Using Aisin ATF oil
 

Hey guys,
I've been doing some research on the alternative of Volvo ATF on my 6 speed AWTF-80SC. Last two weeks I've decided to use the Aisin AFW+ (marketed as Aisin WS in the US). From the internet I've seen one guy in russia have used it on the same tranny for his ford mondeo.

Aisin does not list volvo XC90 in their website as part of the vehicle list. I thought that it is just because they wouldn't bother to do it coz the list could be very long.

Also, my logic is since Aisin had developed the tranny, they must have also produced the correct fluid for them. There are only 3 types of fluid from Aisin, namely the AFW, AFW+ and CVT, according to their Japanese website.

When I mixed the old volvo fluid with the AFW+ they seems to mix well and no separation even after many days. The color are also the same (just dye).

So because the cost of the AFW is 1/3 of the volvo fluid, I managed to flush using 3 x 4l cans. From my experience, I don't see any problem in shifting at all. But my wife who drives it daily said she noticed the shift is a bit smoother.

So it has been two weeks since the flush. And before I get overconfident, how long does it take for a transmission to show symptom of incorrect fluid (I hope not!!)?

[QUOTE=maxiz1;2323557And before I get overconfident, how long does it take for a transmission to show symptom of incorrect fluid (I hope not!!)?[/QUOTE]

I'm picking 5 to 10 years

Seriously?? Then im not worried at all

Any transmission oil will work well at the start, and at nominal temperatures and under nominal load.

The differences are the performance under extremes of temperature and load, and long term.

So replace the specified transmission oil with any old oil and you can probably drive OK for 6 months at normal UK temperatures.

But what will it be like in 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
At really cold temperatures?
At really hot temperatures?

THAT is when the right oil really makes a difference.

It is a cost vs risk decision. Although AW might not list the XC90 on their website - do they list any other vehicles that use the TF-80SC box (post '07 Ford Mundano, several Vauxhall/GM and Saab models, 2.2D X-Type Jaguar) ?

Every manufacturer that used the TF-80 states very clearly that JWS3309 spec fluid is to be used, does the AFW meet that spec? I'm all for taking risks to cut cost - if only if you are prepared to accept the consequences if it goes wrong - i.e. fund a new gearbox. It isn't unknown that using the wrong fluid can wreck drivetrain components (e.g. GL5 transmission oil in older cars that have copper components). I aren't sure what JWS3309 means specifically but I am led to think it's to do with the material that the clutches are made of.

They might not list it because Volvo said the box was sealed for life in its applications, perhaps? (Being semi-serious)

You are quite right but they do recommend changing it every 50,000 if towing or if run as a taxi

...and 25,000 if towing taxis, presumably ;)

I shall add that to my databank of ephemara (no, really I will :))

I guess I need to find out myself and probably post an update again after 6 months or so.

5 additional years on top of my 6 year old SUV is acceptable because that is the normal life of a tranny even being maintained with OEM fluid. Other tranny such as ZF is even worse because their repair manual implies that significant wear could occur after 80k km.

From my research, JWS3309 is simply Toyota T-IV or Aisin AFW. The AFW+ is the higher grade version. Similar to those Dexron ranges.

Out of curiosity, how many of you actually using other than volvo genuine fluid?

Your XC90 is only 6 years old?
It's only just come out of warranty.
I'd be using original parts and oils until at least 10 years of age to retain reliability.

I'd be considering the risk of a replacement transmission cost (thousands) vs the extra cost of Volvo transmission fluid (not much) and using that to make my decision.

I have a XC with an AW50/51 AWD transmission. I've been using Toyota T-IV since 97000 km. It has now 188k km and the transmission is fine.

I also used to have a V40 and a S80 which also used a similar transmission calling for the same JW3309. Both cars after buying I used Toyota T-IV. The S80 from 80k to 135k km. The V40 from 98k to 198k km. The V40 was sold with the transmission running fine of which the buyer was pretty impressed compared the other V40 he has tested/

I do adhere to a regular ATF change which probably contributes a fair bit to a trouble free transmissions. Whether using Toyota T-IV in the long run would cause damage, I can't say for 100%. But it has worked for me till now.

