Does NAPA synthetic meet chrysler oil spec ms-6395? It does not say it on the bottle.
chrysler oil spec ms-6395
- Thread starter oilchangeguy
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure, but it's probably fine. Valvoline Synpower is approved.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2817988
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2817988
From what I remember ms-6395 is not a very hard spec to meet. I would run ANY SN synthetic oil in your car and wouldn't lose any sleep at night.
Most modern oils will meet the spec but many manufacturers wont spend the time/money getting all manufacturers approvals.
Most modern oils will meet the spec but many manufacturers wont spend the time/money getting all manufacturers approvals.
Why so many car manufactures, except most Japanese companies, now each has their own oil specs ? Some even have more than 1 specs.
Are their engines so special so that regular SN oil doesn't adequately protect their engines ?
Do you think average drivers of a particular car will look at the fine print on the back of the bottle to find out if it meets spec xxx ?
If you ask a driver of a particular car if he/she knows which oil spec is for his/her car, what do you think the answer will be ?
Are their engines so special so that regular SN oil doesn't adequately protect their engines ?
Do you think average drivers of a particular car will look at the fine print on the back of the bottle to find out if it meets spec xxx ?
If you ask a driver of a particular car if he/she knows which oil spec is for his/her car, what do you think the answer will be ?
Not sure what a few of those numbers mean, but it seems to be pretty good oil. Would you agree? Thanks!
Originally Posted By: oilchangeguy
Does NAPA synthetic meet chrysler oil spec ms-6395? It does not say it on the bottle.
Does it meet it? Most likely as MS6395 is nothing special( the most difficult part of the spec/certification seems to be the 2 year test period ). Is it a good oil? Yup, it is pretty much Valvoline from what I have read with a slightly lower quality additive package.
However, if the mfg( Napa/Ashland )does not list it on the bottle or on their website/PDS, which it appears they do not from what I see, I would not use it if you are concerned about your warranty. All that does is set you up for a hassle if something happens. Chrysler is a stickler for warranty technicalities.
Good oil for sure but use at your own risk.
Does NAPA synthetic meet chrysler oil spec ms-6395? It does not say it on the bottle.
Does it meet it? Most likely as MS6395 is nothing special( the most difficult part of the spec/certification seems to be the 2 year test period ). Is it a good oil? Yup, it is pretty much Valvoline from what I have read with a slightly lower quality additive package.
However, if the mfg( Napa/Ashland )does not list it on the bottle or on their website/PDS, which it appears they do not from what I see, I would not use it if you are concerned about your warranty. All that does is set you up for a hassle if something happens. Chrysler is a stickler for warranty technicalities.
Good oil for sure but use at your own risk.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Why so many car manufactures, except most Japanese companies, now each has their own oil specs ? Some even have more than 1 specs.
Are their engines so special so that regular SN oil doesn't adequately protect their engines ?
That's funny...as I (and OVERKILL) keep saying, the manufacturers influence the API specs to suit their own agendas/problems.
e.g. in this thread
on Mazda OEM 0W20.
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Moly is good, I'm still a little undecided about using large amounts because I don't like the deposit build-up in turbochargers and other high temperature areas like the ring-pack.
See http://www.ocsoil.fi/upload/News on Lubes/ILSAC-GF-5.pdf
for the statement:
"The TEOST 33C bench test evaluates an engine oil’s tendency to form high-temperature
deposits. This test was originally developed and included in GF-2 to evaluate turbocharger
deposits. It was not part of GF-3 or GF-4, but is back in GF-5 in anticipation of greater use of
turbochargers. Turbochargers allow the automakers to use smaller displacement, more fuelefficient
engines while still maintaining high power output. Deposit buildup in the turbocharger
bearing areas can lead to loss of engine performance, turbocharger failure and possibly engine
failure. In GF-2, the maximum limit for deposits was 60 mg. For GF-5, the maximum limit is 30
mg (except there is no limit for SAE 0W-20 oils because some Japanese OEMs recommend
SAE 0W-20 oils with high molybdenum content which will not pass this test). "
Can check it in the specs, I posted here
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...umm#Post3810207
There's only one reason that the "standard" TEOST 33C test is waived for 0W20 grade only...it's the Japanese OEMs who for whatever reason (design crutch ???) are using more deposit forming additives than the regular API standard would have had...and have influenced the API to exclude their grade.
So much for the generic standard that responsible OEMs would have to build their kit around.
Why so many car manufactures, except most Japanese companies, now each has their own oil specs ? Some even have more than 1 specs.
Are their engines so special so that regular SN oil doesn't adequately protect their engines ?
That's funny...as I (and OVERKILL) keep saying, the manufacturers influence the API specs to suit their own agendas/problems.
e.g. in this thread
on Mazda OEM 0W20.
