Chrysler MS-6395

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: 10cent
I submitted an inquiry to Chrysler asking for the parameters of the spec. I'll post any response I receive.


Best of luck. I tried that a couple times and they wouldn't provide the info. That was pre-Fiat though so maybe now?


Don't hold your breath.

 

[10cent]

Well today I received a letter from Chrysler containing the following information.

 

[Hokiefyd]

WOW. You broke the code on MS-6395, something previously not accomplished by anyone. Nice!

 

[Hokiefyd]

Interesting that they allow a 20 grade to shear from 2.6 to 2.3 HTHSV.

 

[10cent]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
WOW. You broke the code on MS-6395, something previously not accomplished by anyone. Nice!


I admit I was a bit shocked when this arrived in the mail. The gentleman I spoke to on the phone didn't seem to understand what I was asking for but he obviously got the message to the correct person.

My main reason for wanting this was to confirm that there is an actual field trial involved in obtaining this approval. In a conversation I had with a Mobil rep I was told that M1 would easily meet the spec but Mobil "didn't want to pay for or wait for the field trial." Mobil's site has a similar claim as the OP noted. I was dubious but the inclusion of "fleet testing" in the requirements here lend a bit of credibility to this claim.

 

[Garak]

I thought Mobil already did a Las Vegas taxi test. Wasn't that one good enough, or didn't it involve Chryslers?

I appreciate the notion of real world testing, but all Las Vegas field testing (note they differentiate between winter and summer, yeesh) is going to accomplish is to show that oils hold up very well when they're not subject to a lot of short tripping after cold starts.

 

[Jiblet]

A lot of that spec is Greek to me. Is it really just the length of field testing and/or some falling out between Chrysler and Mobil 1?

Or does anyone think that the M1 (5w-20) doesn't meet/exceed the spec?

 

[cp3]

I cannot believe that M1 would not meet the Chrysler spec. Or that it would cause any harm to a Chrysler engine.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: cp3
I cannot believe that M1 would not meet the Chrysler spec. Or that it would cause any harm to a Chrysler engine.


I agree, however it got me thinking. I wonder why Mobil was so late to the game regarding testing to meet the Chrysler specs, other oil companies have already done it. Was the Chrysler spec not that important to XOM? Or was there some internal B_S between the two companies and XOM cut their nose off to spite their face? Maybe a little of the two? It makes me wonder.

Disclaimer: For the record I own a Jeep and use Mobil 1 so I'm not bashing either company. I'm certain Mobil products will do just fine in Chrysler products.

 

[Garak]

Considering Mobil conventional meets it, I'd suspect they're just not terribly happy with each other. Maybe XOM is tired of chasing Chrysler specs, which are a mix of Chrysler/API/ILSAC, MB, and Fiat specs.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Considering Mobil conventional meets it, I'd suspect they're just not terribly happy with each other. Maybe XOM is tired of chasing Chrysler specs, which are a mix of Chrysler/API/ILSAC, MB, and Fiat specs.

That sounds about right. I know that XOM has at different times recommended M1 0W-40 and M1 TDT 5W-40 for the 1.4 Multiair engine...

 

[cp3]

Ya, I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with Chrysler switching to Pennzoil.

 

[michaelluscher]

Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Sounds like Chrysler wants a 2 year monopoly.IF nobody can certify for 2 years,that means Mopar oil will be the only approved choice.


Well then. Visa Ve Magneson Moss warranty act dictates that they would have to provide it to owners at no cost.