ATF: Toyota WS vs Amsoil vs Idemitsu (5 Viewers)

[ekolpack]

I've heard all the arguments for always sticking with OEM ATF. My original plan was to use Amsoil motor oil, crank, and transfer case oil but stick with Toyota WS ATF in my 08 Land Cruiser because transmissions are very picky and ATF is designed specifically for specific transmissions and all that. Then I started reading on Amsoil vs WS, checking forums, and watching some pretty compelling videos.

Specifically, this one, demonstrating that Amsoil will flow much better than WS in super low temps (probably not an issue for most people).

Also, this guy, who has several update videos, who seemingly had stellar results. Tons of people in the comments echo this sentiment for all kind of vehicles.

I know you could write these folks off as Amsoil shills, but try as I might, I have yet to find anyone who's had negative experiences ACTUALLY USING Amsoil ATF. All the reviews are stellar, except a few on Amazon not it's priced too high....but all reviews of the product itself are amazing.

You'd think if this stuff was actually so dangerous as the OEM's claim, that you'd have people complaining about it or saying that it caused transmission damage after time. The opposite seems to be the case, with people saying their transmissions shift better/smoother, generate less noise and less heat, and upon changing the fluid it looks as good as new (ie. no metal shavings or heat damage).

Also, Amsoil Signature ATF is full synthetic. Toyota WS is not.

Looking at the actual specs things get a bit more interesting.

Amsoil

Toyota WS

I'm no expert, but the long as short of this appears to be that Amsoil operates better in lower temps (retaining decent viscosity with a lower pour point), while Toyota WS operates better at higher temps (retaining lower viscosity at higher temps than Amsoil). Toyota WS has a "better" overall VI as well. I know there are lots of factors that go into what makes a good ATF for a specific transmission, but this was a bit concerning, so I decided I'd check out some WS alternatives that were specifically formulated for WS applications, and preferably full synthetic (which is general preferable to mineral based oils).

That led to Idemitsu ATF type TLS-LV. It's a fully synthetic ATF that is specifically formulated for WS transmissions. Seems to get great reviews (better than Amsoil and Toyota WS) from the experts at Bob Is The Oil Guy forum (Idemitsu ATF Type TLS-LV (WS) - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/idemitsu-atf-type-tls-lv-ws.318645/)

Idemitsu specs:

Viscosities all look very similar to Toyota WS, which is good, pour point is a little lower, and it's full synthetic. This seems like the ideal option. It's a high-quality full synthetic like Amsoil, but specifically formulated for WS transmissions like the Toyota ATF.

Totachi ATF WS is another full synthetic, specifically WS formulated option:

Specs generally look similar to Toyota WS with a much higher flash point than either Toyota WS or Idemitsu. Viscosity index is much lower though, which is a more important spec (generally, lower is worse, higher is better). If your ATF is above 300 degrees F (about 150 C), you've got bigger problems than worrying about flashpoint. Also, higher pour point (bad) and no Brookfield viscosity listed. I think I'll steer clear of this one.

Anyway, this thread is mostly to collect my thoughts, possibly help out other folks who are considering something similar, and of course get the opinions of folks on this forum.

I haven't completely ruled out Amsoil, as a specs sheet doesn't tell the full story, and the anecdotal data from customer experiences seems overwhelmingly good, but I will probably go with the Idemitsu, as it is specifically formulated for WS and appears closest to WS in specs, but it is full synthetic, has a slightly lower pour point and Brookfield viscosity (implying it might be a little better in the cold), yet retains exact same kinematic viscosity at 40C (23) and 100C (5.3). You'd think this would mean it would have a slightly better viscosity index than WS, but for some reason it's a tiny bit lower (175 vs 177). Not sure what that's about. I may clarify this with the experts on bobistheoilguy.

Let me know what you all think or your experiences with different ATF. </novel>

 

[manofthewoods]

I've heard all the arguments for always sticking with OEM ATF. My original plan was to use Amsoil motor oil, crank, and transfer case oil but stick with Toyota WS ATF in my 08 Land Cruiser because transmissions are very picky and ATF is designed specifically for specific transmissions and all that. Then I started reading on Amsoil vs WS, checking forums, and watching some pretty compelling videos.

Specifically, this one, demonstrating that Amsoil will flow much better than WS in super low temps (probably not an issue for most people).