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Moly is good, I'm still a little undecided about using large amounts because I don't like the deposit build-up in turbochargers and other high temperature areas like the ring-pack.
See http://www.ocsoil.fi/upload/News on Lubes/ILSAC-GF-5.pdf
for the statement:
"The TEOST 33C bench test evaluates an engine oil’s tendency to form high-temperature
deposits. This test was originally developed and included in GF-2 to evaluate turbocharger
deposits. It was not part of GF-3 or GF-4, but is back in GF-5 in anticipation of greater use of
turbochargers. Turbochargers allow the automakers to use smaller displacement, more fuelefficient
engines while still maintaining high power output. Deposit buildup in the turbocharger
bearing areas can lead to loss of engine performance, turbocharger failure and possibly engine
failure. In GF-2, the maximum limit for deposits was 60 mg. For GF-5, the maximum limit is 30
mg (except there is no limit for SAE 0W-20 oils because some Japanese OEMs recommend
SAE 0W-20 oils with high molybdenum content which will not pass this test). "
Can check it in the specs, I posted here
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...umm#Post3810207
There's only one reason that the "standard" TEOST 33C test is waived for 0W20 grade only...it's the Japanese OEMs who for whatever reason (design crutch ???) are using more deposit forming additives than the regular API standard would have had...and have influenced the API to exclude their grade.
So much for the generic standard that responsible OEMs would have to build their kit around.
My owners manual says recommended oil and goes on to say 5w20 and MS 6395 so it doesn't say mandatory. It also recommends the Mopar oil filter but you don't have to use that so in the end as long as you are using an oil that conforms to other specs minus the MS 6395 I think you should be alright. Then again they could try to play games for warranty claims.
Originally Posted By: Rojack
My owners manual says recommended oil and goes on to say 5w20 and MS 6395 so it doesn't say mandatory. It also recommends the Mopar oil filter but you don't have to use that so in the end as long as you are using an oil that conforms to other specs minus the MS 6395 I think you should be alright. Then again they could try to play games for warranty claims.
They could try. And lose.
My owners manual says recommended oil and goes on to say 5w20 and MS 6395 so it doesn't say mandatory. It also recommends the Mopar oil filter but you don't have to use that so in the end as long as you are using an oil that conforms to other specs minus the MS 6395 I think you should be alright. Then again they could try to play games for warranty claims.
They could try. And lose.
Has AC Delco, MC and Mopar parts 'always' been available from parts houses?
Or is this a recent thing? All three US makes haves 'their' brand of oil filters available at WM, among other places. Maybe they are reaching out to try to get the appropriate product to us without us having to visit the dealership.
Now, what about Mopar, Motorcraft and AC Delco branded air filters commonly available to us.......
Then, fuel filters!
Dunno though, as Fram, Purolator and Wix seem to be doing dine.....or maybe they make the car manufacturer's filters anyways.
Or is this a recent thing? All three US makes haves 'their' brand of oil filters available at WM, among other places. Maybe they are reaching out to try to get the appropriate product to us without us having to visit the dealership.
Now, what about Mopar, Motorcraft and AC Delco branded air filters commonly available to us.......
Then, fuel filters!
Dunno though, as Fram, Purolator and Wix seem to be doing dine.....or maybe they make the car manufacturer's filters anyways.
I suppose that depends on where. Motorcraft stuff has never been available outside of dealers here. I haven't seen a lot of Mopar stuff outside of them, either. However, AC filters used to be sold at our Walmarts, and there are a number of AC Delco affiliated parts stores, that will have access to all kinds of AC parts, plus other lines, of course.
I wasn't looking for this, I am comfortable Mobil 1 would at least meet the spec for Chrysler but if you go down to the bottom of the first page and look at Mobil 1 5w20 and read product description it includes Chrysler in there even though it isn't listed as meeting MS 6395. It is dated 9/14.
https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide.pdf
https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide.pdf
Last edited:
Who has known anyone to have a warranty issue due to not using a manufactured spec oil? I know of a friend with an 09 Jeep Commander who had an engine failure (think valve spring let go) and they replaced the engine with a remanufactured one. Their check was drop the pan and look if engine maintanence was kept up. No questions asked. It had Mobil 1 in the sump and an M1 filter at the time, but nobody asked for records. To me too much over thinking on the subject.
Originally Posted By: BillyTheKid
Who has known anyone to have a warranty issue due to not using a manufactured spec oil? I know of a friend with an 09 Jeep Commander who had an engine failure (think valve spring let go) and they replaced the engine with a remanufactured one. Their check was drop the pan and look if engine maintanence was kept up. No questions asked. It had Mobil 1 in the sump and an M1 filter at the time, but nobody asked for records. To me too much over thinking on the subject.
