Big transmission dilemma
Built_Well
refilled it with Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF, making the ATF fluid in my
Camry a 50/50 mix of Toyota T-IV and Mobil 1 ATF.
My goodness, you're not going to believe this. Toyota recommends T-IV
fluid *AND* ATF WS fluid for the exact same automatic transmission,
depending upon Camry model year.
The 4-cylinder 2005 and 2006 Camrys have the Aisin U250E transmission,
whereas the V6 Camrys have the U151E.
One year later for 2007, the newly styled "next generation" Camry with
4 cylinders (same 2AZ-FE engine as the 2006) also uses the U250E
transmission, but instead of T-IV, Toyota specifies ATF WS for the '07
model year!
So here we have the two exact same transmissions, the U250E, but Toyota
specs T-IV in the 2006 model year, and specs WS in the 2007 model year.
The two fluids are not suppose to be interchangeable.
Here's a quote from GearsMagazine that I found online:
"One very important thing to remember is that the U250E requires
ATF WS:
"ATF WS is used to reduce the resistance of the ATF and improve the fuel
economy by reducing its viscosity at normal operating temperatures. At
higher fluid temperatures, the viscosity is the same as that of ATF Type
T-IV, which ensures the durability of this unit.
"ATF WS and other types of ATF (ATF Type T-IV, D-II) aren't
interchangeable. So with ATF WS you get improved fuel economy and
durability and that's not only smart... it's street smart!"[End quote]
Here's the link to the article in GearsMagazine.com :
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:GWcYHrh_ZUIJ:www.gearsmagazine.com/images/issues/1_2009/2009_1_18.pdf+U250E&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
And here's a link to TransTec which verifies that the U250E is used in
both the '06 and '07 Camrys.
http://transtec.com/selector_guide/Toyota.htm
Finally, if you find it difficult to believe that the U250E transmission
in the '06 Camry and the '07 Camry is the EXACT same transmission, check
out this really convincing PDF document that shows the gear ratios, fluid
capacity, and weight of the transmissions in both the '06 and '07 Camry:
My '06 owner's manual specifies using T-IV, but I also happen to have a
manual for the next gen. Camry (in this case the '08), and it specifies WS.
By the way, the next gen. 2007 V6 Camry uses that new U660E transmission ;-)
A couple weeks ago, I replaced half of my car's T-IV with Mobil 1
Synthetic ATF, but maybe a WS fluid would work just as well? Whaddya
think? Should I buy a WS or a T-IV replacement for my next fluid change
later this week? If a WS, I'll do an ATF oil cooler line complete flush,
instead of just a drain-and-fill. Either way, I'll DIY it (Do It Yourself,
of course).
For the U250E transmission, how can Toyota recommend two very different
ATF fluids that are not suppose to be interchangeable?
========
Ray O
"Built_Well" <Built_We...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a5d32e9$0$79714$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
I recommend that you invest in $10 to access www.techinfo.toyota.com to
access the TSB and PANT bulletins for your car. Toyota is pretty
knowledgeable about their products, probably more so than the posters who
bad mouth Toyota products. Follow Toyota's advice.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
Hachiroku ハチロク
> Toyota is pretty
> knowledgeable about their products, probably more so than the posters who
> bad mouth Toyota products.
I, sir, take exception to that!
john
example, the new Dexron VI (there are blends and fully synthetic
versions) can be used in place of the dino Dexron III except certain
applications per GM TSB. The Dexron VI has better shear
characteristics and other properties required for the new generation
of Hydramatics, such as the 6T/6L series.
Similar to engine oils, Toyota specified 0W-20 engine oil in place of
older specs of 5W-30. Again in a TSB listing applicability.
Toyota T-IV ATF is just relabeled dino fluid called Mobil-3309,
however, WS seems proprietary. The only place for true WS so far is
the dealer. (Aftermarkets do not meet cold viscosity requirements). WS
is supposedly synthetic and/or blend, but has low viscosity when cold
for better MPG.
As you included, WS is also thicker at high temperatures to "ensures
the durability of this unit". So I would probably not go WS if the
transmission originally spec'ed T-IV. I'd just use a fully-synthetic T-
IV compatible fluid like the new formulation of Mobil-1 ATF.
I can believe if Toyota says WS can be used in certain T-IV
applications, just like GM synthetic/blend Dexron VI can be used in
certain Dexron III applications, but not the other way around (can't
use Dexron III in a Dexron VI transmission, even if you change it out
15-30K miles).
Hachiroku ハチロク
> Well they're probably interchangeable to a certain extent. For
> example, the new Dexron VI (there are blends and fully synthetic
> versions) can be used in place of the dino Dexron III except certain
> applications per GM TSB. The Dexron VI has better shear
> characteristics and other properties required for the new generation
> of Hydramatics, such as the 6T/6L series.
>
> Similar to engine oils, Toyota specified 0W-20 engine oil in place of
> older specs of 5W-30. Again in a TSB listing applicability.
This was after issuing the STB...
Thank you for contacting Scion.
We appreciate the opportunity to address your inquiry.
No, 5w30 is the recommended oil weight for your 2006 Scion xB as specified
in your owners manual. Use of any other weight can void your warranty.
Interesting. They come out with a TSB recommending a different oil weight,
and then tell us, "Use what it says in the manual..."
john
In fact, I'd prefer the thickest approved oil instead of a light
weight oil for engine longevity. MPG gained per car is going to so
slight the owner won't see a difference, but corporate MPG is what
Toyota is going after.
Toyota MDT in MO
Toyota did not come out with a TSB recommending a different weight oil
for vehicles originally requiring 5W30. The 2006 1NZ-FE still requires
5W30, just like the oil cap, service info, and oil related TSBs state.
The 5W20 / 0W20 TSB and revisions state which "new" models/engines
require said oil weights, and also state "DO NOT use these oils in
engines other than those listed above".
--
Toyota MDT in MO
Toyota MDT in MO
> Two or 3 weeks ago, I drained my transmission pan's T-IV ATF and
> refilled it with Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF, making the ATF fluid in my
> Camry a 50/50 mix of Toyota T-IV and Mobil 1 ATF.
>
>
I'm still reeling from that adventure.
> My goodness, you're not going to believe this. Toyota recommends T-IV
> fluid *AND* ATF WS fluid for the exact same automatic transmission,
> depending upon Camry model year.
>
>
Unbelievable.
> The 4-cylinder 2005 and 2006 Camrys have the Aisin U250E transmission,
> whereas the V6 Camrys have the U151E.
>
> One year later for 2007, the newly styled "next generation" Camry with
> 4 cylinders (same 2AZ-FE engine as the 2006) also uses the U250E
> transmission, but instead of T-IV, Toyota specifies ATF WS for the '07
> model year!
>
> So here we have the two exact same transmissions, the U250E, but Toyota
> specs T-IV in the 2006 model year, and specs WS in the 2007 model year.
> The two fluids are not suppose to be interchangeable.