Also, this guy, who has several update videos, who seemingly had stellar results. Tons of people in the comments echo this sentiment for all kind of vehicles.

I know you could write these folks off as Amsoil shills, but try as I might, I have yet to find anyone who's had negative experiences ACTUALLY USING Amsoil ATF. All the reviews are stellar, except a few on Amazon not it's priced too high....but all reviews of the product itself are amazing.

You'd think if this stuff was actually so dangerous as the OEM's claim, that you'd have people complaining about it or saying that it caused transmission damage after time. The opposite seems to be the case, with people saying their transmissions shift better/smoother, generate less noise and less heat, and upon changing the fluid it looks as good as new (ie. no metal shavings or heat damage).

Also, Amsoil Signature ATF is full synthetic. Toyota WS is not.

Looking at the actual specs things get a bit more interesting.

Amsoil
View attachment 2872128

Toyota WS
View attachment 2872129

I'm no expert, but the long as short of this appears to be that Amsoil operates better in lower temps (retaining decent viscosity with a lower pour point), while Toyota WS operates better at higher temps (retaining lower viscosity at higher temps than Amsoil). Toyota WS has a "better" overall VI as well. I know there are lots of factors that go into what makes a good ATF for a specific transmission, but this was a bit concerning, so I decided I'd check out some WS alternatives that were specifically formulated for WS applications, and preferably full synthetic (which is general preferable to mineral based oils).

That led to Idemitsu ATF type TLS-LV. It's a fully synthetic ATF that is specifically formulated for WS transmissions. Seems to get great reviews (better than Amsoil and Toyota WS) from the experts at Bob Is The Oil Guy forum (Idemitsu ATF Type TLS-LV (WS) - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/idemitsu-atf-type-tls-lv-ws.318645/)

Idemitsu specs:
View attachment 2872169

Viscosities all look very similar to Toyota WS, which is good, pour point is a little lower, and it's full synthetic. This seems like the ideal option. It's a high-quality full synthetic like Amsoil, but specifically formulated for WS transmissions like the Toyota ATF.

Totachi ATF WS is another full synthetic, specifically WS formulated option:
View attachment 2872181

Specs generally look similar to Toyota WS with a much higher flash point than either Toyota WS or Idemitsu. Viscosity index is much lower though, which is a more important spec (generally, lower is worse, higher is better). If your ATF is above 300 degrees F (about 150 C), you've got bigger problems than worrying about flashpoint.

Anyway, this thread is mostly to collect my thoughts, possibly help out other folks who are considering something similar, and of course get the opinions of folks on this forum.

I haven't completely ruled out Amsoil, as a specs sheet doesn't tell the full story, and the anecdotal data from customer experiences seems overwhelmingly good, but I will probably go with the Idemitsu, as it is specifically formulated for WS and appears closest to WS in specs, but it is full synthetic, has a slightly lower pour point implying it might be a little better in the cold, yet retains exact same kinematic viscosity at 40C (23) and 100C (5.3).

Let me know what you all think or your experiences with different ATF. </novel>

Thanks for this post, I'll be interested to see what comes of it. As part of my recent LX450 rebuild, I had to do a complete refill of ATF, I used ENEOS synthetic from NAPA 13 quarts. Not cheap. 6k miles, tranny seems quite happy.

 

[bloc]

You reference cold performance a few times.. is the concern that damage might be done before the trans temp starts to rise? My understanding is that happens quite quickly in modern transmissions, with the "cooler" often doing double duty as a thermostat-controlled ATF heater.

 

[ekolpack]

You reference cold performance a few times.. is the concern that damage might be done before the trans temp starts to rise? My understanding is that happens quite quickly in modern transmissions, with the "cooler" often doing double duty as a thermostat-controlled ATF heater.

Well I'll start off saying that I'm by no means an expert in transmissions or fluid dynamics or engineering. But yes, I believe the idea is that in extremely cold conditions (let's face it, people with Land Cruisers are more likely to find themselves in extreme conditions) you want to retain a lower viscosity so the oil can circulate in the tranny and do it's job. Then again, I think most people (if they're smart) will at least allow a vehicle to warm up a bit before driving it in extremely cold subzero temps. In this case, it wouldn't be as big of a deal.

