When To Change Atf

[TechHater]

mine is a brandnew 2012 kia sportage a daily runner of short distances and now has 42000km on the clock. At the recent service (a*to Mi**ge dematagoda) the service guy insists its time to change ATF. but i remembered in the owners manual clearly mentioning ATF change is at 100000km for countries with extreme driving conditions.

he says in sri lanka its recommended to change ATF at 40K. KIA service centre (which i have no faith at all) says the same.

can some one give insight about the matter.

Edited June 17, 2016 by TechHater

[Twin Turbo]

Case in point

toyota sucks

Member

• 
• Members
• 
• 478 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Toyota City

Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:05 AM

The 110's are giving a lot of transmission problems these days haven't they
there are 2 topics here about them
I just guess they r going out of their usable life time
as they r about 15yrs old and have 170 000 km or more on the clock
(probably as they are not with digital meters they will be changed from 270 000km to this figure)
so I'd like to tell the idiots who bought these for about 2mill, they can go for a considerably new and low millage n16 lancer for a similar price without buying those rust buckets which r on the edge of the cliff

[Twin Turbo]

If the product's technology does not suit the operating conditions, it 's just a matter of time till it fails.no matter how it's maintained . But if we exploit/abuse the thing , it'll reach it's end of usable life faster.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Twin Turbo

[The Stig]

ATF change is not the main reason for Gear Box failure.

Please go through below topic.

http://forum.autolanka.com/topic/17782-toyota-allion-nzt260-cvt-gearbox-issue/?hl=allion'>http://forum.autolanka.com/topic/17782-toyota-allion-nzt260-cvt-gearbox-issue/?hl=allion

Post #10 says the owner has changed CVT fluid always less than 40K. but it has already failed.

Quote:

Yes I am the first owner here in SL although the car had close to 30k mileage when I got it in 2010. I've been changing the fluid every 35-40k. Never ran it without changing it past 40.

unquote.

Any mechanical part could be failed due to several reasons in any moment of its service life. But our makabases are thinking GB's are failing due to not changing ATF in every 40K millage.

Yes obviously Atf change will not keep the gearbox running forever. However tendency to fail will be higher if you don't, that what the guys are on about. Also it's not fair to compare a cvt with a traditional auto box and say that gearboxes fail even if you change Atf on time. Lifetime is one of the biggest Achilles heels of a cvt, and since we are talking about an auto tranny here it's almost irrelevant.

[vishkid]

Actually the real question here is what OP raised. Only iRage gave a somewhat reasonable answer to that I think.

These are the things I've been able to fathom;

- the manufacturer recommends not changing the ATF or not to even bother checking the ATF for the lifetime of the vehicle under normal operating conditions

- the manufacturer recommends changing ATF for the severe conditions at 100,000km for severe conditions which is laid out in black and white and highlighted in Jor-el's post. We can all safely assume this applies to Sri Lanka

(on a personal note I can tell you that this is the same recommendation from almost all KIA service agents in the US, specifically from CA; that is to follow the severe conditions schedule. But KIA US themselves suggest sticking to normal conditions schedule if that's what applies and they will uphold the warranty)

- nowhere in there is a recommendation for a 40,000km ATF change

- service agents in Sri Lanka suggest a 40,000km change, to which they cannot cite any basis nor any anecdotal evidence.

- there is NO local record of transmission failure because someone did not change ATF at 40k. OTOH, I found anecdotal evidence of cars functioning properly with ATF changes at 70k+

- there are transmission failures in vehicles due to improper maintenance, granted. But most failures cannot be attributed to ATF and will fail whether you change ATF at 20k or 75k

- CVT tranny's are not comparable to this discussion

- ATF change for a Sportage/Sorento would be around 20-25k LKR only (correct me if I'm wrong)

So 40k snake oil? Or a prudent decision to buy yourself (relatively cheap) peace of mind?

Edited June 22, 2016 by vishkid

[gayanath]

Actually the real question here is what OP raised. Only iRage gave a somewhat reasonable answer to that I think.

These are the things I've been able to fathom;

- the manufacturer recommends not changing the ATF or not to even bother checking the ATF for the lifetime of the vehicle under normal operating conditions

- the manufacturer recommends changing ATF for the severe conditions at 100,000km for severe conditions which is laid out in black and white and highlighted in Jor-el's post. We can all safely assume this applies to Sri Lanka

(on a personal note I can tell you that this is the same recommendation from almost all KIA service agents in the US, specifically from CA; that is to follow the severe conditions schedule. But KIA US themselves suggest sticking to normal conditions schedule if that's what applies and they will uphold the warranty)

- nowhere in there is a recommendation for a 40,000km ATF change

- service agents in Sri Lanka suggest a 40,000km change, to which they cannot cite any basis nor any anecdotal evidence.

- there is NO local record of transmission failure because someone did not change ATF at 40k. OTOH, I found anecdotal evidence of cars functioning properly with ATF changes at 70k+

- there are transmission failures in vehicles due to improper maintenance, granted. But most failures cannot be attributed to ATF and will fail whether you change ATF at 20k or 75k

- CVT tranny's are not comparable to this discussion

- ATF change for a Sportage/Sorento would be around 20-25k LKR only (correct me if I'm wrong)

So 40k snake oil? Or a prudent decision to buy yourself (relatively cheap) peace of mind?

You have nicely summarized every thing above. Great.

Adding,

- The risk of unnecessarily intervene of unqualified mechanics (in most of our service stations) to change transmission oils in frequent intervals also should be considered. If I explain it some other words, doing an operation to a patient is always a risk. Therefore, should do an operation, only his/her life is under threat by not doing it. (I know several engine related issues after unnecessary engine tuneups (cleanings) promoted by service stations but not recommended by manufactures).

Edited June 22, 2016 by gayanath

[Twin Turbo]

On 6/18/2016 at 1:50 PM, Vengeance said:

^Agree with the gentlemen above, its better to be safe than sorry.

Cheers mate, 

TT.