>
>
Are they the same, or is shift control programming very different
between the two years? What about friction materials and internal
clutch pack clearances? U250E isn't a part number, it's a basic model
designation that lets the casual observer know the number of forward
speeds, the relative power handling, the fact that it is an underdrive
trans design, and the fact that it is electronically shifted.
> Here's a quote from GearsMagazine that I found online:
>
> "One very important thing to remember is that the U250E requires
> ATF WS:
>
>
That article is not accurate. It should have specified 2007-up models
as requiring WS.
> "ATF WS is used to reduce the resistance of the ATF and improve the fuel
> economy by reducing its viscosity at normal operating temperatures. At
> higher fluid temperatures, the viscosity is the same as that of ATF Type
> T-IV, which ensures the durability of this unit.
>
> "ATF WS and other types of ATF (ATF Type T-IV, D-II) aren't
> interchangeable. So with ATF WS you get improved fuel economy and
> durability and that's not only smart... it's street smart!"[End quote]
>
> Here's the link to the article in GearsMagazine.com :
> http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:GWcYHrh_ZUIJ:www.gearsmagazine.com/images/issues/1_2009/2009_1_18.pdf+U250E&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
>
> And here's a link to TransTec which verifies that the U250E is used in
> both the '06 and '07 Camrys.
>
> http://transtec.com/selector_guide/Toyota.htm
>
> Finally, if you find it difficult to believe that the U250E transmission
> in the '06 Camry and the '07 Camry is the EXACT same transmission, check
> out this really convincing PDF document that shows the gear ratios, fluid
> capacity, and weight of the transmissions in both the '06 and '07 Camry:
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justanswer.com%2Fuploads%2Fskyvisions%2F2008-04-25_231722_08_camry_u250.pdf&ei=ZoNcSq3lHYyg8wSs8OnhDQ&rct=j&q=U250E&usg=AFQjCNGpy7hKEksxZcmK3HJ53uSZ77sa_Q
>
>
Yup. See above.
> My '06 owner's manual specifies using T-IV, but I also happen to have a
> manual for the next gen. Camry (in this case the '08), and it specifies WS.
>
> By the way, the next gen. 2007 V6 Camry uses that new U660E transmission ;-)
>
> A couple weeks ago, I replaced half of my car's T-IV with Mobil 1
> Synthetic ATF, but maybe a WS fluid would work just as well? Whaddya
> think? Should I buy a WS or a T-IV replacement for my next fluid change
> later this week? If a WS, I'll do an ATF oil cooler line complete flush,
> instead of just a drain-and-fill. Either way, I'll DIY it (Do It Yourself,
> of course).
>
>
Please try not to break the internet when doing so.
> For the U250E transmission, how can Toyota recommend two very different
> ATF fluids that are not suppose to be interchangeable?
> ========
>
>
Shift programming goes hand in hand with fluid characteristics. Both
are designed/speced by the engineers to work together.
Tegger
news:TPd7m.10688$kA....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Built_Well wrote:
>> Two or 3 weeks ago, I drained my transmission pan's T-IV ATF and
>> refilled it with Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF, making the ATF fluid in my
>> Camry a 50/50 mix of Toyota T-IV and Mobil 1 ATF.
>>
>>
>
> I'm still reeling from that adventure.
>
>> My goodness, you're not going to believe this. Toyota recommends T-IV
>> fluid *AND* ATF WS fluid for the exact same automatic transmission,
>> depending upon Camry model year.
>>
>>
>
> Unbelievable.
What I find unbelievable is the number of people who, knowing next to
nothing about how their cars were designed, ignore the automaker's
specifications, requirements and recommendations, and decide to "self-
medicate", so to speak.
They spend however many tens of thousands of dollars on a highly-engineered
piece of hideously-complex precision machinery, and they want to decide for
themselves how to repair and maintain it. And especially they want to save
a few relatively trivial bucks while potentially putting hugely expensive
assemblies at risk.
My mechanic has told me most people don't even check their oil, much less
change it. He also says most people make their own problems, simply through
lack of maintenance, or through badly-performed repairs/maintenance with
poor-quality materials. He said he gets much of his business through that.
In short, even if he wanted to, he wouldn't ever have to rip anybody off;
people already do a good job of that all on their own.
--
Tegger
Nicholas
wrote:
Most people in my neighborhood drive *new* cars every 3 years because
they trash them through neglect and want the latest ride. So if they
know they're going to get a new car in 3 years, why bother with
maintenance?
Maybe air in the tires is as far as I see ANYONE around my
neighborhood going. And only when it is running near Flat.
My car is $300 short of being Paid in Full, has 40K-miles on the
odometer, and I plan to keep it for as long as it can withstand the
insults of salt here in the rust belt.
Nick
Ray O
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:Xns9C4943E1...@208.90.168.18...
> Toyota MDT in MO <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:TPd7m.10688$kA....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Built_Well wrote:
>>> Two or 3 weeks ago, I drained my transmission pan's T-IV ATF and
>>> refilled it with Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF, making the ATF fluid in my
>>> Camry a 50/50 mix of Toyota T-IV and Mobil 1 ATF.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm still reeling from that adventure.
>>
>>> My goodness, you're not going to believe this. Toyota recommends T-IV
>>> fluid *AND* ATF WS fluid for the exact same automatic transmission,
>>> depending upon Camry model year.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Unbelievable.
>
>
>
>
> What I find unbelievable is the number of people who, knowing next to
> nothing about how their cars were designed, ignore the automaker's
> specifications, requirements and recommendations, and decide to "self-
> medicate", so to speak.
>
Or worse, give poor advice to others
Hachiroku ハチロク
>>> Thank you for contacting Scion.
>>> We appreciate the opportunity to address your inquiry.
>>>
>>> No, 5w30 is the recommended oil weight for your 2006 Scion xB as specified
>>> in your owners manual. Use of any other weight can void your warranty.
>>>
>>> Interesting. They come out with a TSB recommending a different oil weight,
>>> and then tell us, "Use what it says in the manual..."
>>>
>
> Toyota did not come out with a TSB recommending a different weight oil
> for vehicles originally requiring 5W30. The 2006 1NZ-FE still requires
> 5W30, just like the oil cap, service info, and oil related TSBs state.
>
> The 5W20 / 0W20 TSB and revisions state which "new" models/engines
> require said oil weights, and also state "DO NOT use these oils in
> engines other than those listed above".
i couldn't find anything for the 2JZ-FE Scion 2.4L...
Built_Well
> Built_Well wrote:
>> Two or 3 weeks ago, I drained my transmission pan's T-IV ATF and
>> refilled it with Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF, making the ATF fluid in my
>> Camry a 50/50 mix of Toyota T-IV and Mobil 1 ATF.
>> ========
>
> I'm still reeling from that adventure.
========
Toyota MDT, you've flip-flopped. A couple weeks ago you were somewhat positive
about the change; now you're not.