While viscosity index and such is an important factor, it's not the only one. Just like motor oil, synthetic is generally considered preferable. There are different formulas and additives that can be better or worse for specific trannys. And of course ability to cool and lubricate and not degrade over time is huge. In these areas, Amsoil has proven time and time again to be the best, at least in the category of motor oil. Honestly, their ATF doesn't look all that amazing strictly going off the limited specs posted above, but that is by no means the whole story. I'm going to run this by the guys at bobistheoilguy and report back here with their input. They are really the top level experts on all things oil, both real world anecdotal and extremely technical.

 

[04UZJ100]

You can look at spec sheets all day long. Bottom line, until one of these smaller players proves their product is better than WS with testing in Toyota transmissions, I’ll stick with WS.

 

[ekolpack]

You can look at spec sheets all day long. Bottom line, until one of these smaller players proves their product is better than WS with testing in Toyota transmissions, I’ll stick with WS.

Well that's kinda the thing, if you're looking at specs alone, the Amsoil doesn't look great, but there are a lot of reviews out there that say it's an improvement over Toyota WS....and Amsoil certainly has a long track record of making the best oils in the business, and they do tons of testing, probably more than Toyota.

I think the main issue I have with WS is that it's not synthetic. In all the research I've done (again, not an expert) I don't see any excuse for this other than cutting costs and increasing profits for Toyota. If they truly wanted to make the absolute best oil for their transmissions, I can see no reason why they wouldn't use a synthetic base. Inasmuch as I can tell, it could only be an improvement, and using mineral oil, or synthetic blend could only serve to make a worse end product.

With that in mind, I'm just not convinced that WS is TRULY the best ATF that you can put in a Toyota.

Again, I'll run this by the real experts at bobistheoilguy and report back here. I could be totally wrong.

 

[bloc]

Most road going naturally-aspirated engines "require" synthetic merely for the long drain intervals, (turbos are different) but conventional would protect them just fine as long as it's changed often enough. Even conventional stuff is so advanced these days the better base stocks of synthetic simply mitigate viscosity reduction via shear... So I'm not so sure "synthetic is better" is necessarily true, as long as we don't let any of it wear out.

My understanding was the reason GM and others pushed toward synthetics is improved resistance to degradation at high temps -and- they could run a thinner fluid for better fuel efficiency while maintaining acceptable wear numbers within their transmissions. (To one of your points this had to do with the better VI of synthetic fluids.) I wasn't aware WS wasn't synthetic until this thread, but the fact that it isn't doesn't bother me at all, personally. Toyota designed the stuff for modern toyota transmissions, and designed them for WS, and you have to admit they have a pretty damn good track record running it. It's not like we are hearing about tons of AB60Fs failing. So it stands to reason, whatever toyota did to design the transmissions, it doesn't have the needs GM etc did for new generation synthetic ATFs.

Will this improve transmission life? Perhaps. But maybe not as compared to a rigorous fluid change schedule. And, how long will you be keeping this truck anyway?

I guess my point is.. is all of this necessary when we know WS does a really good job? BITOG is awesome, but they also had a TDI guy years ago do a series of UOAs to see how far he could push a premium synthetic oil in his car. 10k change was recommended by VW. He went 36k before the lab said it should be dumped. Which is awesome. But.. how does that really benefit other people?

Well I'll start off saying that I'm by no means an expert in transmissions or fluid dynamics or engineering. But yes, I believe the idea is that in extremely cold conditions (let's face it, people with Land Cruisers are more likely to find themselves in extreme conditions) you want to retain as much viscosity as possible so the oil can circulate in the tyranny and do it's job.

I'm confused by the bold parts here.. cold typically increases viscosity of the fluids in our drivelines, yeah, but higher viscosity actually means reduced flow aka circulation in newtonian fluids.

 

[ekolpack]

Most road going naturally-aspirated engines "require" synthetic merely for the long drain intervals, (turbos are different) but conventional would protect them just fine as long as it's changed often enough. Even conventional stuff is so advanced these days the better base stocks of synthetic simply mitigate viscosity reduction via shear... So I'm not so sure "synthetic is better" is necessarily true, as long as we don't let any of it wear out.

My understanding was the reason GM and others pushed toward synthetics is improved resistance to degradation at high temps -and- they could run a thinner fluid for better fuel efficiency while maintaining acceptable wear numbers within their transmissions. (To one of your points this had to do with the better VI of synthetic fluids.) I wasn't aware WS wasn't synthetic until this thread, but the fact that it isn't doesn't bother me at all, personally. Toyota designed the stuff for modern toyota transmissions, and designed them for WS, and you have to admit they have a pretty damn good track record running it. It's not like we are hearing about tons of AB60Fs failing. So it stands to reason, whatever toyota did to design the transmissions, it doesn't have the needs GM etc did for new generation synthetic ATFs.

