2006 171K Miles, Keep Or Trade In?
02-12-14, 04:30 AM
#16
02-12-14, 07:16 AM
#17
Lexus Champion
I was checking out tundrasolutions.com today in the 1st gen section and saw their "how many miles" thread. There are guys over there with 200K / 300K / 400K and 2 with over 700K miles...same engine / same trans.
One of the guys that has over 740K miles said within that time he only changed the trans fluid once because his trans cooler failed and sucked in coolant.
02-12-14, 07:27 AM
#18
I for one will continue to change my trucks transmission fluid every 60-65k miless which is consistent with my research on the subject and specfically regarding the useful life of the Toyota WS Lifetime ATF. This methodolgy is followed by many on the Tundra board as well and is supported by ATF fulid samples that were tested by Blackstone. Similarly the same recommendations are being made by senior technician/editor at Roundel regarding the BMW the lifetime ATF fluid found in newer BMW's again supported by Blackstone test results. I followed the same protocal with my BMW.
I intend to drive the wheels off of my truck and transmission rebuilds or replacements are very expensive, so I look at it as relatively cheap insurance every 5 ot 6 yrs or so to ensure the long term health of my trucks transmission.
02-12-14, 08:18 AM
#19
Lexus Test Driver
At 170k miles, you still have 30k miles left till it's even broken in.
The drivetrain in these thing's is literally bulletproof! Keep driving it! You have hundred of thousands of miles left on that truck.
The drivetrain in these thing's is literally bulletproof! Keep driving it! You have hundred of thousands of miles left on that truck.
02-12-14, 08:21 AM
#20
Lead Lap
My 2005 GX has a little under 40,000 miles on it, and it still has the original pads. When I had it in for service a couple of thousand miles ago, I was told that the pads are less than half worn. That said, my typical driving doesn't involve frequent use of the brakes, and I tend to be rather gentle with the way that I apply the brakes when they are used.
02-12-14, 09:05 AM
#21
Lexus Champion
I would love to see the links of those reports because all I could fine are two Blackstone reports regarding Toyota WS, one of which was done at 100,944 miles and Blackstone stated:"Silicon, sodium, potassium, insolubles, and water all read nice and low in this sample
from your 2005 Lexus, so we don't see any problems there. But we did find some iron, copper, lead and tin, which usually come from clutch plates. Since this is original oil, these metals are probably left-overs from wear-in as well as accumulated metals from the long oil use, so we don't think this is anything to worry about.
The next sample should look better."
Most Tundra owners that change the trans fluid before 100K miles either have the 2nd gen Tundra (different trans) or they use their 1st gen for work IE:towing / hauling etc., so they do what Toyota and Lexus recommends for towing which is to change it at 60K miles, some even sooner if the trans temp gets high enough.
It's your GX do what you see fit. For me the proof is w/ other Toyota vehicles that uses the same engine / same trans as our GX going 200K+ miles on the same trans fluid. All I'm saying is there's no evidence that supports what you say that changing the transmission fluid every 60K miles on a daily driver will make the trans last any longer that if you were to never change it at all.
*I'm bowing out of this thread. It's been side tracked enough about transmission fluid
*
02-12-14, 09:59 AM
#22
Well supported by Blackstone to change Toyota WS fluid every 60K-65K miles? I would love to see the links of those reports because all I could fine are two Blackstone reports regarding Toyota WS, one of which was done at 100,944 miles and Blackstone stated:
"Silicon, sodium, potassium, insolubles, and water all read nice and low in this sample
from your 2005 Lexus, so we don't see any problems there. But we did find some iron, copper, lead and tin, which usually come from clutch plates. Since this is original oil, these metals are probably left-overs from wear-in as well as accumulated metals from the long oil use, so we don't think this is anything to worry about.
The next sample should look better."
Most Tundra owners that change the trans fluid before 100K miles either have the 2nd gen Tundra (different trans) or they use their 1st gen for work IE:towing / hauling etc., so they do what Toyota and Lexus recommends for towing which is to change it at 60K miles, some even sooner if the trans temp gets high enough.