You're right, the chances of having an engine failure and having the warranty claim denied because of the oil you're using are virtually nonexistent. However, I see no reason to take the chance. It's not like they're asking you to use some oil that's made of unobtainium, MS-6395 approved oils are available anywhere that sells oil at a reasonable price. They're even on sale frequently. As long as Chrysler is paying for repairs, I'll gladly use an an oil that they have approved. Once the warranty is up, then I'll use whatever I want.
Who has known anyone to have a warranty issue due to not using a manufactured spec oil? I know of a friend with an 09 Jeep Commander who had an engine failure (think valve spring let go) and they replaced the engine with a remanufactured one. Their check was drop the pan and look if engine maintanence was kept up. No questions asked. It had Mobil 1 in the sump and an M1 filter at the time, but nobody asked for records. To me too much over thinking on the subject.
You're right, the chances of having an engine failure and having the warranty claim denied because of the oil you're using are virtually nonexistent. However, I see no reason to take the chance. It's not like they're asking you to use some oil that's made of unobtainium, MS-6395 approved oils are available anywhere that sells oil at a reasonable price. They're even on sale frequently. As long as Chrysler is paying for repairs, I'll gladly use an an oil that they have approved. Once the warranty is up, then I'll use whatever I want.
Originally Posted By: BillyTheKid
Who has known anyone to have a warranty issue due to not using a manufactured spec oil? I know of a friend with an 09 Jeep Commander who had an engine failure (think valve spring let go) and they replaced the engine with a remanufactured one. Their check was drop the pan and look if engine maintanence was kept up. No questions asked. It had Mobil 1 in the sump and an M1 filter at the time, but nobody asked for records. To me too much over thinking on the subject.
Working at various car dealerships might have you thinking otherwise.
Who has known anyone to have a warranty issue due to not using a manufactured spec oil? I know of a friend with an 09 Jeep Commander who had an engine failure (think valve spring let go) and they replaced the engine with a remanufactured one. Their check was drop the pan and look if engine maintanence was kept up. No questions asked. It had Mobil 1 in the sump and an M1 filter at the time, but nobody asked for records. To me too much over thinking on the subject.
Working at various car dealerships might have you thinking otherwise.
Originally Posted By: BillyTheKid
Who has known anyone to have a warranty issue due to not using a manufactured spec oil? I know of a friend with an 09 Jeep Commander who had an engine failure (think valve spring let go) and they replaced the engine with a remanufactured one. Their check was drop the pan and look if engine maintanence was kept up. No questions asked. It had Mobil 1 in the sump and an M1 filter at the time, but nobody asked for records. To me too much over thinking on the subject.
I agree. Just another loop hole for denying engine claims.
Who has known anyone to have a warranty issue due to not using a manufactured spec oil? I know of a friend with an 09 Jeep Commander who had an engine failure (think valve spring let go) and they replaced the engine with a remanufactured one. Their check was drop the pan and look if engine maintanence was kept up. No questions asked. It had Mobil 1 in the sump and an M1 filter at the time, but nobody asked for records. To me too much over thinking on the subject.
I agree. Just another loop hole for denying engine claims.
I ran car dealerships for a lot of years. I've never seen a warranty claim denied on an engine malfunction unless there were obvious signs of abuse. Sludge and little to no oil in the sump, lack of receipts to show you changed the oil, etc. We never once asked what kind of oil somebody used. That being said, engine failures were rare. We did have a guy leasing a Lexus that broke a camshaft at 37k miles. The car was towed in and had zero oil and the factory filter. I think if he had just added oil a few times, he could have made it to the end of the lease. The only thing he added was gas and dirt.
Originally Posted By: beadvised
What's ironic is MS5K is MS-6395 Approved and Mobil 1 isn't.
Mobil and Chrysler/FIAT have a bad relationship that started during the bailout years back in 2008 or so. Mobil 1 was the factory fill for all the Chrysler SRT engines back then but when Chrysler facing bankruptcy, Mobil was not extending product on credit anymore. When FIAT came in, they already had a relationship Shell Europe that transposed to Pennzoil being the recommended oil by FCA.
It is not that Mobil 1 would not meet the spec, just that Mobil is not in any hurry to apply or get it.
What's ironic is MS5K is MS-6395 Approved and Mobil 1 isn't.
Mobil and Chrysler/FIAT have a bad relationship that started during the bailout years back in 2008 or so. Mobil 1 was the factory fill for all the Chrysler SRT engines back then but when Chrysler facing bankruptcy, Mobil was not extending product on credit anymore. When FIAT came in, they already had a relationship Shell Europe that transposed to Pennzoil being the recommended oil by FCA.
It is not that Mobil 1 would not meet the spec, just that Mobil is not in any hurry to apply or get it.
- Status
Similar threads