Will this improve transmission life? Perhaps. But maybe not as compared to a rigorous fluid change schedule. And, how long will you be keeping this truck anyway?

I guess my point is.. is all of this necessary when we know WS does a really good job? BITOG is awesome, but they also had a TDI guy years ago do a series of UOAs to see how far he could push a premium synthetic oil in his car. 10k change was recommended by VW. He went 36k before the lab said it should be dumped. Which is awesome. But.. how does that really benefit other people?



I'm confused by the bold parts here.. cold typically increases viscosity of the fluids in our drivelines, yeah, but higher viscosity actually means reduced flow aka circulation in newtonian fluids.

Great stuff regarding conventional oil. Perhaps I am wrong that the best synthetic will always be as good or better than the best conventional, at least in certain metrics.

And yup, I brain farted on high vs low viscosity there. I'll go back and edit later. Thanks for catching that!

 

[bloc]

Great stuff regarding conventional oil. Perhaps I am wrong that the best synthetic will always be as good or better than the best conventional, at least in certain metrics.

And yup, I brain farted on high vs low viscosity there. I'll go back and edit later. Thanks for catching that!

I did just have another thought on the subject.

All of your research may very well be warranted for people that are particularly hard on their transmissions and ATFs. People who tow heavy for a significant amount of their mileage, for instance. @linuxgod and @TeCKis300 come to mind quickly. These people will cause substantially more stress on the transmission and fluids and may actually see some benefit over the life of the fluid and transmission itself by running a very high end oil.

The problem is it's pretty tough to actually prove that.

I agree their stuff doesn't look as good on paper per your first post, but Amsoil does have their reputation, and you'd probably have great luck with their fluids in general. But a large part of that reputation is marketing. It's really, really hard to make the case that an engine running Mobil1 would be any more likely to fail, all else being equal.

Someone breaking down how a premium ATF can actually protect a severely-used transmission more effectively, especially given the dramatic differences between that application and motor oil (which many more people understand the function of), would go a long way.

 

[grinchy]

I just went with a compatible fluid (Valvoline atf marked Toyota Lexus ws compatible)
I don’t have any delusion it’ll last forever, I plan to change every 30k. Figured I’d rather have fresh fluid every 30k anyway.

 

[bloc]

Figured I’d rather have fresh fluid every 30k anyway.

That is my strategy.

 

[gaijin]

With all the imponderables at play here, how about this one? If you choose to run something other than Toyota WS fluid, how will what you choose mix with the WS fluid left in the transmission? Will it be compatible? Might it cause other problems? How much, and under what conditions, would you have to flush with new fluid to assure there is no leftover contamination from the original WS fluid?

If you haven't already guessed, I'm in the Toyota WS camp (proven performance), with an occasional change with more of the same.

HTH

 

[stonepa]

You can look at spec sheets all day long. Bottom line, until one of these smaller players proves their product is better than WS with testing in Toyota transmissions, I’ll stick with WS.

Amen. Seems like a waste of time. Somehow my 100 and 200 do fine down to -55F actual (the coldest I’ve driven either one of them) on OEM fluids. I am on factory maintenance cycles as well. The 100 is at 445k miles still on the original transmission (and engine, transfer case, and diffs).

 

[grinchy]

With all the imponderables at play here, how about this one? If you choose to run something other than Toyota WS fluid, how will what you choose mix with the WS fluid left in the transmission? Will it be compatible? Might it cause other problems? How much, and under what conditions, would you have to flush with new fluid to assure there is no leftover contamination from the original WS fluid?

If you haven't already guessed, I'm in the Toyota WS camp (proven performance), with an occasional change with more of the same.

HTH

Oh, well if you’re going to all the trouble to drop the pan, replace the filter, you should go ahead and perform a full flush via the tranny cooler pipes. So no ws left in the system.

Not a surprise to me that tranny performs much better on the new fluid, I don’t think it had been fully flushed in the 225k it had on it. It doesn’t have to be ‘ws’ to work fine, particularly in the short term.

 

[red mud fj]

Have used Amsoil atf in the 80 & 100 for dozen years. Amsoil correct 80's poor shifting and slipping under load condtion. For 100 shifting smothed out and no issues. Yearly drain and fills along with filter changes every few years has prolonged transmission life.

This past summer changed atf filter and cycled close to 3 gallons of Amsoil fuel efficient atf through LX570 transmission. Shifting performance improved leading to complete satisfaction of amsoil atf.

 

[ekolpack]

Have used Amsoil atf in the 80 & 100 for dozen years. Amsoil correct 80's poor shifting and slipping under load condtion. For 100 shifting smothed out and no issues. Yearly drain and fills along with filter changes every few years has prolonged transmission life.

This past summer changed atf filter and cycled close to 3 gallons of Amsoil fuel efficient atf through LX570 transmission. Shifting performance improved leading to complete satisfaction of amsoil atf.

Thanks for sharing this. This certainly echoes what LOTS of people are reporting online about Amsoil ATF. It's one of those products that you just can't find bad reviews about, unless people are complaining about the price or slow shipping or something. It's 5 stars across the board with a looooong track record going back decades, and it seems everyone who uses it reports something like this....that it's not only as good as OEM, but noticeably better. Anyhow, thanks for sharing!

 

[TLC2013]

Another positive experience here with Amsoil SS ATF. Did a 3 gallon exchange and changed the filter at 100k. The WS fluid was Motor oil black in color. Noticed a slight improvement in shift quality with the new Amsoil fluid.

 

[linuxgod]

Another positive experience here with Amsoil SS ATF. Did a 3 gallon exchange and changed the filter at 100k. The WS fluid was Motor oil black in color. Noticed a slight improvement in shift quality with the new Amsoil fluid.

Depending on when your fluid was last changed (if ever) it's entirely possible just doing any fluid exchange would help you there.

ATF fluid should be red so if yours is black you might consider doing the full 12+ quart exchange where you dump the fluid out of the cooler line and not the drain plug in the pan. That should get almost all of the old fluid out and will likely help shift quality further.

 

[TLC2013]

Depending on when your fluid was last changed (if ever) it's entirely possible just doing any fluid exchange would help you there.

ATF fluid should be red so if yours is black you might consider doing the full 12+ quart exchange where you dump the fluid out of the cooler line and not the drain plug in the pan. That should get almost all of the old fluid out and will likely help shift quality further.

I agree just getting new fluid in and the old WS out is where the shift improvements came from. In the end I think I went through 14 -15 quarts and made the usual mess on the driveway.

 

[TeCKis300]

I did just have another thought on the subject.

All of your research may very well be warranted for people that are particularly hard on their transmissions and ATFs. People who tow heavy for a significant amount of their mileage, for instance. @linuxgod and @TeCKis300 come to mind quickly. These people will cause substantially more stress on the transmission and fluids and may actually see some benefit over the life of the fluid and transmission itself by running a very high end oil.

The problem is it's pretty tough to actually prove that.

I agree their stuff doesn't look as good on paper per your first post, but Amsoil does have their reputation, and you'd probably have great luck with their fluids in general. But a large part of that reputation is marketing. It's really, really hard to make the case that an engine running Mobil1 would be any more likely to fail, all else being equal.

Someone breaking down how a premium ATF can actually protect a severely-used transmission more effectively, especially given the dramatic differences between that application and motor oil (which many more people understand the function of), would go a long way.

My take on this is that WS fluid meets all my needs and expectations. It's a high quality fluid that's been validated by the factory. In my use, I perceive no shortcomings of it. Including price and accessibility of sourcing the fluid.

There's likely many qualities of fluid beyond what we can see like simple cold viscosity. We as layman don't have the ability to meter, test, and validate these things with expansive data in objective fashion. Some anecdotal testaments that it works doesn't in my mind substantiate or validate performance over the long term.

Brings me back to a previous car I owned that had a Getrag Supra 6-speed transmission. It took years of the community to realize Redline was causing seals to swell in the tranny potentially junking them at worse, or needing a rebuild at best. A better fluid really wasn't needed but of course the community was interested in trying boutique brands.

Perhaps Amsoil works better. Perhaps it's worse. Guess I'm more interested in using my vehicle than performing a science experiment. On that note, I don't bother with full fluid flushes/exchanges in search of better. A periodic drain and fill per factory is my preference to avoid unexpected drama.