It's your GX do what you see fit. For me the proof is w/ other Toyota vehicles that uses the same engine / same trans as our GX going 200K+ miles on the same trans fluid. All I'm saying is there's no evidence that supports what you say that changing the transmission fluid every 60K miles on a daily driver will make the trans last any longer that if you were to never change it at all.
*I'm bowing out of this thread. It's been side tracked enough about transmission fluid *
I would love to see the links of those reports because all I could fine are two Blackstone reports regarding Toyota WS, one of which was done at 100,944 miles and Blackstone stated:"Silicon, sodium, potassium, insolubles, and water all read nice and low in this sample
from your 2005 Lexus, so we don't see any problems there. But we did find some iron, copper, lead and tin, which usually come from clutch plates. Since this is original oil, these metals are probably left-overs from wear-in as well as accumulated metals from the long oil use, so we don't think this is anything to worry about.
The next sample should look better."
Most Tundra owners that change the trans fluid before 100K miles either have the 2nd gen Tundra (different trans) or they use their 1st gen for work IE:towing / hauling etc., so they do what Toyota and Lexus recommends for towing which is to change it at 60K miles, some even sooner if the trans temp gets high enough.
It's your GX do what you see fit. For me the proof is w/ other Toyota vehicles that uses the same engine / same trans as our GX going 200K+ miles on the same trans fluid. All I'm saying is there's no evidence that supports what you say that changing the transmission fluid every 60K miles on a daily driver will make the trans last any longer that if you were to never change it at all.
*I'm bowing out of this thread. It's been side tracked enough about transmission fluid
*I really do not understand what your ponit is here other than to be argumentative. If you don't agree with the recommendation, it's easy do not follow it.
The same cane be said for anyone else, we are all intelligent enough to make our own informed decisions.As for the Blackstone lab test results on the Tundra forum, my comments were specific to the Toyota WS Lifetime fluid, the same fluid found in our GX. Irrespective of the fact it was a Tundra, the POINT being, no fluid is "Liftetime." The results clearly indiciated the fluid degrades considerably over time/milage - beyond 50k miles. Many on the Tundra forum follow a similar protical as I do. I also think it is a reach for you to assume what "most Tundra owners" are doing.
As for your example, the comments taken from the report are from an LS430 if I am not mistaken. And the comments do not suggest the fluid did not needt to be changed or if it should have been changed earlier.
To quote another member in response to these test results and some of the initial interprutations, I think sums it up quite well....
Amazing how two people can look at the same report and read the same comments by Blackstone and come to two different conclusions. I couldn't disagree with your comments more. For one thing, Blackstone isn't suggesting that the fluid shouldn't be changed (which they would do if it was still in good shape). Second, the levels of wear metals are HIGH compared to other analysis I've seen. Third, the viscosity is low and out of spec for this fluid. My conclusion is that 100k miles is too far and that Blackstone test further supports that point of view. Sorry elite7 but I think you are terribly wrong with regard to your conclusions.
Andrew
Andrew
Blackstone responded to my two questions today. Below are my questions and their responses...
Question #1:
The levels of iron, copper, lead and tin are all elevated in the
report. Would it have done any harm to continue running this oil in my
transmission? I don't know how many PPM the levels would need to be at
to consider them harmful to the transmission if I were to continue to
run it. Do these elements act as an abrasive when they're suspended in
the oil at certain PPM?
Blackstone Response:
It's possible this oil could have been left in use without any damage being done to the transmission. Some types of transmission are more sensitive to others when it comes to wear. The accumulated wear metals do make the oil abrasive though we don't know the exact point at which that happens.
Question #2:
For the universal averages, how are those established? What is the
point of reference / baseline you're referencing for those numbers?
Blackstone Response:
The universal averages show average wear from all normal looking Toyota automatic transmissions we have seen. If we are given miles on the oil, we average that too and for this transmission, the average oil run is about 25,000 miles.