A lot of smart people with a great deal of specialized
transmission knowledge and in-depth, advanced tribological experience (who
can be found at BobIsTheOilGuy.com) replace their
poorly formulated T-IV / 3309 fluid with the better synthetic alternatives
from Mobil 1, Red Line, Amsoil, and Royal Purple. T-IV has a poor
reputation among these knowledgeable folks with extensive transmission and
tribology experience--much more experience in these matters than you, MDT.
By the way, Honda ATF Z1 isn't well thought of either.
As for as Elmo Shignasty's unnecessary mention of the "ATF fluid" redundancy, I'm
aware of the redundancy, but typed it that way for better clarity for the newbies.
Tegger, like Toyota MDT, I think you could also learn a lot from the folks at the
BobIsTheOilGuy web site. The site has a frilly name, but is full of Tribological
and Transmission *professionals* who have had decades-long careers in the automotive
fluids industry: design, analysis, and testing. And many of the posters there
continue to work in the industry, so they're quite up to date.
I don't intend to change out my car's T-IV and T-IV-suitable
fluid (Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF) for a WS or WS-suitable fluid, but wanted
to underscore the fact that Toyota specifies T-IV *and* WS for
the U250E transmission, depending upon the Camry's model year.
john
local museum? ;)
The 2*AZ*-FE 2.4L 4-cylinder, used in 2005+ Scion tC and 2008+ xB?
That engine started out with 5W-30. Then in 2006 Toyota TSB saying
that engine would be getting 0W-20, but 5W-20 was OK too.
john
allowed 5W-20 in TSB EG018-06??
Hachiroku ハチロク
> 2JZ-*GE*? Isn't that the ooooold 2.0L inline-6 engine?? Maybe in a
> local museum? ;)
>
> The 2*AZ*-FE 2.4L 4-cylinder, used in 2005+ Scion tC and 2008+ xB?
> That engine started out with 5W-30. Then in 2006 Toyota TSB saying
> that engine would be getting 0W-20, but 5W-20 was OK too.
But a not from Toyota, posted in Scionlife.com said, "Use what it says in
the owner's manual"...
And, boy, do I wish I had a GE engine!
Oh, wait! I have a 7M-GE and a 4A-GE!!
Toyota MDT in MO
> Ummm, the 2001-07 1NZ (Prius) spec'ed 5W-30. But weren't they also
> allowed 5W-20 in TSB EG018-06??
>
> On Jul 14, 9:55 pm, Toyota MDT in MO <toyotamdti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The 2006 1NZ-FE still requires
Let me post part of TSB EG018-06 for you. "For Prius vehicles, refer
to TSB No. EG050–04, “Engine Oil Specifications.”
Now let me post a couple parts of the referenced TSB EG050-04.
"Applicable vehicles: 2001 – 2007 model year Prius vehicles" and
"Ensure that the correct engine oil viscosity is used in the engine
with the correct fill level
quantity as described in the Owner’s Manual. Recommended Viscosity:
SAE 5W–30".
The Prius uses a 1NX-FXE atkinson cycle engine with an extra wide
range of variable valve geometry. It is susceptible to intake
inversions and crankcase vapor ingestion. I'm sure there are many
other reasons they stick with 5W30 that I can't even comprehend. It
is not just another NZ series engine in this regard.
> > 5W30, just like the oil cap, service info, and oil related TSBs state.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Toyota MDT in MO
> Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>
> > Built_Well wrote:
> >> Two or 3 weeks ago, I drained my transmission pan's T-IV ATF and
> >> refilled it with Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF, making the ATF fluid in my
> >> Camry a 50/50 mix of Toyota T-IV and Mobil 1 ATF.
> >> ========
>
> > I'm still reeling from that adventure.
>
> ========
>
> Toyota MDT, you've flip-flopped. A couple weeks ago you were somewhat positive
> about the change; now you're not.
You've got the wrong guy. I was just trying to help you earlier
(remember the "you didn't actually strip your pan threads" among other
helpful posts?). I don't care what you put in *your* trans or whether
you agree or disagree with anything I have to say.
> A lot of smart people with a great deal of specialized
> transmission knowledge and in-depth, advanced tribological experience (who
> can be found at BobIsTheOilGuy.com) replace their
> poorly formulated T-IV / 3309 fluid with the better synthetic alternatives
> from Mobil 1, Red Line, Amsoil, and Royal Purple. T-IV has a poor
> reputation among these knowledgeable folks with extensive transmission and
> tribology experience--much more experience in these matters than you, MDT.
And you would know my experience level how? If you can't tell by my
posts that I know a bit about cars and Toyotas then you might just
have a reading comprehension problem. If that last statement was just
supposed to 'hurt', then I'll play along. Boo hoo.
> By the way, Honda ATF Z1 isn't well thought of either.
BTW, whooptydoodles.
> As for as Elmo Shignasty's unnecessary mention of the "ATF fluid" redundancy, I'm
> aware of the redundancy, but typed it that way for better clarity for the newbies.
Relevance?
> Tegger, like Toyota MDT, I think you could also learn a lot from the folks at the
> BobIsTheOilGuy web site. The site has a frilly name, but is full of Tribological
> and Transmission *professionals* who have had decades-long careers in the automotive
> fluids industry: design, analysis, and testing. And many of the posters there
> continue to work in the industry, so they're quite up to date.
Been there. Chat with experts I trust on the subject and read SAE
published papers. Do this for a living and am among the minority in
this business that care about which oils to use in my customers' cars
and my own cars. Tegger is no dope either. Lay off him or he won't
be there to help you when you, for example, can't find your coolant
drain plug.
> I don't intend to change out my car's T-IV and T-IV-suitable
> fluid (Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF) for a WS or WS-suitable fluid, but wanted
> to underscore the fact that Toyota specifies T-IV *and* WS for
> the U250E transmission, depending upon the Camry's model year.
So I made light of your multiple statements about the unbelievable
nature of all of this. It was intended as a good natured rib and the
rest of the post was intended to clear up some potential confusion.
Apparently neither attempt hit the mark.
If you have a transaxle issue within the 5/60 powertrain warranty, are
you going to volunteer that you used non-approved oil in your
transaxle? If you were in Toyota/Asin's position, and had to warranty
your products - given that approved fluid must be used - would you be
so quick to hand out free transaxles, labor comps, and paperwork on
failures that had non-approved fluid changes?
That was highly hypothetical since you aren't going to have any
problems with that trans for a long time and the Mobil probably isn't
going to cause any damage, but it is something to think about and
answer honestly. Manufacturers don't just spec fluid willy nilly.
Manufacturer approvals (when an aftermarket source for an equivelant
oil exists) aren't quick cheap affairs either.
Tegger
news:4a5e6f4f$0$28112$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>
> By the way, Honda ATF Z1 isn't well thought of either.
Maybe not, but when I see Owner's Manual comments like this one I quote
below, I tend to sit up and listen:
"Use only Honda Genuine ATF-Z1 (Automatic Transmission Fluid). Do not
mix with other transmission fluids.
Using transmission fluid other than Honda Genuine ATF-Z1 may cause
deterioration in transmission operation and durability, and could result
in damage to the transmission.
Damage resulting from the use of transmission fluid other than Honda
Genuine ATF-Z1 is not covered by the Honda new vehicle warranty."
>
> As for as Elmo Shignasty's unnecessary mention of the "ATF fluid"
> redundancy, I'm aware of the redundancy, but typed it that way for
> better clarity for the newbies.
>
> Tegger, like Toyota MDT, I think you could also learn a lot from the
> folks at the BobIsTheOilGuy web site.
Maybe I can. But I'm just a driveway grease monkey, just like you. When
push comes to shove (or when large amounts of money are on the line), I
tend to trust what the automaker tells me to do over what's said on the
Internet.
> The site has a frilly name, but
> is full of Tribological and Transmission *professionals* who have had
> decades-long careers in the automotive fluids industry: design,
> analysis, and testing. And many of the posters there continue to work
> in the industry, so they're quite up to date.
>
> I don't intend to change out my car's T-IV and T-IV-suitable
> fluid (Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF) for a WS or WS-suitable fluid, but
> wanted to underscore the fact that Toyota specifies T-IV *and* WS for
> the U250E transmission, depending upon the Camry's model year.
>
>
And as Toyota MDT says, this would be due to INTERNAL differences not
reflected in the model number of the transmission.
Since neither you nor I know what's in any given transmission
(being only driveway grease monkeys, as we are), but the automaker
DOES know, I think it would be more prudent to follow the
specifications in the Owner's Manual that came with your car.
--
Tegger
Tegger
news:Xns9C4A45AA...@208.90.168.18:
> Built_Well <Built_We...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:4a5e6f4f$0$28112$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>
>
>>
>> By the way, Honda ATF Z1 isn't well thought of either.
>
>
>
> Maybe not, but when I see Owner's Manual comments like this one I
> quote below, I tend to sit up and listen:
Only after I posted the above did it strike me that I've committed some
sort of grammatical error here.
If I "see" something, would I not "sit up and pay attention" rather than
"sit up and listen"? How do you "listen" to something you "see"?
--
Tegger
Retired VIP
<Built_We...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So here we have the two exact same transmissions, the U250E, but Toyota
>specs T-IV in the 2006 model year, and specs WS in the 2007 model year.
>The two fluids are not suppose to be interchangeable.
Another good reason to follow some wise advice...."If it ain't broke,
don't fix it."
If you are having trouble with your transmission, changing the fluid
might made sense. But if it is working well, changing the fluid can't
fix anything and might screw it up. A transmission isn't like an
engine. It doesn't dirty up it's oil by operating correctly.
Jack j
------------------
Flame retardant shorts are in place.
Retired VIP
<Built_We...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>
>> Built_Well wrote:
>>> Two or 3 weeks ago, I drained my transmission pan's T-IV ATF and
>>> refilled it with Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF, making the ATF fluid in my
>>> Camry a 50/50 mix of Toyota T-IV and Mobil 1 ATF.
>>> ========
>>
>> I'm still reeling from that adventure.
>========
>
>A lot of smart people with a great deal of specialized
>transmission knowledge and in-depth, advanced tribological experience (who
>can be found at BobIsTheOilGuy.com) replace their
>poorly formulated T-IV / 3309 fluid with the better synthetic alternatives
>from Mobil 1, Red Line, Amsoil, and Royal Purple. T-IV has a poor
>reputation among these knowledgeable folks with extensive transmission and
>tribology experience--much more experience in these matters than you, MDT.
>
Yep! Bob-The-Oil-Guy is definitely the expert you should listen to.
After all, he runs a web-site so he must know more about cars in
general and Toyotas in particular than the people who designed and
built them.
When it the last time you heard of a problem with any car designed,
built or maintained by Bob-The-Oil-Guy? What? He doesn't design,
build or maintain cars? Well the oil he makes is just the best there
is, isn't it? What? He doesn't make oil either? Hmmm!
Jack j
Nicholas
wrote:
>Tegger <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in
If you knew my wife, you wouldn't ask that question...
Mark
require, and how finicky Toyotas are about using the same fluids as
replacements, this seems like a suicidal move to me, unless you enjoy
enriching your local transmission shop.
Built_Well
> Built_Well wrote:
>>
>> By the way, Honda ATF Z1 isn't well thought of either.
>> ========
>
> Maybe not, but when I see Owner's Manual comments like this one I quote
> below, I tend to sit up and listen:
>
> "Use only Honda Genuine ATF-Z1 (Automatic Transmission Fluid). Do not
> mix with other transmission fluids.
> Using transmission fluid other than Honda Genuine ATF-Z1 may cause
> deterioration in transmission operation and durability, and could result
> in damage to the transmission.
> Damage resulting from the use of transmission fluid other than Honda
> Genuine ATF-Z1 is not covered by the Honda new vehicle warranty."
> Maybe I can. But I'm just a driveway grease monkey, just like you. When
> push comes to shove (or when large amounts of money are on the line), I
> tend to trust what the automaker tells me to do over what's said on the
> Internet.
========
Well sure, try putting Type F in a Honda. The Honda manual's warning
is understandable. The Camry manual has a similar warning.
And you wouldn't want to put 15w-50 in a 5w-20 spec'ed motor either.
So don't put Type F in your Z1 or T-IV application.
But a major company like ExxonMobil says its Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF is
suitable for T-IV applications. It's on the back of every bottle. And
lots of people have replaced T-IV with Mobil 1 and are pleased with the
results.
My car shifts better now with Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF. But I
wouldn't use Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF in a CVT car or Mercon SP
application, for example. Hence, the warning in your manual. It's
all about perspective.
Toyota MDT in MO
>
> - Show quoted text -
Every multi use ATF says that about virtually every application.
There's a difference between what the oil company recommends and what
has been approved by the manufacturer. Prestone "recommends" that you
use their All makes All Models coolant in everything. Would you?
Hachiroku ハチロク
Certainly not in a Chrysler....
Retired VIP
<toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 16, 6:34�pm, Built_Well <Built_Well_Toy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>> > � Built_Well wrote:
>>
>> >> �By the way, Honda ATF Z1 isn't well thought of either.
>> >> �========
>>
>Every multi use ATF says that about virtually every application.
>There's a difference between what the oil company recommends and what
>has been approved by the manufacturer. Prestone "recommends" that you
>use their All makes All Models coolant in everything. Would you?
Sure I would.....if it was your car!
Built_Well
>
> a difference between what the oil company recommends and what has been
> approved by the manufacturer. Prestone "recommends" that you use their
> All makes All Models coolant in everything. Would you?
With coolant, you absolutely must use what Toyota recommends for
your car--or you could be very sorry. With engine oil and ATF,
you have choices on some Toyota models.
If you want to optimize your car, you'll take advantage of those
choices. If you don't want to optimize your car, you don't
have to. In the former case, you must do a lot of reading to
learn as much as you can about the choices, before choosing.
I enjoy optimizing my cars, computers, and other things. But it's not
for everyone :-)
Nick Bourne
I thought the 2JZ was a RWD 3L inline six out of a supra. and the old 2L
six was a 1G-GE.
I don't have a 7M-GE but i do have a 6M-GE.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>>> On Jul 15, 10:18 am, Hachiroku ハチロク <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>>> i couldn't find anything for the 2JZ-FE Scion 2.4L...
>>
>
>
> I thought the 2JZ was a RWD 3L inline six out of a supra. and the old 2L
> six was a 1G-GE.
>
> I don't have a 7M-GE but i do have a 6M-GE.
Now, this is where it gets interesting...
.First, it's a 2AZ-FE. I WISH it were a 2JZ!
The JZ was in the Supra, IS300 and others probably sold where you are.
However, the tC is based on an AWD platform. I have seen in magazines tCs
converted to RWD
This could get interesting...
What's the 6M-GE in? A Supra, or a Cressida? Crown?
john
is the 2.5L version. There are also turbo charged versions (xJZ-GTE)
where the "T" comes in. I think the 2.5L series (1JZ) is junked in
2007.
john
production with names like "Chaser", "Majesta" and the Ford-like "Mark
II".
Some 2JZ versions still use old tech iron blocks. Yuck!
2JZ-GE Applications:
* Toyota Altezza / Lexus IS 300
* Toyota Aristo / Lexus GS 300
* Toyota Crown/Toyota Crown Majesta
* Toyota Mark II
* Toyota Chaser
* Toyota Cresta
* Toyota Progres
* Toyota Soarer / Lexus SC 300
* Toyota Supra MK IV
JZ series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_JZ_engine
john
coolants, so Prestone's claim like that should raise an eyebrow
immediately. But how do you tell good "recommendations" from bad?? For
one I'd trust Mobil's more than I would Prestone (I don't use any
Prestone aftermarket product). And Toyota does use re-labeled Mobil
products.
For example, Mercedes and BMW require a top grade of 5W-30 with
sufficient film strength, so some said. But you'll see no such
recommendation on the US Mobil-1 5W-30. Instead, the one that makes
the grade is Mobil-1 0W-40, and it says so on the bottle.
(In other words, if prices are similar, get your 5W-30s from MB or
BMW).
BTW, Valvoline filed a complaint against Prestone's "All Makes" claim
with the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) in 2006. But looks
like Valvoline didn't prevail, or at least the FTC didn't mind. But
this does damage other "recommendations" unfortunately.
Toyota MDT in MO
> That's a very valid point. We know there are three major classes of
> coolants, so Prestone's claim like that should raise an eyebrow
> immediately. But how do you tell good "recommendations" from bad?? For
> one I'd trust Mobil's more than I would Prestone (I don't use any
> Prestone aftermarket product). And Toyota does use re-labeled Mobil
> products.
You can't know which oil maker's recommendations are valid just from
reading the bottle. The best way is to look for something to the
effect of "meets all requirements for xxxxxxx" where xxxxxxx = a
specific manufacturer's approval rating designation. Some oil bottles
say something sneaky like "meets engine protection requirements of
xxxxxxx", which leaves out certain oil life expectancy, sludge
fighting, fuel efficiency, and catalyst protection elements that are
all encompassed under the manufacturer's xxxxxxx designation. In
absence of that, then what it boils down to is you need to see general
specs, like API Sx (insert image of the jackoff motion here), ILSAC GF-
x (same image), or ACEA ratings, or be able to read and understand
each oil's spec sheet.
The fact is, most makers push their universal products for
everything. I put the OEM recommendation of fluid in each system.
Ideally said fluid would be made and labelled by a respectable A/M
source to make purchasing/selling easier, but in cases where the only
approved option is sold OE, then so be it. It's a bit of a racket,
but so is the legal side when you didn't do anything wrong but you're
being sued for component failure. Now try and defend yourself given
you used a non approved fluid.
> For example, Mercedes and BMW require a top grade of 5W-30 with
> sufficient film strength, so some said. But you'll see no such
> recommendation on the US Mobil-1 5W-30. Instead, the one that makes
> the grade is Mobil-1 0W-40, and it says so on the bottle.
>
> (In other words, if prices are similar, get your 5W-30s from MB or
> BMW).
>
> BTW, Valvoline filed a complaint against Prestone's "All Makes" claim
> with the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) in 2006. But looks
> like Valvoline didn't prevail, or at least the FTC didn't mind. But
> this does damage other "recommendations" unfortunately.
>
> On Jul 17, 7:33 am, Toyota MDT in MO <toyotamdti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Every multi use ATF says that about virtually every application.
> > There's a difference between what the oil company recommends and what
> > has been approved by the manufacturer. Prestone "recommends" that you
> > use their All makes All Models coolant in everything. Would you?- Hide quoted text -
Nick Bourne
The 6M-GE is in a MX73 Cressida. the wrecker i got it from didn't know
what it was so i got it for the price of a 5M. i ran it on the 5M
computer and it ran beautifull.
AWD from Toyota are easily converted to RWD, you just the remove the
center diff out of the car and replace it with a solid shaft then remove
the axles out of the front CV's leaving the hubs in place. the problem
is you still the inside front hubs spinning while you driving, and I'm
not sure how long the 90o gear set that drives the rear wheels would
last. not really meant to take all the power
It's easier to do to a WRX it's a 2 hour job to replace the centre diff
with a shaft that sends all the power out the back, dont even have to
take the gearbox out.
Built_Well
Built_Well wrote:
>>
>> I wanted to underscore the fact that Toyota specifies T-IV *and* WS
>> for the U250E transmission, depending upon the Camry's model year
>> =======
>
> ....this would be due to INTERNAL differences not reflected in the model
> number of the transmission.
========
You might be right, but the weight for both transmissions in the '06 and
'07 Camry is shown to be the same 205 pounds. Wouldn't there be at least
a one or two pound difference--maybe much more--if the composition of the
internal clutches were changed, or the flow circuits were redesigned, or
some other internal change had been made?
I would bet that, internally, it's the exact same tranz, and that the
only difference might be a software change.
If you click the following link, you'll see that the '06 Camry's U250E and
the "next-generation" '07 Camry's U250E is identical but for the ATF fluid
recommended by Toyota. The fluid capacity, gear ratios, and weight are
identical. The one-page PDF document in the following link looks like
it's an official page out of the Toyota factory service and repair manual:
Tegger
news:4a634ba6$0$79701$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
> Built_Well wrote:
>>>
>>> I wanted to underscore the fact that Toyota specifies T-IV *and* WS
>>> for the U250E transmission, depending upon the Camry's model year
>>> =======
>>
>> ....this would be due to INTERNAL differences not reflected in the
>> model number of the transmission.
> ========
>
> You might be right, but the weight for both transmissions in the '06
> and '07 Camry is shown to be the same 205 pounds. Wouldn't there be
> at least a one or two pound difference--maybe much more--if the
> composition of the internal clutches were changed, or the flow
> circuits were redesigned, or some other internal change had been made?
1) Have you considered that the weight may be rounded up for the sake of
simplicity?
2) Suppose the differences consisted of clutch friction material
alterations, with concomitant changes to PCM shift-valve control? Such
changes could have a dramatic effect on fluid specs, but zero effect on
weight.
>
> I would bet that,
I wouldn't. Unless I were getting rid of the car fairly soon.
As the investment people say, there's not much "upside", but LOTS of
"downside" to your "bet".
> internally, it's the exact same tranz, and that the
> only difference might be a software change.
PCM software/firmware adjustments would be obligatory if item #2 above were
true. It is the /combination/ of hardware /and/ software changes which you
appear not to have considered.
A question for you: What does /your/ Owner's Manual specify as the correct
fluid for /your/ transmission?
--
Tegger
Built_Well
>
> I wouldn't. Unless I were getting rid of the car fairly soon.
>
> As the investment people say, there's not much "upside", but LOTS of
> "downside" to your "bet".
Tegger, I was trying to be friendly to you, but now you're just
being rhetorical and trying to confuse matters. I won't make
that mistake with you again in the future.
My bet is *not* that ATF WS will work in the '06. (I'm sticking
with T-IV or a T-IV suitable fluid like Mobil 1 ATF, as I mentioned
earlier.)
My bet is that the internals between the '06 and '07 U250E
transmissions haven't changed a bit, since the weight of the 2
transmissions is 205 pounds each, and their other specs are
identical, as shown by the Toyota documentation in the link (or what
appears to be Toyota documentation).
There's a possibility that the software has changed, but my bet is
that the internals haven't. My bet is not that WS will work in
the '06; my bet is that the internals haven't changed. Please
don't confuse matters.
Mobil 1 says their ATF is suitable as a T-IV replacement, and Toyota
does not say that Mobil 1 is not suitable. Type F would be unsuitable.
You wouldn't put Type F in a Z1 application, and so the warning in
your Honda's manual is completely understandable.
Tegger
$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>>> I would bet that,
>>
>> I wouldn't. Unless I were getting rid of the car fairly soon.
>>
>> As the investment people say, there's not much "upside", but LOTS of
>> "downside" to your "bet".
> =======
>
> Tegger, I was trying to be friendly to you, but now you're just
> being rhetorical and trying to confuse matters. I won't make
> that mistake with you again in the future.
I repeat my last sentence in my last message:
Built_Well
> What does /your/ Owner's Manual specify as the
> correct fluid for /your/ transmission?"
The '06 manual calls for T-IV, just like the web link
to the PDF document.
So T-IV for the '06, and ATF WS for the '07 Camry.
Anumber1
transmission that requres radically different fluid requirements for
longevity.
Chrysler went through this with their minivan transmission disaster of
the mid 1990's (new tranny-"old" fluid specs).
No need to get defensive or nasty to tegger ma man.
Dudes right. They can call that transmission any damn thing they want,
different than last year or not.
'07 is different AFAIKT.
Al
Built_Well
> No need to get defensive or nasty to tegger ma man.
========
Uh, I wasn't nasty to tegger. He was nasty to me.
Anumber1, my man, you need to read the thread sequentially.
Ray O
"Built_Well" <Built_We...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a639303$0$79705$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>>> I would bet that,
>>
>> I wouldn't. Unless I were getting rid of the car fairly soon.
>>
>> As the investment people say, there's not much "upside", but LOTS of
>> "downside" to your "bet".
> =======
>
> Tegger, I was trying to be friendly to you, but now you're just
> being rhetorical and trying to confuse matters. I won't make
> that mistake with you again in the future.
>
> My bet is *not* that ATF WS will work in the '06. (I'm sticking
> with T-IV or a T-IV suitable fluid like Mobil 1 ATF, as I mentioned
> earlier.)
>
> My bet is that the internals between the '06 and '07 U250E
> transmissions haven't changed a bit, since the weight of the 2
> transmissions is 205 pounds each, and their other specs are
> identical, as shown by the Toyota documentation in the link (or what
> appears to be Toyota documentation).
>
> There's a possibility that the software has changed, but my bet is
> that the internals haven't. My bet is not that WS will work in
> the '06; my bet is that the internals haven't changed. Please
> don't confuse matters.
>
Check the part numbers for a clutch pack and valve body assembly for an '06
and '07 transmission for a definitive answer. Differences in friction
material or valve body specifications for the same series transmission will
not make a difference in weight or fluid capacity so weight and fluid
capacity are not valid indicators as to whether or not 2 transmissions are
identical.
> Mobil 1 says their ATF is suitable as a T-IV replacement, and Toyota
> does not say that Mobil 1 is not suitable. Type F would be unsuitable.
> You wouldn't put Type F in a Z1 application, and so the warning in
> your Honda's manual is completely understandable.
>
That logic is a little off. Toyota also does not state in your owner's
manual that Type F, Mercon, gear oil, WD-40, motor oil, etc. are not
suitable, but they are obviously not.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
Tegger
$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
> Anumber1 wrote:
>
>> No need to get defensive or nasty to tegger ma man.
> ========
>
> Uh, I wasn't nasty to tegger. He was nasty to me.
>
I was being "nasty" by making perfectly relevant and reasonable points, and
by asking a perfectly relevant and reasonable question?
--
Tegger
Toyota MDT in MO
Could you possibly be a bigger baby?
Toyota MDT in MO
hls
"Mark" <bogusm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59aaff13-04e6-4db3...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Considering the cost of transmissions, how little maintenance they
require, and how finicky Toyotas are about using the same fluids as
replacements, this seems like a suicidal move to me, unless you enjoy
enriching your local transmission shop.
**************
I agree...A lot of cars are reputed to be finicky about their fluids, and
you
take a chance when you deviate from the manufacturer's specification and
go with an aftermarket (even if claimed to be clearly "superior")
composition.
In my manual, the ATF maintenance interval is suggested, and that is what
I will do, although I dont think it hurts anything to change ATF earlier (
particularly in extreme conditions).
Same with oil...I know what Toyota recommends, and I stay within those
limits of oil quality and change interval.
The rest of you pay for your cars, I pay for mine, and you and I can do
whatever we think best, so long as we are willing to take the consequences.
Toyota MDT in MO
> Built_Well <Built_Well_Toy...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4a63c0dd$0$28123
> $892e0...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>
> > Anumber1 wrote:
>
> >> No need to get defensive or nasty to tegger ma man.
> > ========
>
> > Uh, I wasn't nasty to tegger. He was nasty to me.
>
> I was being "nasty" by making perfectly relevant and reasonable points, and
> by asking a perfectly relevant and reasonable question?