First time I've heard of Aisin AFW, interesting reading it up and seeing that it's synthetic. Could potentially lengthen the ATF life.

Mannol jws3309 in my 2006 TF80SC for over a year, no problems created just gearbox improvements and harsh engagement of reverse gone.
It's real cheap on German eBay such that I have another 25l in the shed for next year already!
:thumbs_up:

After knowing that Aisin sells their own ATF I did some searching and from Aisin website, this is the recommended ATF for XC90 with an Aisin.

https://i.imgur.com/pQaQFeol.png

The label on volvo genuine ATF 1161540 specifies use for AW 5 or 6 speed up to year 2010. According to various sources in the internet, this is the same as JWS 3309 or Type T-IV.

For > 2010, my volvo dealer said to use volvo 31256774 fluid. Further cross check 31256774 = WS fluid = Aisin AFW+. According to: http://www.exedy.com.au/assets/file/..._Datasheet.pdf, it is indeed synthetic.

I believe that Aisin only produces two types of fluids for conventional transmission (other than the CVT), namely T-IV & WS (US market) or AFW & AFW+ (asian and russian market). They may have a different branding in Europe. I've asked Aisin to confirm whether they are the same but it seems that they are beating around the bush not directly answering my question. Maybe for legal & marketing reasons for different parts of the world.

I also have been researching the Aisin AFW+ and after a while snooping around, i finally saw on the side of the can as indicated in the picture that its suitable for Volvo using part no 1161540-8 and also Toyota T-IV/WS was listed as well but Volvo wasn'y list in spec sheet obtained from the website.

I dug into this in detail here:
https://forums.swedespeed.com/showth...AW-1-(JWS-3324)

The fluid change over goes by vin break (as explained in a TJ). 2013+ XC90s use AW-1 / Type WS / JWS 3324 fluid.
Other Volvo models using the TF-80SC Gen II switched to AW-1 fluid earlier.

Hi maxiz1

Are you still using the Aisin ATF? Any updates on how's your transmission going after 3 years? :teeth_smile:

My XC90 is now at 230k kms and the AW50/51 is fine. Recently after many years using Toyota T-IV the fluid was partially changed to Volvo ATF. The volvo was at a shop for something else and was due for a ATF refresh. The shop was aware of some volvo owners using T-IV and he doesn't recommend it. They said the quality is inferior to Volvo.

Anyhow, after the Volvo ATF the transmission surprisingly felt much better compared to previous drain refill with T-IV.

Now I'm wondering whether I should change to something else. I found the regional Aisin Singapore website has an application chart for their Aisin AFW+. Under Volvo it lists a few part numbers. At first I thought it was the transmission part no but after searching a bit in VIDA - the part no given by Aisin are actually the Volvo ATF part no which matches with the XC90.

With AFW+ being synthetic, I'm tempted to give it a try.

I have used Mobil1 ATF before in the V40 with no ill effects. But this was when the bottle specified compatible with T-IV/ JWS3309. After the new packaging omitted these specs, I stopped using.

If your old fluid was due for a refresh as you put it, chances are any new fluid would have felt better. In other words if you'd changed it yourself with the same T-IV as before, you would have had an improvement.

Also on higher mileage cars, using the "flushing/Gibbon" change method isn't a great idea. Much better to do a few part-changes aka "sump-dumps" over the course of 3-4 months spaced a month apart. Reduces the risk of the new fluid (in bulk) blowing old seals that have partially dried out due to the old fluid. Also removes more dirt and sediment from the box keeping it cleaner which means it runs cooler. Lots of other benefits too!

Sorry for jumping in here. :) Does that mean, that at some point I should switch from "sump-dumps" to the Gibbons method? Let's say after five or six dumps the transmission is ready enough?

After many readings I did/do only the sump-dumps, but do I stay with that or do I better change?

TIA

Stick with sump-dumps, it's much gentler on the box (especially higher mileage boxes) - as i stated " Also on higher mileage cars, using the "flushing/Gibbon" change method isn't a great idea. "

Just to reiterate, it isn't a great idea to use the flushing/Gibbon method! :nah:

After 5-6 part-changes (sump-dumps) revert to one part-change a year to maintain it.

Here we go again - this old-wives-tale about flushing the gearbox doing harm.

Flushing an engine with old oil can cause problems, but not a auto gearbox. The fluid in the gearbox is constantly circulated through all the galleries, the torque converter and the cooler. There is a filter in the sump (not servicable) which will catch debris. There will only be debris if something is broken internally.

The flush method (so called Gibbons method after a member who posted it here a few years ago) is the official method as described in VIDA. It is simple and quick to carry out and will change almost all the fluid on one go. Do it and your gearbox will improve!

The only equipment you need (apart from normal spanners etc) is a length of clear pvc hose, 5cm of garden hose and a funnel.

I can go into more detail if you wish

That is for a NEW gearbox! :rolleyes:

Seriously, i have no axe to grind here but don't want people to use a method that HAS BEEN PROVEN to cause problems on older boxes of various makes. Why do Volvo continue to use it on higher mileage cars? For the same reason as all manufacturers do, they know sooner or later a seal will fail inside the box and necessitate a new gearbox - you can almost hear them rub their hands in glee at the thought of it!

It's NOT an old-wives-tale and how many old wives do you know that change their own ATF? :thinking:

The debris comes from the natural wear of clutch packs (in one of mine) and brake bands (in the other) wearing because they are friction material. This causes dust, some of it metallic and this will ultimately settle at the lowest point through gravity. Using the sump-dump, preferably with an electric oil transfer pump down the dipstick hole with the car raised so the point where the diptstick enters the box is as low as possible, to remove the old fluid means more of that sediment/debris will be removed - there is a neck round the drain plug on many gearbox sumps which means the debris sits around the drain plug.

Something we both agree on though, old fluid is one of the biggest enemies for an auto box.

Just on that theme, I've seen images of engines that have been run without oil changes where the cack build up (stop me if I get too technical!) is very visible.

Is there anything similar for a failed autobox showing the build-up which is being discussed?

The flush method begins with draining the sump.

If it helps I tried both methods on my gearbox last year when it was failing and there was an immediate improvement after both ways of changing the oil but not for long.

The oil that came out was burnt and full of debris which turned out later after a rebuild was the clutch packs had completely burnt out.

But I don’t think either method is bad for it but if the damage is already done then no method will ultimately help.

There's a few things that can cause that, what box was it?

I was under the impression that the reason not to do a "gibbons" jobby was purely so that you do not force any debris into parts it shouldn't reach, but once you've done a sump dump, added new and let that circulate for a time, then a "gibbons" is beneficial......

:nah: Not if it's high mileage, sump-dump every time but if it hasn't been done for a while, a sump-dump once a month for 2-3 months then once a year.

It’s my 56 plate 185 6 speed it made 180000 miles I bought it on 113000 and done a lot of stop start so that’s what probably did it.

It was still driving but slipping constantly.

Sounds suspiciously like a combination of stop-start driving and lack of maintenance i.e. fluid changes that killed it. Surprised it uses clutch packs but not the clutch packs i'm more used to that replace the job of synchro rings in a manual box. No planetary gear sets in the box i've got with clutch packs!. :nah:

It wasn’t due to lack of maintenance I’ve owned over 6 years and changed the gearbox oil 6 times, the gearbox specialist put it down to short journeys constantly changing gear.

But they also said the filter was full which can’t be changed unless it’s split apart was full which didn’t help anything as the bits need to go somewhere and contaminate the rest of the box.

How do they know that, I wonder. Does vida tell them?

It was when they took it apart and rebuilt it.