We should all band together and pass a bill in Congress, the Freedom of Oil Information Law, "FOIL", which requires any lubricant spec mentioned publicly in a car manual or product label (etc.) to have the spec publicly published and requires it to be verified by an independent lab. Heck throw coolant in too. We've let these companies forget who they owe their existence to...
Fiat 9.55535 GH2
- Thread starter Miniguy
- Start date
It's a approval, Fiat Powertrain name it as "Certificate for service & aftersales" or "contractual tech reference".
Usually it includes any laboratory test against oil requirements or additive manufacturer (not oil brand) approval, then oil brand can get from meet to approval.
In this case I did see it from Fiat-Opel only, never Fiat itself, very uncommon to find more details.
Edit: I found example from here Spain-Germany, check address like "keep it in family". These Fiat engines were required with GM spec in these days.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Meets or Exceeds is the correct language for a self-certifying approval, such as the API, ACEA and certain manufacturer ones.
In cases where Mobil is not claiming actual compliance, they use "Recommended for":
ACEA/API use different legal terminology, oil brand can use "meet, exceed, normative, quality level...".
About car brand, usually, it has not the homologation or approval from car/engine brand when "meet, exceed, performance...", it must say "approval, homologation, certificate...".
It could has self-certified, but it's not formal, at least in EU, may be in North America is ok but I think not because your example includes Approvals part, legal contract terminology, so for me it's clear it has not formal Ford and Fiat spec in last example.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The correct heading is determined by the type of approval/specification.
For example, both the API and ACEA approvals (specifications) listed are formal approvals, they are under the "Meets or Exceeds" heading and Mobil can self-certify for them.
Ford's WSS approvals operate the same way, and, since most of the sequences are just tighter limits on existing API sequences, this is easy to self-certify for. The Chrysler (FCA, now Stellantis) approvals/specifications are the same way. Mobil completely removed them from their Mobil 1 product for a while after losing the dealer contract when Fiat took over. Mobil didn't even move them to the "recommended for" section, they completely removed them.
"Meets or Exceeds" is no less binding than "this product has the following approvals". If Mobil fails a spot test for the API, ACEA, Ford or Stellantis, they would have to pull that specification from the "Meets or Exceeds" section.
You'll note that Shell uses the same language for the Fiat specification:
Note the specific use of "MB-Approval" beside the Mercedes ones.
As @kschachn noted, it's how the approval/specification is defined, coupled with the ability to self-certify or not that dictates under which category the approval or specification is placed (Approvals or "Meets or Exceeds the requirements of"). On products that are not approved, you'll see some variation of "recommended for" or "suitable for", "quality level"...etc. These are NOT equivalent to "Meets or Exceeds".
Ravenol uses the same language:
You'll note that it does NOT have the Fiat Specification (it's absent under the specification heading) and is also missing A40 and LL-01, which the Mobil product has. All of those appear under "Recommendation".
Redline white bottle has no formal approvals, so everything falls under "Recommended for":
Versus their black bottle "Professional Series" (rebottled P66/Kendall):
Yes of course, but from question-answer to...
¿Approval or Material Specification about Fiat specs?
From data the Approval/Homologation is the legal claim, payed, tested from Fiat. Other term like "meet" could be anything, because has not consequences or real commitment from car manufacturer (ACEA/API apart).
Example from your post:
- Mobil example Ford 937A = "meet or exceeds"
- Motul Ford 937A Specific = "Homologation"
Who does fulfill the formal Ford certificate? Is it free self-certified properties match or formal payed-tested-legal contract?
Example Fiat...
- Mobil Fiat M2 = "meet or exceeds"
- Selenia K 5w40 Fiat M2 = "Approval"
- Selenia WR 5w40 Fiat N2 = "Approval"
- Motul X-Cess 5w40 Fiat N2 = "performance"
- Motul Specific Fiat S1 = "Homologation"
- Mobil should have any S1 or S2, surely it's "meet or exceed"
I mean ACEA/API can be a certificate or approval with variable heading, but about Fiat seems clear, like others car manufacturers, there are a formal heading and after other heading "for what oil brand want to say" (API/ACEA apart).
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
"Meets or Exceeds" is a specific phrasing for meeting a specification; an approval. Using any other language like "performance level" or "recommended for" (which Mobil also uses to denote no formal approval) is not equivalent. Motul uses "Performances" I assume due to translation issues:
Motul calls it a "Performance level" called for by FIAT. Since it's not listed under approvals or Standards (the equivalent to "specifications" used by Mobil/Shell/Ravenol) we must assume it's not actually approved, it's a "recommended for" situation.
You are operating under the premise that "Meets or Exceeds" is equivalent to "Recommended for", saying it "could be anything", but that's not correct. It has a very specific meaning, which is why the API, ACEA, Ford WSS and FCA MS approvals are all lumped under that category. "Recommended for" is called out separately.
Mobil arguably does the best job of breaking up the three separate categories. Castrol lumps everything under one heading except for "recommended for", as does CP.
Remember, Shell makes the FCA service fills for North America, and they use the "Meets or Exceeds" language, just like Mobil:
I delete quoted images because simple space saving...
Remember:
Mobil N2 "meet or exceed"
Other N2 "approval"
I checked any Mobil Fiat Sx spec now:
Mobil "meet or exceed or recommended"
Motul "Homologation"
Selenia "Approval"
Why I say no? It has no sense if we think that a or b is the same when heading is different for the same spec.
About North America I'm cautious, not my market, corrects me if wrong, there FCA use Pennzoil.
Fiat asks for... not Fiat spec for Fiat cars... Fiat asks for Chrysler spec for Fiat cars... ah!
I mean, Pennzoil has real approval/homologation for Chrysler (not Fiat) or legal permission there to use "meet" oil as service oil, there in NA, not here EU.
And Shell? the same of course...
- Shell Fiat M2 "meet or exceed requirements" (not official service)
- Selenia N2 "approval" (official service)
It's not the same legal claim, for the same spec.
Yes.
No, at least when Fiat specs has official approval/homologation. If "meet or exceed" were legal meet like approval, then Selenia or Motul had not "approval or homologation" and other oil brands for the same spec "meet, exceed, performance".
Remember:
Mobil N2 "meet or exceed"
Other N2 "approval"
I checked any Mobil Fiat Sx spec now:
Mobil "meet or exceed or recommended"
Motul "Homologation"
Selenia "Approval"
Why I say no? It has no sense if we think that a or b is the same when heading is different for the same spec.
Well, but I mean from initial question-answer, if Fiat has approval/homologation contract for x spec, then a) oil brand gets "approval" and b) oil brand gets "meet or exceed, performance, recommendable" obviously there are different requirements, conditions or contract terms.
Well Shell is very funny with headings, all specs under same title with little notes.
About North America I'm cautious, not my market, corrects me if wrong, there FCA use Pennzoil.
Fiat asks for... not Fiat spec for Fiat cars... Fiat asks for Chrysler spec for Fiat cars... ah!
I mean, Pennzoil has real approval/homologation for Chrysler (not Fiat) or legal permission there to use "meet" oil as service oil, there in NA, not here EU.
And Shell? the same of course...
- Shell Fiat M2 "meet or exceed requirements" (not official service)
- Selenia N2 "approval" (official service)
It's not the same legal claim, for the same spec.
All this is fine and dandy but I fail to see how it helps answer the question as to why the owners manual for 2019-2024 US config Alfa QV specifies C3 when US dealers continue to provide only Pennzoil A3/B4. Pennzoil was always the dealer fill from the first year of the QV so I can believe the answer might be based on contractual or other commercial considerations but it would be nice to know if there was any sort of technical justification for sticking with A3/B4 for the 2019+ cars in the US market. All 2019+ cars worldwide were fitted with port injectors mid-2019 and were accompanied by a change in the oil spec as seen in these two pics from the 2018 (right) and 2019 (left) owners manuals.
Attachments
With direct injection soot and emissions are higher. It needs help with oil like mid-saps.
With mixed direct-port injection soot and emissions are lower. Let's say easier to pass emissions and keep clean. It doesn't need x oil properties for that.
It's a theorical reason.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It is legal, that's why Ford and Chrysler specs (as well as API and ACEA) are both socked-in under that heading.
Motul doesn't use "Meets or Exceeds" as we can see from their data sheets, so that doesn't help here. Castrol lumps them all under one heading for example:
Yes, which is perfectly fine, Mobil chooses to break them out, other brands are lazy and don't.
When Mobil says "Meets or Exceeds", it is NOT the same as when Mobil says "Recommended For", those are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
That sounds like wild speculation. Mobil has always been very clear in their language, and it's clear what "Meets or Exceeds" applies to, and it is NOT the same as "recommended for", which is included as a separate category on the same bloody page.
They are the same bloody company, and have been for 10 years. They are part of Stellantis now. You get a whiff of this from the Motul PDS that notes that MS-11106 is the same spec as Fiat 9.55535.S3. Silly? Perhaps, gives the illusion of separation.
Again, they are the same company, it doesn't matter. There's no functional difference between "meets or exceeds" and what's on the Selenia bottles.
You've not provided anything, beyond simple disagreement, that "meets or Exceeds", which I've demonstrated, both Mobil and Shell use as a separate category for certain approval types, and is absolutely the proper phrasing for ACEA, API, Ford WSS and Chrysler MS approvals, isn't the same as Selenia's use of "approval".
I tell you what, I'll e-mail both Mobil and Shell and ask them about the Fiat specification. That's a hell of a lot more productive than this roundy-round we've got going on here.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Oh hey look, they call the Fiat approval a "specification", imagine that
Just like the Chrysler and Ford materials specifications I don't have a solid answer to your question. I suspect it's due to the phasing out of the full-SAPS specifications, which has been going on for quite a while. The move to lower-SAPS oils is part of the "modern push"that has accompanied GPF's, DPF's, DI...etc. This is likely an artifact/overflow from the consolidation that's taking place in other markets and across product lines where low and mid-SAPS lubes are now the standard.
About Mobil "meet or exceed" probably yes, I said it before to you, yes, any type of legal permission, test, claim.
Yes, probably because how Mobil and others heading it, apart of other. But this is not the question.
Oh yes, I writed many "examples" with oil brand and model and clear heading differences for same spec.
Question is that you think Mobil "meet or exceed" is an formal Approval, same as Fiat manufacturer approvals for others brands oil. I say, from data I can see, that it's not formal manufacturer approval/homologation. It's, in better case, any type of certificate or permission to name it or service oil like Pennzoil in NA.
Look the owner manual from Alfa NA, says "meet" spec. "Meet spec" there, in North America. I mean it's a legal permission, recommendation, legal yes, FCA says it, but it's not Approval, Petronas/Selenia has formal Approval from manufacturer.
For me it's clear, it's a legal "fix" for not violate formal Approval, because Petronas owns it. I mean legality, not as good or bad is oil.
I agree with it, is good all info, but when ask to them remember the point about Mobil "meet or exceed", it's not if it's any legal permission or passed test, it's... is the formal manufacturer Approval like Selenia/Motul etc Approval?
Legality and marketing can be very funny.
Similar threads