Question #1:
The levels of iron, copper, lead and tin are all elevated in the
report. Would it have done any harm to continue running this oil in my
transmission? I don't know how many PPM the levels would need to be at
to consider them harmful to the transmission if I were to continue to
run it. Do these elements act as an abrasive when they're suspended in
the oil at certain PPM?
Blackstone Response:
It's possible this oil could have been left in use without any damage being done to the transmission. Some types of transmission are more sensitive to others when it comes to wear. The accumulated wear metals do make the oil abrasive though we don't know the exact point at which that happens.
Question #2:
For the universal averages, how are those established? What is the
point of reference / baseline you're referencing for those numbers?
Blackstone Response:
The universal averages show average wear from all normal looking Toyota automatic transmissions we have seen. If we are given miles on the oil, we average that too and for this transmission, the average oil run is about 25,000 miles.
Well that certainly doesn't give me the warm an fuzzies.
And I concur with Andrew's assessment of the anslysis that you are referencing.
Hi JimsGX -
I went back and looked again at the .pdf you posted and realized a few things now that we understand what the universal averages mean for this fluid. I've noticed that many of the additive levels are much lower than the averages, in particular the zinc, but also the phosphorus, calcium and boron. All of these elements are components of additives used in engine oil and I'm assuming serve a similar purpose in the transmission fluid. All of the wear metals are high and many of them are more than 4x higher than the universal averages. If the wear rate was linear, you would expect your numbers to be about 4x the average, 25,000 miles to 100,000 miles. As an example, the lead levels are about 9x higher and the copper around 5x higher. What this tells me is that as wear metals accumulate in the fluid, as the viscosity drops and as the additives are used up, the rate of wear increases.
Blackstone's comments with regard to at which point these variations become an issue doesn't surprise me at all. They have not conducted stress testing on this transmission type with this fluid type to know at what threshold the transmission is truly at risk. All they can do is show the fact based information with respect to the measurable attributes of the fluid and let you as the owner (and by extension all of us on this message board) draw conclusions as to what this means. The possibility does exist that with a zinc level of 8 (instead of 54) is still sufficient to protect the sliding parts in the transmission. Likewise it is also possible that higher levels of wear metals (at an accelerated rate) were planned for by Toyota and also not a problem. Blackstone simply does not have the proper engineering information to draw that conclusion and, frankly, neither do we.
On the other hand, the report does allow us to draw some conclusions. For example, we can clearly see that the additive pack is being used up and that some of the additive levels are quite low relative to the universal averages. We also can see that the wear metals are up and are increasing in at a non-linear rate relative to the universal average rates. We can also see that the viscosity is low and is outside the lower bound for the normal range. These are the facts which lead me to draw a conclusion. In my opinion, the fluid is past it's usable life at 100k miles.
At the moment, we don't have enough samples/data points to draw any conclusions about what mileage might be an "optimal" mileage to change the fluid other than to say it looks like 100k is too many miles. I would suggest that as many of us as possible submit samples of our transmission fluid for testing to allow all of us to come to some point of view as to how many miles can be reasonably driven on the OEM transmission fluid before a complete fluid exchange is conducted.
JimsGX, thanks for taking action for all of us, this is very insightful information and hopefully the start of additional fact based analysis.
Regards,
Andrew
I went back and looked again at the .pdf you posted and realized a few things now that we understand what the universal averages mean for this fluid. I've noticed that many of the additive levels are much lower than the averages, in particular the zinc, but also the phosphorus, calcium and boron. All of these elements are components of additives used in engine oil and I'm assuming serve a similar purpose in the transmission fluid. All of the wear metals are high and many of them are more than 4x higher than the universal averages. If the wear rate was linear, you would expect your numbers to be about 4x the average, 25,000 miles to 100,000 miles. As an example, the lead levels are about 9x higher and the copper around 5x higher. What this tells me is that as wear metals accumulate in the fluid, as the viscosity drops and as the additives are used up, the rate of wear increases.
