Fiat 9.55535 GH2

[ceecbtg]

It can't be A3/B4 and C3.
VST GH2 "recommendation" must be error because funny mixes between Fiat and Chrysler.
Chrysler are 5w40 and 0w40 ~ Z2/H2 (A3/B4 high performance), so VST is compatible, but never GH2.
In worst case you can go from A3/B4 to C3, but never the opposite (oficially).

 

[Miniguy]

It can't be A3/B4 and C3.
VST GH2 "recommendation" must be error because funny mixes between Fiat and Chrysler.
Chrysler are 5w40 and 0w40 ~ Z2/H2 (A3/B4 high performance), so VST is compatible, but never GH2.
In worst case you can go from A3/B4 to C3, but never the opposite (oficially).

Agree.
Re your mention of Ravenol RUP, looks really good being PAO and C3. But no GH2, so what part of it would be missing?

 

[ceecbtg]

Example hot visco. Anyway it's difficult to say because TOP Fiat specs are so opaque and limited to Petronas/Shell.

 

[vitamin]

Thank you very much for all this information. You are obviously extremely knowledgeable on the subject. I just have one more (I hope) question. I noticed on the tech data sheet for Ravenol VST, which is a A3/B4 oil, it states recommendation for Fiat 9.55535-GH2, which is spec’d as a C3 oil. Is it possible that it can be both A3 and C3?

Absolutely. A and C cover different things. See the table below:

 

[Miniguy]

Absolutely. A and C cover different things. See the table below:
View attachment 142403
View attachment 142404
View attachment 142405
View attachment 142406

That doesn’t seem to make sense. SA for C3 is spec’d as less than or equal to 0.8, whereas SA for A3 is spec’d as greater than or equal to 1.0 but less than or equal to 1.6. These ranges are obviously mutually exclusive.

 

[vitamin]

X-Clean and VMO use same additive pkg from Shell, both mainly G.III, I'd use cheaper.
Quadrifoglio seems Lubrizol pkg and little secret there until analized, it's Sport Power sucessor, should be like others or little better.
Other good options, GH2 apart, are Aral High Tronic, Havoline Ultra S, Motul Specific 50501, Neste Pro C3, Selenia K Pure Energy, old Selenia Sport Power, Total Ineo, Valvoline Synpower MST and Redline Euro and Ravenol RUP as TOP option.

Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 is what USA Alfa dealers get as Stellantis/FCA/Fiat/Alfa's official oil to use for Quadrifoglio oil changes. (Some may also offer other alternatives, such as the Selenia, not sure.)

From the 2022 MOPAR Lubricant catalog:

The 2023 Stelvio manual states (in the section on the 2.0L car, but definitely should be taken as applicable to the Quadrifoglio as well, since it's also a GDI turbo car whose engines have been reported by owners even at low milage of having misfires/knocks/failures that could be due to LSPI, and I don't trust people who make manuals to know which row to put things in):

Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 is API SP, ILSAC GF-6A rated. Very few other oils you can find will have these approvals yet. (This would be somewhat like an oil being ACEA A7/B7/C6 since those are the only ACEA standards with LSPI testing requirements.)

Based on actual tests I've seen, this is very comparable to AMSOIL SS or any other top-tier oil.

Informal tests I've seen from a Russian YouTuber showed that Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 outperformed Shell Helix Ultra 5W-40 by about 2x in a couple of evaporation tests. They're not the same oil, but it might be the same as Shell Helix Ultra Racing 5W-40 (not sure, haven't checked).

Other informal tests of Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 seen seem consistent with this oil having a Noack score of 6-7% (ASTM D-5800), but until Shell publishes some official numbers we won't know for sure, and the tests I found on YouTube were not done using a very scientific setup.

Shell might be withholding their D-5800 results because of the recent controversy around the repeatability of those tests. Maybe there was a lawsuit in the USA. Maybe they're afraid it will make their GTL formula easier to reverse engineer.

Lastly, I've seen an "oil tournaments' where Pennzoil's Platinum 5W-30 placed #2, though the margin of victory by the AMSOIL SS was so tiny that one should not feel like you're missing out on something by not using AMSOIL (though I'm sure their legion of sales reps can tell you why it's better).

Bottom line: the MOPAR dealer oil is perfectly fine. MOPAR is going to give you the best oil on the market for your car. There's no evidence or repeatable tests that I could find to back up any anti-GTL fear-mongering.

As to "Fiat 9.55535-GH2", only the Italians actually know what the hell it means, but I highly doubt it has stricter requirements than API SP and ILSAC GF-6A. But you should know that Shell Helix Racing 5W-40 is the official oil of Ferrari for the F154 engine in the California T, upon which the Alfa Romeo 690T engine is based, and Shell Helix 5W-40 was listed as Fiat 9.55535-GH2 compliant back in 2015 (which was before this was listed as being GTL-based, though) as the official oil of Maserati for their version of the same engine. Given that Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 performs even better than Shell Helix in the testing of a Russian YouTuber; is made by the same company (Shell) using the exact same base oil; and is the official MOPAR oil for this car, then I don't think it should worry you that it doesn't say "GH2" in the spec sheets. (Though I'm going to email Pennzoil nonetheless and find out why.)

PURE SPECULATION: If I had to guess, I'd suspect that GH2 might require a PAO (Group IV) base. If so, that would explain why none of the GTL-based oils (which are Group III, technically speaking) are listed as GH2.

If you feel more comfortable putting Group IV oil GH2 oil in your car, and/or an oil with a listed Noack score, and/or one that's ASEA C3 listed, then I'd probably go with the Ravenol VST since it has GH2 spec, Ravenol RUP (racing) since it has C3 spec (and is probably better for track days anyhow), Ravenol RCS (if you want the lowest possible Noack score as if 1-2% matters), or of course you could run Selenia Quadrifoglio. However NONE of those oils lists LSPI protection nor are API SP / ILSAC GF-6A rated.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with GTL and its unlisted Noack score than risk an oil that suffers from LSPI blowing my engine up. Just me though!

 

[Miniguy]

Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 is what USA Alfa dealers get as Stellantis/FCA/Fiat/Alfa's official oil to use for Quadrifoglio oil changes. (Some may also offer other alternatives, such as the Selenia, not sure.)

From the 2022 MOPAR Lubricant catalog:

View attachment 142408

The 2023 Stelvio manual states (in the section on the 2.0L car, but definitely should be taken as applicable to the Quadrifoglio as well, since it's also a GDI turbo car whose engines have been reported by owners even at low milage of having misfires/knocks/failures that could be due to LSPI, and I don't trust people who make manuals to know which row to put things in):

View attachment 142409

Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 is API SP, ILSAC GF-6A rated. Very few other oils you can find will have these approvals yet. (This would be somewhat like an oil being ACEA A7/B7/C6 since those are the only ACEA standards with LSPI testing requirements.)

Based on actual tests I've seen, this is very comparable to AMSOIL SS or any other top-tier oil.

Informal tests I've seen from a Russian YouTuber showed that Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 outperformed Shell Helix Ultra 5W-40 by about 2x in a couple of evaporation tests. They're not the same oil, but it might be the same as Shell Helix Ultra Racing 5W-40 (not sure, haven't checked).

Other informal tests of Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 seen seem consistent with this oil having a Noack score of 6-7% (ASTM D-5800), but until Shell publishes some official numbers we won't know for sure, and the tests I found on YouTube were not done using a very scientific setup.

Shell might be withholding their D-5800 results because of the recent controversy around the repeatability of those tests. Maybe there was a lawsuit in the USA. Maybe they're afraid it will make their GTL formula easier to reverse engineer.

Lastly, I've seen an "oil tournaments' where Pennzoil's Platinum 5W-30 placed #2, though the margin of victory by the AMSOIL SS was so tiny that one should not feel like you're missing out on something by not using AMSOIL (though I'm sure their legion of sales reps can tell you why it's better).

Bottom line: the MOPAR dealer oil is perfectly fine. MOPAR is going to give you the best oil on the market for your car. There's no evidence or repeatable tests that I could find to back up any anti-GTL fear-mongering.

As to "Fiat 9.55535-GH2", only the Italians actually know what the hell it means, but I highly doubt it has stricter requirements than API SP and ILSAC GF-6A. But you should know that Shell Helix Racing 5W-40 is the official oil of Ferrari for the F154 engine in the California T, upon which the Alfa Romeo 690T engine is based, and Shell Helix 5W-40 was listed as Fiat 9.55535-GH2 compliant back in 2015 (which was before this was listed as being GTL-based, though) as the official oil of Maserati for their version of the same engine. Given that Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 performs even better than Shell Helix in the testing of a Russian YouTuber; is made by the same company (Shell) using the exact same base oil; and is the official MOPAR oil for this car, then I don't think it should worry you that it doesn't say "GH2" in the spec sheets. (Though I'm going to email Pennzoil nonetheless and find out why.)

PURE SPECULATION: If I had to guess, I'd suspect that GH2 might require a PAO (Group IV) base. If so, that would explain why none of the GTL-based oils (which are Group III, technically speaking) are listed as GH2.

If you feel more comfortable putting Group IV oil GH2 oil in your car, and/or an oil with a listed Noack score, and/or one that's ASEA C3 listed, then I'd probably go with the Ravenol VST since it has GH2 spec, Ravenol RUP (racing) since it has C3 spec (and is probably better for track days anyhow), Ravenol RCS (if you want the lowest possible Noack score as if 1-2% matters), or of course you could run Selenia Quadrifoglio. However NONE of those oils lists LSPI protection nor are API SP / ILSAC GF-6A rated.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with GTL and its unlisted Noack score than risk an oil that suffers from LSPI blowing my engine up. Just me though!

Ravenol VST is ACEA A3/B4. It seemingly cannot be also GH2 since that spec ties 5w-40 to C3. My head is spinning.

 

[vitamin]

Ravenol VST is ACEA A3/B4. It seemingly cannot be also GH2 since that spec ties 5w-40 to C3. My head is spinning.

Ravenol VST is an oil conforming to both A3/B4 and C3. The C-group standards are supplementary to the A/B standards, they're not mutually exclusive.

What makes you say GH2 "ties 5W-40 to C3?" As far as I'm aware, the Fiat 9.55535-GH2 specification is private information known only to the OEM and the oil companies.

Personally I think it should be illegal for companies to have specifications they recommend that products meet to work with their cars, without also publishing the details of the actual specification to consumers. I'm writing my congressman and senators with the text of a new bill I'm authoring on the topic. Does 5% of global revenue sound like a sufficient fine to motivate more consumer-friendly behavior by these mega corporations?

 

[Miniguy]

Ravenol VST is an oil conforming to both A3/B4 and C3. The C-group standards are supplementary to the A/B standards, they're not mutually exclusive.

That can’t be right. C3 spec for SA is < or = 0.8. A3 Spec for SA is > or = 1.0 and < or = 1.6. Both requirements cannot be simultaneously satisfied.
GH2 is a mid-SAPS (C3) version of H2 which is A3.

 

[vitamin]

That can’t be right. C3 spec for SA is < or = 0.8. A3 Spec for SA is > or = 1.0 and < or = 1.6. Both requirements cannot be simultaneously satisfied.

The footnote to the ash content line item in the A3 spec states that it's to be read as a "maximum limit", in other words, A3 indicates ash "not to exceed" 1.6 but if it's less than 1.0 it could still qualify as A3.

Case in point, Liqui Moly SAE 5W-40 TOP TEC 4100 which lists both ACEA C3 and A3/B4:

Anyway I agree with you it's confusing. It doesn't seem like they intended these specs to be used that way.

GH2 is a mid-SAPS (C3) version of H2 which is A3.

What's your source for that? It sounds plausible.

Also, do we know why Alfa would specify C3 in the manual, but then MOPAR would make an A3 oil (Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40) their official oil for the car in USA? Do the American-sold cars have a less sensitive catalytic converter installed that would be fine with higher SAPS?

Or is it identical the European-homologated car and should only be run with C3? If so why would MOPAR be putting non-C3 oil in?

Thanks.

 

[ceecbtg]

Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 is what USA Alfa dealers get as Stellantis/FCA/Fiat/Alfa's official oil to use for Quadrifoglio oil changes. (Some may also offer other alternatives, such as the Selenia, not sure.)
...

Yes I know about Pennzoil there. I didn't want to mention them.
PPE and SHU are mainly twins, mostly GTL and same main additive pkg, seems SHU open to little differences in GTL / Gr. II-III mix because market reasons (global), PPE more estrict/pure GTL for USA market.
First GTL versions 2011-2016 were 6-7% Noack. Today are 5-6% Noack.
It's is TOP III/III+ oil, can improve any properties vs other TOP IV / V oils.

 

[Miniguy]

The footnote to the ash content line item in the A3 spec states that it's to be read as a "maximum limit", in other words, A3 indicates ash "not to exceed" 1.6 but if it's less than 1.0 it could still qualify as A3.

Case in point, Liqui Moly SAE 5W-40 TOP TEC 4100 which lists both ACEA C3 and A3/B4:

View attachment 142433

Anyway I agree with you it's confusing. It doesn't seem like they intended these specs to be used that way.



What's your source for that? It sounds plausible.

Also, do we know why Alfa would specify C3 in the manual, but then MOPAR would make an A3 oil (Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40) their official oil for the car in USA? Do the American-sold cars have a less sensitive catalytic converter installed that would be fine with higher SAPS?

Or is it identical the European-homologated car and should only be run with C3? If so why would MOPAR be putting non-C3 oil in?

Thanks.

I think the Liqui Moly label is deceptive marketing at best and criminal at worst. It makes a mockery of ACEA. If I’m wrong, then someone please put me right.

H2 is Fiat’s spec for high performance with high kinematic viscosity. Its 100 deg spec is over 15. Selenia Star is the prime A3 example of this, and based on its specs it’s easy to infer that a C3 version would be Selenia Sport Power, and it’s successor Selenia Quad, for which Fiat created the GH2 spec.

Pennzoil 0W-40 (A3/B4) is specifically recommended in US Quad owners manuals for the first few years when the cars had direct injection only. I suppose US dealers use the 5W-40 Pennzoil (A3/B4) for the 2019-2023 Quads because they’ve been used to the brand, or Mopar decided that US dealers must use Pennzoil since it’s in their catalog. All this despite the owners manuals specifying C3 and GH2.
All we know about emissions equipment in the Quads is that both US and Euro Quads do not have GPF like the 2L cars to satisfy Euro 6, so absent other clarifying information, it’s very puzzling why Alfa changed their recommendation from full SAPS to mid SAPS for the port injected cars; unless, of course, there’s a difference in the cats, but we don’t know that. It seems like there’s a strange disconnect between Alfa and Mopar.

 

[weasley]

The footnote to the ash content line item in the A3 spec states that it's to be read as a "maximum limit", in other words, A3 indicates ash "not to exceed" 1.6 but if it's less than 1.0 it could still qualify as A3.

Case in point, Liqui Moly SAE 5W-40 TOP TEC 4100 which lists both ACEA C3 and A3/B4:

View attachment 142433

Anyway I agree with you it's confusing. It doesn't see

No - the ACEA limits are as stated - anything less than 1.0%wt sulphated ash can not claim A3/B4 - the footnote does not change this. You'll note that the Liqui-Moly label states that this oil is "recommended for use where ACEA A3/B4 is required". It does not state that the oil meets the ACEA A3/B4 specification (because it doesn't and it can't). You're right, this is not how ACEA want it and they have been clear over the years to try and separate higher and lower ash specifications to avoid this confusion.

 

[Jetronic]

No - the ACEA limits are as stated - anything less than 1.0%wt sulphated ash can not claim A3/B4 - the footnote does not change this. You'll note that the Liqui-Moly label states that this oil is "recommended for use where ACEA A3/B4 is required". It does not state that the oil meets the ACEA A3/B4 specification (because it doesn't and it can't). You're right, this is not how ACEA want it and they have been clear over the years to try and separate higher and lower ash specifications to avoid this confusion.

I agree, but i find this polarises your oil choices too much.

There used to be 8.8 TBN, 0.88% saps A3/B4 oils. They tended to have zddp in the full saps range and detergents between mid and full-saps. Perfect choice if you don't need to have 20k oil change capabilities while not loading the exhaust treatment systems with calcium/magnesium

 

[vitamin]

S2 is 5w40 C3 not high performance

Mobil 1's website claims their ESP X3 0W-40 "meets or exceeds" the Fiat 9.55535-S2 requirements. Can a 0W-40 oil satisfy the same requirement as a 5W-40 oil?

 

[kschachn]

Mobil 1's website claims their ESP X3 0W-40 "meets or exceeds" the Fiat 9.55535-S2 requirements. Can a 0W-40 oil satisfy the same requirement as a 5W-40 oil?

Why not?

 

[vitamin]

Why not?

Not sure... but hoping to learn from the experts.

My layman's understanding is that 0W is just a stricter requirement for cold-weather viscosity as compared to 5W. If that's all there is to it, then I would tend to think an 0W oil must also meet every standard that applies to 5W oils. Is that correct?

Or could it be detrimental to your engine to use a 0W oil when the book calls for 5W?

 

[kschachn]

My layman's understanding is that 0W is just a stricter requirement for cold-weather viscosity as compared to 5W. If that's all there is to it, then I would tend to think an 0W oil must also meet every standard that applies to 5W oils. Is that correct?

Or could it be detrimental to your engine to use a 0W oil when the book calls for 5W?

No it is not detrimental to have a better winter rating. In fact it often points to superior base stocks.

The Fiat approval is likely based on an ACEA Sequence and that has an HT/HS requirement. This is the only thing that would influence the grade and would be agnostic to the winter rating. Your “layman’s understanding” is correct.

 

[ceecbtg]

Mobil 1's website claims their ESP X3 0W-40 "meets or exceeds" the Fiat 9.55535-S2 requirements. Can a 0W-40 oil satisfy the same requirement as a 5W-40 oil?

Yes, depend on 5w40 requirements.
Thing is that M1 says meets or exceeds (no legal valor) about secret S2 requirements, so M1 knows real S2 requirements and meets it or doesn't know and claims it too.

 

[kschachn]

Yes, depend on 5w40 requirements.
Thing is that M1 says meets or exceeds (no legal valor) about secret S2 requirements, so M1 knows real S2 requirements and meets it or doesn't know and claims it too.

Is it an approval or a material specification? I'm not able to tell, if it is a material specification then "meets or exceeds is appropriate".