That was an interesting read, but ultimately rehashes much of the same stuff I find when I look for data on WS. Armchair engineers and people claiming this and that without any real evidence to prove their claims one way or the other.
The MSDS and viscosity specifications only tell part of the story, there's a strong lack of information on what additives are actually in the fluid and what purpose they service. For example, Toyota's Type-IV is a modified Dexron ATF with some extra additives; these days it's easily outclassed by most aftermarket offerings that have a better fluid construction than Type-IV. Unfortunately there's no significant data in that thread or anywhere else for that matter of what WS ATF is based off of. Strong implications are made that it is a Dexron VI based fluid, but lack of data makes that claim very thin. There's warranty concerns as well, but as I said before Valvoline has their own warranty that supplements the factory one if their fluid causes a failure; key point being you can prove their fluid was what caused the failure. Not to mention I haven't seen one aftermarket ATF that is certified or approved by Toyota for use, which means none of these manufacturers have either sent in their fluid to be reviewed or they did not pass; this is strictly based on what they think WS ATF specifications are and that their fluid meets it.
That brings us full circle to "What is WS ATF and What Are It's Specifications?" That question hasn't had a solid answer with scientific data to back it up as far as I have seen, which is very frustrating because I am sure some of these fluids do meet these requirements. Yet, without having correct data to work from, validating those claims is difficult. At least with Toyota's SLLC we know it's a Non-Silicate, Non-Bromine, Non-Amine, Non-Nitrite and Non-Borate Ethylene Glycol based coolant using HOAT (Hybrid Organic Acid Technology); so matching it up to an aftermarket coolant is fairly simple since we know it's base composition and rough additive packages. The same cannot be said of WS ATF, the only data we have is the JWS-3224 Specification, and some minor datapoints on flashpoint, Viscocity, ect. While a good starting point, it does not explain the fluid very well.
As I pointed out in a different thread, fluid technology has gotten complicated. For example Engine Oil, you can have multiple 5w-30 oils that will flow differently and work differently depending on their formulation and what specification they are designed for; VW's oil specifications are not listed as Viscosity because a 502.00 oil can be either 0w-30, 5w-30, or 5w-40 depending on the brand; but so is a 504.00 oil, yet putting the 504.00 oil in a 502.00 specified engine will cause bad things to happen. But their the same viscosity, so what gives? well the additive packages and designed formulation is different because the 504.00 is a diesel oil vs. the gasoline engine 502.00
Bottom line, trying to find solid data on WS ATF is a headache and ridiculously frustrating considering it's been on the market for a decade now. I would say the Valvoline ATF is okay to use (but I can't be 100% sure without accurate data), worst case the transmission fails and Valvoline has to hold up their warranty.
This is why it's frustrating to me to listen to other people claim to know that a non-factory specified fluid is better for the vehicle than the one the Toyota Engineers designed, tested, and approved. I'm not at all saying it's not possible, don't misunderstand me here; I'm just saying most of these arm-chair experts are spouting their opinions as fact when they barely have an empirical evidence let alone scientific evidence that stands up to scrutiny. That's why I always encourage members to post facts and data if they feel I have made a mistake in my posts, data will usually tell the story (and I have been wrong in the past), but just claiming something without some evidence is difficult. That's why I usually err on the side of caution and recommend to stick with factory fluids unless you can prove otherwise, absence of evidence is not enough to condemn a fluid's compatibility; but it's sure not enough to prove it either.
Post Note-
I like how the OP in that thread centers his entire claim around it being due to fluid waste costs. It's not entirely untrue, but that's a far smaller part of the reason when you consider the fact that if they can sell a "Lifetime ATF" that means the vehicles on paper have lower overhead maintenance costs compared to their competitors which is an attractive thing for a consumer. Not to mention that WS ATF is a very thin fluid, most likely for the same reason Toyota has adopted 0w-20 for their engines; to reduce frictional losses and eek out miniscule MPG gains for CAFE Standards. Not to mention part of the reason manufacturers in general went to these "Sealed Transmissions" was because owners were putting the wrong fluid in their dipstick transmissions and ruining them and then blaming the manufacturers. So they did what made sense, make it difficult for the owners/shops to put the wrong fluid because in the vehicles.
uke:
