lifetime for a lot of vehicles. I think the name is probably more marketing than fact.
 
jonharis said:
My Mechanic (Safari-Ltd) recommended that I do a trans fluid exchange at 90K. I had them do it at 100k when they did my timing belt. The fluid still looked good but I feel better about the change. If the truck lasts 400K miles, every 100K is not too hard to swallow. The fluid was hella expensive but I don't have numbers in front of me. Safari doesn't recommend "stupid" services at low intervals so I trust that their recommendation was a good one. 100K miles is a lifetime for a lot of vehicles. I think the name is probably more marketing than fact.
Click to expand...

This. WS is about $11 a quart and the A750f takes nearly 12. Every 100k that's nothing.
 
only the newer models of WS in them.......AMSOIL now also has a WS tranny fluid that is an option I looked at with my FJC but sold it.

Big thing is dont use the pressurized tranny flushers.....i would recommend you drain it...refill and then remove hose near radiator and put another hose into it down into 5 gallon bucket. Crank engine and leave in park and have funnel and about 12-15 quarts of tranny fluid open and ready and pour a quart for every quart that goes into bucket. Do it until the fluid going into bucket looks the same as that going into funnel then turn engine off and reconnect hose...then top it off.

this ensures the dirty fluid from torque converter is removed too that does not happen just with draining and topping off......and the tranny flusher thing is what pushes debris up into your small fluid channels and causes failures later.

Just FYI


I would do it every time you change your TB and WP......
 
playdrv4me said:
.....I did, actually. Enough to have its own multi-page thread apparently?...)
Click to expand...

The thread you linked doesn't look like it has any failures in it. Now I might be reading it wrong but the OP in that thread asked for everyone that specifically has a 2000 model to chime in with the current status and miles. He keeps them tallied in the second post in that thread and it looks to me like they are all original transmissions that are still in "good" status.

I have a 2001 so I don't have a dog in the fight, so to speak, but if you look up import #'s for the 2000 models, it seems like sales in the US peaked in 2000. IIRC there were like 15k imported that year, then dropped to 7k after that and stayed down in subsequent years. Naturally if there are twice as many on the road, they will have twice as many failures and you have a lot better chance of hearing about it.

Just my $.02.

Sent from my iPhone using IH8MUD
 
Last edited:
You have a dog in the fight, you just didn't read far enough... :lol:

Also, Sequoias came on the market in 2001, poaching a lot of sales.
 
Sorry, I should have linked the specific post that caught my attention rather than just the whole thread (in addition to the fact that thread exists in the first place I suppose)... https://forum.ih8mud.com/100-series-cruisers/501772-2000-trans-status-2011-update-2.html#post6822293

He did a tremendous amount of work and research to put all that data together. And while I fully agree that Copehagen has a fantastic point about the Sequoia introduction and high sales numbers of the LX/LC in 2000... it does seem that there is still a higher failure rate there that is somewhat unexplained. I guess we'll see how it shakes out.

For the record, no such thread of concern seems to exist for the A750.
 
I did read the whole thing and was highly impressed with the statistics. That was some very bad ass cyphering right there :hillbilly: . I read and agree with the methodology used BUT it is still just an educated guess. The formulas are full of assumptions so there is an heir of science about it but, at the end of the day, it is not a survey based on scientific evidence. In order for it to be scientific, you would have to contact a randomly chosen group of current MY 2000 owners (say 100) and ask the same very specific questions to each owner.

The thing is, I am not in disagreement with the results. My wife has a 2003 Tahoe that we purchased new. It has a 5.3 vortech in it that I fully expect would/will run every mile that my 2001 LC 4.7 will run. They both have 175,000 on them and they both run extremely tight. But, as far as the transmissions, I am anticipating the Chevrolet to quit at anytime.

So, if MY 2001 has a 1.68% chance of failure in its lifetime and 50% happen after 100,000 miles then I am now down to less than 1 in a hundred odds of having catastrophic transmission failure. I would go even farther and say that the failure rate on the Chevrolet goes up exponentially after a 100k. Every time I run across an owner of a high mileage (200k+) GM product with a 5.3 in it I ask about the transmission and it has almost always been replaced. My friend just had a reman trans put in his 03 Silverado and it cost him $2500. So really we are talking about betting $1000 (the spread) on a 1.68% chance that mine will have failure. I'll take those odds. Even if they are 3.7% I'll still take those odds.

In summary, I think this transmission thing is blown way out of proportion. A MY 2000 may have a 3.7% percent failure rate in the lifetime of the vehicle and, that is high compared to other year models of one hundred series, but it is still infinitely smaller than most vehicles out there including a BMW 7 series.

Again, just my $.02.

Sent from my iPhone using IH8MUD
 
Last edited:
I can't say I disagree with that assessment. Which is also why I said it would be silly to spend another 5 or 6k on an a750 based truck just to somehow avoid trans failure. Even if this thing goes, there seems to be a lot more options for rebuild and replacement than a 7 series for example, at much less than the cost difference in model years. Theres also the fact that I'm not a huge fan of the newer dash anyway.
 
playdrv4me said:
I can't say I disagree with that assessment. Which is also why I said it would be silly to spend another 5 or 6k on an a750 based truck just to somehow avoid trans failure. Even if this thing goes, there seems to be a lot more options for rebuild and replacement than a 7 series for example, at much less than the cost difference in model years. Theres also the fact that I'm not a huge fan of the newer dash anyway.
Click to expand...

What if the thin goes 100 miles from the closest cell service? Then is it worth it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom