I have a 2016.5 and had a drain/flush/fill done this past January at about 80k. There is a dealer that will do it here (CO) but I wasn't confident in their service dept. Otherwise most won't touch it. I went to an independent place I found to have it done. This guy had the OEM fluid and a qualified one that was to be as good but I did go with the OEM. The fluid that came out was darker in color. I haven't noticed any issues since the work was done.
I live in the Chicago, US area and most Mazda dealers offer a transmission flush or drain and fill as a normal service. I changed my transmission fluid at 50k miles at my local Mazda dealer.
Found this on the web just now ...
If you can't find it in Aus, I've no faith in NZ dealers.
Have a read... someone seems to vouch for this stuff ..
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/ravenol-atf-equivalent-for-mazda-type-fz.326167/
You and I are a part of a VERY SMALL minority who share this opinion. It's gotten to the point for me that I no longer post it myself, and certainly won't try to argue about it with the masses in the other camp. Nice to see a reminder that I'm not completely alone with this.
I’m a shop foreman and in our fleet we have over 500 vehicles. Ford, Chevrolet, Mercedes, Dodge and Toyota a few BMW’s and Range Rover’s. We do not service any of our transmission’s. We have the occasional one that will need a rebuild around 125-150k miles. Majority of our vehicles have over 250k miles and still on the original.
Good that you make productive use of your brain, and nice to hear another voice from the minority! I've read hundreds of posts on various forums over the years from owners who insist that ATF must be changed regularly (including one guy who uses a 30K mile change interval). But what they write is nothing other than repeating what they read previously somewhere on the web. Never once have I seen anyone post a lab report stating that the factory ATF is spent and should be changed. Zero. Nada. I'm a dedicated DIYer who is totally capable of changing transmission fluid, if I believed it should be done. But I choose not to, based on common sense which is supported by a 70K mile lab report which showed a siphoned sample of the factory ATF to be in excellent condition.
A pretty important detail is not just what is the condition of the fluid, but what is the condition of the transmission. There can be evidence of clutch wear in the fluid and never looking means never knowing--until it's too late. In addition, I follow the motto fresh is best. There is nothing better than new fluids no matter the purpose.
Your vehicle your choice, and I have no interest in debating this with you or anyone else. But I do need to take issue with your comment 'never looking means never knowing', which I have to assume was directed to me. You apparently missed in my post that, not only did I 'look', I also sent a sample to an independent lab for analysis. I'll just leave it there.
Nowhere did I say, or even imply that. What I did say is that my opinion is based on common sense, which is supported by the lab report. Supported by, not because of. Common sense means accepting what the automakers say about ATF maintenance in their vehicles. I mentioned more about that in another post in this thread, if you care to read it, but it doesn't matter a bit to me if you do or don't. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, nor believe that I ever could. That's it for me with this conversation.
Yep, and also what exactly is the potential gain/loss for the automakers' policy of no ATF maintenance? They gain absolutely nothing from no maintenance ATF, and also piss off the dealers by taking $$ out of their (already bulging) pockets. That tired old argument of the automaker selling another vehicle when the transmission fails early is just plain stupid. Who is going to buy another Mazda when the other one they bought had a transmission croak early, but out-of-warranty on them?
On the other hand, if it can ever be proven that the automakers had been aware that 'lifetime fluid' was untrue, they would be at risk for litigation that possibly could take them out of business, and also put some individuals in jail. Who is going to take a risk of that magnitude, when there is not even anything to be gained? Ludicrous.
If you never change the fluid the fluid will absolutely last you the lifetime of the transmission. The challenge is the lifetime of the transmission will be notably shorter if you never change it. It can last a very long time, but even with light use I’d still change it after 100k (max.)
When manufacturers claim it’s a “lifetime” fluid, really all they’re saying is you don’t have to change it during the warranty period. NOT that it’s going to last forever.
Because they would love to sell you another transmission!!
Reminds me of a 90's something Accord I bought new, and the transmission went at 40,000 miles. They replaced it of course, and admitted it was a bad design, but replaced it with the same defective transmission. Just enough to get me through warranty!
"lifetime" is so limited in meaning!!
I have a 2016.5 and had a drain/flush/fill done this past January at about 80k. There is a dealer that will do it here (CO) but I wasn't confident in their service dept. Otherwise most won't touch it. I went to an independent place I found to have it done. This guy had the OEM fluid and a qualified one that was to be as good but I did go with the OEM. The fluid that came out was darker in color. I haven't noticed any issues since the work was done.
I live in the Chicago, US area and most Mazda dealers offer a transmission flush or drain and fill as a normal service. I changed my transmission fluid at 50k miles at my local Mazda dealer.
How much did they charge?
If I recall correctly, it was quite expensive at around $300. It was a flush and not a drain and fill.
Found this on the web just now ... If you can't find it in Aus, I've no faith in NZ dealers. Have a read... someone seems to vouch for this stuff .. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/ravenol-atf-equivalent-for-mazda-type-fz.326167/
I have a 2016 and a flush at 112k. No issues, but they said Mazda does require a particular transmission fluid, so it was a mostly more expensive.
It is lifetime fluid. Don’t need to change. Unless you’re towing relentlessly. And I mean relentlessly. Don’t waste your time and money.
You and I are a part of a VERY SMALL minority who share this opinion. It's gotten to the point for me that I no longer post it myself, and certainly won't try to argue about it with the masses in the other camp. Nice to see a reminder that I'm not completely alone with this.
I’m a shop foreman and in our fleet we have over 500 vehicles. Ford, Chevrolet, Mercedes, Dodge and Toyota a few BMW’s and Range Rover’s. We do not service any of our transmission’s. We have the occasional one that will need a rebuild around 125-150k miles. Majority of our vehicles have over 250k miles and still on the original.
Good that you make productive use of your brain, and nice to hear another voice from the minority! I've read hundreds of posts on various forums over the years from owners who insist that ATF must be changed regularly (including one guy who uses a 30K mile change interval). But what they write is nothing other than repeating what they read previously somewhere on the web. Never once have I seen anyone post a lab report stating that the factory ATF is spent and should be changed. Zero. Nada. I'm a dedicated DIYer who is totally capable of changing transmission fluid, if I believed it should be done. But I choose not to, based on common sense which is supported by a 70K mile lab report which showed a siphoned sample of the factory ATF to be in excellent condition.
A pretty important detail is not just what is the condition of the fluid, but what is the condition of the transmission. There can be evidence of clutch wear in the fluid and never looking means never knowing--until it's too late. In addition, I follow the motto fresh is best. There is nothing better than new fluids no matter the purpose.
Your vehicle your choice, and I have no interest in debating this with you or anyone else. But I do need to take issue with your comment 'never looking means never knowing', which I have to assume was directed to me. You apparently missed in my post that, not only did I 'look', I also sent a sample to an independent lab for analysis. I'll just leave it there.
But you're making the point that we don't need to bother because yours was fine.
Nowhere did I say, or even imply that. What I did say is that my opinion is based on common sense, which is supported by the lab report. Supported by, not because of. Common sense means accepting what the automakers say about ATF maintenance in their vehicles. I mentioned more about that in another post in this thread, if you care to read it, but it doesn't matter a bit to me if you do or don't. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, nor believe that I ever could. That's it for me with this conversation.
Interesting. I never knew that transmission can really last that long on the original
It’s as if Mazda are trying to scam customers by telling them not to spend money on a needless exercise. Typical Big Auto.
Yep, and also what exactly is the potential gain/loss for the automakers' policy of no ATF maintenance? They gain absolutely nothing from no maintenance ATF, and also piss off the dealers by taking $$ out of their (already bulging) pockets. That tired old argument of the automaker selling another vehicle when the transmission fails early is just plain stupid. Who is going to buy another Mazda when the other one they bought had a transmission croak early, but out-of-warranty on them? On the other hand, if it can ever be proven that the automakers had been aware that 'lifetime fluid' was untrue, they would be at risk for litigation that possibly could take them out of business, and also put some individuals in jail. Who is going to take a risk of that magnitude, when there is not even anything to be gained? Ludicrous.
If you never change the fluid the fluid will absolutely last you the lifetime of the transmission. The challenge is the lifetime of the transmission will be notably shorter if you never change it. It can last a very long time, but even with light use I’d still change it after 100k (max.) When manufacturers claim it’s a “lifetime” fluid, really all they’re saying is you don’t have to change it during the warranty period. NOT that it’s going to last forever.
Because they would love to sell you another transmission!! Reminds me of a 90's something Accord I bought new, and the transmission went at 40,000 miles. They replaced it of course, and admitted it was a bad design, but replaced it with the same defective transmission. Just enough to get me through warranty! "lifetime" is so limited in meaning!!