Blackstone's comments with regard to at which point these variations become an issue doesn't surprise me at all. They have not conducted stress testing on this transmission type with this fluid type to know at what threshold the transmission is truly at risk. All they can do is show the fact based information with respect to the measurable attributes of the fluid and let you as the owner (and by extension all of us on this message board) draw conclusions as to what this means. The possibility does exist that with a zinc level of 8 (instead of 54) is still sufficient to protect the sliding parts in the transmission. Likewise it is also possible that higher levels of wear metals (at an accelerated rate) were planned for by Toyota and also not a problem. Blackstone simply does not have the proper engineering information to draw that conclusion and, frankly, neither do we.
On the other hand, the report does allow us to draw some conclusions. For example, we can clearly see that the additive pack is being used up and that some of the additive levels are quite low relative to the universal averages. We also can see that the wear metals are up and are increasing in at a non-linear rate relative to the universal average rates. We can also see that the viscosity is low and is outside the lower bound for the normal range. These are the facts which lead me to draw a conclusion. In my opinion, the fluid is past it's usable life at 100k miles.
At the moment, we don't have enough samples/data points to draw any conclusions about what mileage might be an "optimal" mileage to change the fluid other than to say it looks like 100k is too many miles. I would suggest that as many of us as possible submit samples of our transmission fluid for testing to allow all of us to come to some point of view as to how many miles can be reasonably driven on the OEM transmission fluid before a complete fluid exchange is conducted.
JimsGX, thanks for taking action for all of us, this is very insightful information and hopefully the start of additional fact based analysis.
Regards,
Andrew
Conclusion:
So based on all the info from Blackstone, which probably raised as many questions as it answered, call me crazy, but here's how I plan to handle my transmission and differential fluid changes:
I'll be doing a fluid change on the transmission and differential every 30k miles. I drive about 15k miles a year, so the cost to do this is about $100 a year ($200 per exchange). It takes more effort / cycles to try and decipher when it really needs to be changed as opposed to just doing it, and I did see an improvement with the smoothness / quickness of the shifting, which I'd like to maintain. Since you don't get all the oil out every time you do an exchange, a 30k mile interval will help to maintain the viscosity of the fluid, and keep the level of contaminants under control as the components continue to wear.
Jim
I'll be doing a fluid change on the transmission and differential every 30k miles. I drive about 15k miles a year, so the cost to do this is about $100 a year ($200 per exchange). It takes more effort / cycles to try and decipher when it really needs to be changed as opposed to just doing it, and I did see an improvement with the smoothness / quickness of the shifting, which I'd like to maintain. Since you don't get all the oil out every time you do an exchange, a 30k mile interval will help to maintain the viscosity of the fluid, and keep the level of contaminants under control as the components continue to wear.
Jim
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/ls4...id-thread.html
And all I am saying here is, I am following a 'best practices' preventative maintenance procedure and there is more evidence out there to support my position than not and I do not think you will ever hear anyone say that changing transmission fluid more frequently is a bad thing.
Last edited by cssnms; 02-12-14 at 10:09 AM.
02-12-14, 11:10 AM
#23
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Oregon
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you guys are talking about changing your trans fluids, are you talking full flushes, or drain and fills?
On a side note, I am very impressed they offered the OP $12,300 as a trade in value. I would have thought that with 170k+ mi, the GX would be worth quite a bit less.
On a side note, I am very impressed they offered the OP $12,300 as a trade in value. I would have thought that with 170k+ mi, the GX would be worth quite a bit less.
02-12-14, 11:41 AM
#24
When you guys are talking about changing your trans fluids, are you talking full flushes, or drain and fills?
On a side note, I am very impressed they offered the OP $12,300 as a trade in value. I would have thought that with 170k+ mi, the GX would be worth quite a bit less.
On a side note, I am very impressed they offered the OP $12,300 as a trade in value. I would have thought that with 170k+ mi, the GX would be worth quite a bit less.
Last edited by cssnms; 02-12-14 at 11:45 AM.