>
> --
> Tegger
You're wrong. The chart that I don't know where it comes from or what
it's called clearly states that both transaxles are identical in every
way. It appears to be from Toyota so it has to be right and my
interpretation of it has to be right.
Sorry, I was channeling someone else there for a minute...
Toyota MDT in MO
Tegger
news:2f008ce5-c633-420a...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 20, 5:55�am, Tegger <inva...@invalid.inv> wrote:
>> Built_Well <Built_Well_Toy...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:4a63c0dd$0$28123 $892e0...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>>
>> > Anumber1 wrote:
>>
>> >> No need to get defensive or nasty to tegger ma man.
>> > =======
>>
>> > Uh, I wasn't nasty to tegger. �He was nasty to me. �
>>
>> I was being "nasty" by making perfectly relevant and reasonable
>> points, and by asking a perfectly relevant and reasonable question?
>>
>>
>>
>
> You're wrong. The chart that I don't know where it comes from or what
> it's called clearly states that both transaxles are identical in every
> way. It appears to be from Toyota so it has to be right and my
> interpretation of it has to be right.
Don't tell me... You got it off the Internet, right?
Everybody knows the Internet is the world's fount of accurate wisdom. The
very ease and economy of posting information to the Internet means the
Internet consists of predictably correct data.
On the other hand, automakers are just sharks out to rook unsuspecting
owners of their hard-earned money, so they should be ignored or deprecated.
>
> Sorry, I was channeling someone else there for a minute...
>
All those channels have static for me. Must be something wrong with my
receiver <smacks fist on side of device>.
--
Tegger
Toyota MDT in MO
>
> - Show quoted text -
For it's purpose, there's nothing wrong with the data in that document
(even though it may include rounded or even slightly inaccurate
figures). The page in question comes from Toyota's 2007 NCF. I used
the initials so our tisking matron has to work harder to figure it
out.
Isn't it odd that a green rock has to be grass because it is green?
Tell the geologist he's wrong!
Toyota MDT in MO
Built_Well
subject. The part numbers are different for the clutch discs found
inside the '06 and '07 U250E transmissions. According to
ToyotaPartsAndService.com, the '06 clutch disc has a part number of
31250-28181, whereas the '07 clutch disc has a part number of
31250-33040.
Ray again proves himself as being the man with the most
knowledge of Toyotas.
By the way, here are some other part numbers so I don't lose
them:
My 2006 Camry air filter = 17801-0H010
My 2006 Camry PCV valve = 12204-28020
As for Toyota MDT referring to me as a matron. Come on, MDT, we
both know you've had more dicky in your mouth than I've
ever had {chuckle}.
Nothing wrong with that. I know you're a straight-behaving guy
most of the time ;-) {Lol}
You're getting awfully close to Tegger, there, though. You better
watch it Tegger. MDT might goose you.
nm...@wt.net
>
> As for Toyota MDT referring to me as a matron. Come on, MDT, we
> both know you've had more dicky in your mouth than I've
> ever had {chuckle}.
You are admitting that you have had some though?
:/
:()
:(
Nate Nagel
rather than using Usenet to bookmark, do what I did and start a
spreadsheet and post it to your personal web space. be careful though,
it can turn into a part time job :/
You'll see what I mean if you go to my web site. What started as a way
for me to look up my notes from my friend's garage has turned into
something bordering on a legitimate resource. Which reminds me, the 914
listed as "for sale" is actually sold, if you had any interest. I
really need to update...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Toyota MDT in MO
> subject. The part numbers are different for the clutch discs found
> inside the '06 and '07 U250E transmissions. According to
> ToyotaPartsAndService.com, the '06 clutch disc has a part number of
> 31250-28181, whereas the '07 clutch disc has a part number of
> 31250-33040.
Keep twisting, marm. I was taken for a couple of seconds by how inane
and misinformed that paragraph was, then I realized how little you
know about cars, and what a douchebag you are.
> Ray again proves himself as being the man with the most
> knowledge of Toyotas.
That's a stretch, but I'm sure the intention of your statement wasn't
to shed the truth. RayO *is* a good and helpful poster. Usually that
type of indvidual doesn't appreciate having his cyberass kissed.
> As for Toyota MDT referring to me as a matron. Come on, MDT, we
> both know you've had more dicky in your mouth than I've
> ever had {chuckle}.
Admitting that you've had less than no "dicky" is not going to get you
in the sack with the star quarterback at your junior highschool. That
would alert him to your inexperience *and* confuse him by proposing a
negative value to a function of the natural number set (amount of
"dicky"). Try to reengineer your hurtful insults so that they don't
backfire so grandly.
> Nothing wrong with that. I know you're a straight-behaving guy
> most of the time ;-) {Lol}
Yup, most.
> You're getting awfully close to Tegger, there, though. You better
> watch it Tegger. MDT might goose you.
Yup, cybergoose.
Well played. Get back to me when someone figures out for you how
assenine your first paragraph was on every level.
Toyota MDT in MO
Tegger
4366-80ba-9...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
<austin powers> Oh behave... </austin powers>
--
Tegger
Tegger
$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
I think at this point the correct response from you is to acknowledge that
you've learned something new today and to thank your teachers for it.
Schoolyard insults may be amusing to you, but to me they expose abundantly
your lack of ability to accept having been wrong.
Toyota MDT was right all along, with Ray O now supporting him. You yourself
proved Toyota MDT correct by digging up the part numbers that proved his
original assertion.
--
Tegger
Ray O
"Toyota MDT in MO" <toyota...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e7b57e6-943a-4139...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
For it's purpose, there's nothing wrong with the data in that document
(even though it may include rounded or even slightly inaccurate
figures). The page in question comes from Toyota's 2007 NCF. I used
the initials so our tisking matron has to work harder to figure it
out.
Isn't it odd that a green rock has to be grass because it is green?
Tell the geologist he's wrong!
Toyota MDT in MO
*****
The only time I've seen comparisons between model years are in the NCF's and
the internal documents that come out a few months before NCF's.
Unfortunately, the NCF that was posted does not give sufficient information
to definitively resolve the question.
Toyota MDT in MO
> Built_Well <Built_Well_Toy...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4a652030$0$28114
> $892e0...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > As usual, it takes a smart man like Ray to shed light on the
> > subject. The part numbers are different for the clutch discs found
> > inside the '06 and '07 U250E transmissions. According to
> > ToyotaPartsAndService.com, the '06 clutch disc has a part number of
> > 31250-28181, whereas the '07 clutch disc has a part number of
> > 31250-33040.
>
> > Ray again proves himself as being the man with the most
> > knowledge of Toyotas.
>
> > By the way, here are some other part numbers so I don't lose
> > them:
>
> > My 2006 Camry air filter = 17801-0H010
> > My 2006 Camry PCV valve = 12204-28020
>
> > As for Toyota MDT referring to me as a matron. Come on, MDT, we
> > both know you've had more dicky in your mouth than I've
> > ever had {chuckle}.
>
> > Nothing wrong with that. I know you're a straight-behaving guy
> > most of the time ;-) {Lol}
>
> > You're getting awfully close to Tegger, there, though. You better
> > watch it Tegger. MDT might goose you.
>
> I think at this point the correct response from you is to acknowledge that
> you've learned something new today and to thank your teachers for it.
>
> Schoolyard insults may be amusing to you, but to me they expose abundantly
> your lack of ability to accept having been wrong.
My original point was to make the OP think about ways that the two
units could differ that wouldn't show up in the limited (and not
necessarily accurate) NCF doc. It was not to define every difference
between the two. I will tell you that the programming differences are
real, and that is all it would take to spec a different fluid.
Another major factor is that they are moving towards WS *anyway*. It
is speced in every dipstickless trans and that design is the current
target trend.
> Toyota MDT was right all along, with Ray O now supporting him. You yourself
> proved Toyota MDT correct by digging up the part numbers that proved his
> original assertion.
You haven't caught the incredible wrongness of BW's number digging
paragraph either. I'll wait to see if anyone gets it.
Toyota MDT in MO
Ray O
Toyota MDT in MO
***************
Now that you pointed it out, I got it. Kinda throws a stick into the
argument.
Toyota MDT in MO
wrote:
> "Toyota MDT in MO" <toyotamdti...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:dd9b3dde-137c-458a...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yup. It may take a lot of manual labor to figure it out.
Toyota MDT in MO
Built_Well
>
> Schoolyard insults may be amusing to you
Uh, Tegger, it was MDT who began the school yard
insults. Perhaps you should be addressing him, not me.
Once again, nice spin on things, Tegger. You're a good spinner.
But you need to read the thread more carefully. I referred
to MDT as a gooser because he referred to me as a "matron," and
even as a "baby" before then. I ignored his first school yard
insult, but then he posted a second school yard insult.
Another thing to consider is whether the clutch kits are counted
in the weight of the transmissions, because that official-looking
document that probably came from Toyota shows both '06 and '07 U250E
transmissions weighing 205 pounds. Maybe a difference in clutch
materials and other minor differences wouldn't yield even
a pound of difference, or maybe the weight of the clutch packs isn't
included in the weight of the transmission.
But whatever the explanation, we have to credit Ray O for telling
us all (including MDT) to check the part numbers of the '06 and '07
clutch packs and/or discs. If MDT had thought of that himself, he
would have had the answer earlier.
Did you lose your thinking cap somewhere, MDT? Or maybe you never
owned a thinking cap? You've been in this profession for years, and
Tegger has been reading about it for years, but neither one of you
came up with the simple solution. It was left to Ray O, once again,
to enlighten the group. Plus, Ray is a classy guy and doesn't hurl
school yard insults like "matron" and "baby" at others. I guess
classiness doesn't rub off via the Usenet.
Man, Tegger, you and MDT are verbally vicious. You two don't belong
to some kind of cult, do ya's? If you two hadn't been so verbally
vicious, I would not have been the same in my response.
....So cultish...
Toyota MDT in MO
Naturally, once someone shows you the most recent example of how
incredibly stupid you have been, there will still be no change in your
behavior. Keep spinning, m'am.
Toyota MDT in MO
Anumber1
The clutch pack rebuild kit part numbers are different even in the NAPA
parts system... This 'aint Mike Marlow shit here but is is lame.
The topic is perfectly good, interesting even, but; the conduct of your
discussion is argumentative and useless.
Better research could/would yield better results and my cursory glance
in a lame, aftermarket parts lookup system gave me the answers you seek
(even though I didn't bother to keep track of ATC part numbers and other
useless to me shit).
Get over it. You have been shown the "path".
Al
Steve
> LOL. Toyota's left hand isn't telling it's right hand I guess.
>
> In fact, I'd prefer the thickest approved oil instead of a light
> weight oil for engine longevity. MPG gained per car is going to so
> slight the owner won't see a difference, but corporate MPG is what
> Toyota is going after.
I thought the same thing too when Ford, Chrysler, and Honda started
recommending 0w20 quite a few years ago (Toyota's relatively late to the
20-weight party).
But damn- you should see how good the used oil analyses on many engines
running 0w20 are! I wouldn't recommend it for everything, but I no
longer believe that its a case of the manufacturers just going for
better CAFE at the owners' expense. Engines that are specced for Xw20
oils are holding up *EXTREMELY* well on Xw20 oils. The Ford Modular v8
family in particular seems to thrive on it, and its been specced for it
longer than just about any other engine.
Part of that may also be due to the fact that the current Xw20 oils tend
to use better base stocks and additive packages than 5w30 and 10w30 oils
from the same manufacturers. Its sort of a case of, "to make an Xw20,
the oil company HAS to use the good stuff." Also, most 5w20 oils are far
on the "thick" end of the allowable 20-wt range, almost as thick as
thinner 30 wts.
Toyota MDT in MO
Bingo!
>Also, most 5w20 oils are far
> on the "thick" end of the allowable 20-wt range, almost as thick as
> thinner 30 wts.
Toyota MDT in MO
Tegger
> On Jul 21, 1:52�pm, "Ray O" <rokig...@NOSPAMtristarassociates.com>
> wrote:
>> "Toyota MDT in MO" <toyotamdti...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> On Jul 21, 6:31 am, Tegger <inva...@invalid.inv> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Built_Well <Built_Well_Toy...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > news:4a652030$0$28114
>> > $892e0...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
>>
>> > > As usual, it takes a smart man like Ray to shed light on the
>> > > subject. The part numbers are different for the clutch discs
>> > > found inside the '06 and '07 U250E transmissions. According to
>> > > ToyotaPartsAndService.com, the '06 clutch disc has a part number
>> > > of 31250-28181, whereas the '07 clutch disc has a part number of
>> > > 31250-33040.
>>
>>
>> > Toyota MDT was right all along, with Ray O now supporting him. You
>> > yourself
>> > proved Toyota MDT correct by digging up the part numbers that
>> > proved his original assertion.
>>
>> You haven't caught the incredible wrongness of BW's number digging
>> paragraph either. �I'll wait to see if anyone gets it.
>>
>> Toyota MDT in MO
>>
>> ***************
>> Now that you pointed it out, I got it. �Kinda throws a stick into the
>> argument.
>> --
>>
>> Ray O
>> (correct punctuation to reply)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yup. It may take a lot of manual labor to figure it out.
>
> Toyota MDT in MO
I've been away on vacation for a couple of weeks, and I notice this
thread kinda died here.
You're right that I did not notice any "wrongness" with Built_Well's
numbers. That was because I never checked the numbers themselves.
Built_Well's part numbers are for a MANUAL TRANSMISSION!
LOL!
--
Tegger
Ray O
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:Xns9C5C6844...@208.90.168.18...
I didn't check the part numbers at first either until MDT in MO hinted.