02-12-14, 11:53 AM
#25
I sold cars few lifetimes ago, while I was finishing up school... they show you the 'Trade/Savings' on paper, doesn't mean you're getting full $12.300 for your car as that may show the discount off of the MSRP on new car. (hence I used the example of '$10k' on my reply)
The 'ACV' (actual cash value) on the trade is something that isn't even shared with the salespeople.
They 'adjust' the dollar amount, so if they have too much money into one of the cars on their used car lot, they'll take the $$ off of that car and add it to a 'new' trade in, etc.
02-12-14, 12:12 PM
#26
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: NC
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sold cars few lifetimes ago, while I was finishing up school... they show you the 'Trade/Savings' on paper, doesn't mean you're getting full $12.300 for your car as that may show the discount off of the MSRP on new car. (hence I used the example of '$10k' on my reply)
The 'ACV' (actual cash value) on the trade is something that isn't even shared with the salespeople.
They 'adjust' the dollar amount, so if they have too much money into one of the cars on their used car lot, they'll take the $$ off of that car and add it to a 'new' trade in, etc.
The 'ACV' (actual cash value) on the trade is something that isn't even shared with the salespeople.
They 'adjust' the dollar amount, so if they have too much money into one of the cars on their used car lot, they'll take the $$ off of that car and add it to a 'new' trade in, etc.
02-12-14, 01:30 PM
#28
Driver School Candidate
That mechanic is probably referring to the early UZJ100 Land Cruisers and 2000 Tundras. The 1998, 99 and 2000 models did have transmission issues, but the problem was designed out by 2001. And that was true, the trannies were failing before 175K; most of them failed before 100K actually. But after 2001, the trannies have been solid and bulletproof.
There is no question that I would keep it. I got rid of my '99 UZJ100 a little over a year ago with 262K miles, and it was running great. I regret getting rid of it, but then again, it did lead to me buying my GX ....
There is no question that I would keep it. I got rid of my '99 UZJ100 a little over a year ago with 262K miles, and it was running great. I regret getting rid of it, but then again, it did lead to me buying my GX ....
02-12-14, 02:39 PM
#29
Cssnms,
I dont think RC was coming across as argumentative, I follow this forum several times a day and I can tell you one thing, this guy is a gem, and really goes out of the way to help out.
I read your posts and I have always wondered about complete flush in the past several months. I tend to agree with you on the flush. However, I spoke to senior tech at lexus, he also said the same thing lifetime oil. I personally dont believe on the fluid being lifetime.
Another example, if I recall it correctly they also have lifetime fluid on the TC or Differential cant remember at the moment, anyway when I flushed it it was in terrible condition.
While we are on fluid subject, yesterday I checked my steering fluid and it was not dark red or red. It was brown in color and rubbing with fingers felt less of viscosity.
If I am going to do the change I would like to completely flush and drop the pan, since all of the garbage tends to sit at the bottom.
Also, the biggest deterrent in changing/flushing here is watching for temp and it is hard DIY, since the temp has to be monitored. I wish there was DIY on our T, I think I saw DIY on LS.
Regards
I dont think RC was coming across as argumentative, I follow this forum several times a day and I can tell you one thing, this guy is a gem, and really goes out of the way to help out.
I read your posts and I have always wondered about complete flush in the past several months. I tend to agree with you on the flush. However, I spoke to senior tech at lexus, he also said the same thing lifetime oil. I personally dont believe on the fluid being lifetime.
Another example, if I recall it correctly they also have lifetime fluid on the TC or Differential cant remember at the moment, anyway when I flushed it it was in terrible condition.
While we are on fluid subject, yesterday I checked my steering fluid and it was not dark red or red. It was brown in color and rubbing with fingers felt less of viscosity.
If I am going to do the change I would like to completely flush and drop the pan, since all of the garbage tends to sit at the bottom.
Also, the biggest deterrent in changing/flushing here is watching for temp and it is hard DIY, since the temp has to be monitored. I wish there was DIY on our T, I think I saw DIY on LS.
Regards
02-12-14, 05:33 PM
#30
The closest to real ACV you're going to see is to have it appraised by your local carmax.