Oil & Filter Thoughts
- Thread starter Wornslick
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Technically, Mobil 1 doesn't meet the Chrysler MS-meh spec,
It meets the spec, it doesn't cert that it meets the spec. There is a distinction.
Where's the documentation that shows it meets the spec? Is it printed on the oil bottle?
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Technically, Mobil 1 doesn't meet the Chrysler MS-meh spec,
It meets the spec, it doesn't cert that it meets the spec. There is a distinction.
Where's the documentation that shows it meets the spec? Is it printed on the oil bottle?
Well, I didn't know I would be causing such a conversation! I figured the best way to get started was to learn what "moly" is and what it does. It sounds like something that I would want in my oil. Also, the way I came up with Mobil 1 and a Wix filter was watching the "experts" on You Tube. I also realize that anyone can make a video saying this brand is better than that brand. A few video's said the Fram filters were junk, but after reading about them here I would need to buy the "Ultra" model of Fram, which by the replies I have read here are great filters. I have nothing against any of these brands, I just want what's best for my Ram, except of course all those real expensive oils, which are a little pricey for my blood. Thanks again for all the advice.
You are welcome, sounds like you are headed down the right track.
M1 used to "recommend" m1 for ms6395 which is your hemi spec. This is what some oil companies do when they don't want to cert an oil for whatever reason, in this case a very good reason, FCA gave a sweetheart deal to Pennzoil and m1 was upset about it. A couple years ago, m1 took the recommendation down. I believe this is m1's way of letting FCA know that they are bigger then FCA and they are running the show and m1 not having the spec is a poor reflection on FCA not m1. FCA acted very inappropriately giving Pennzoil a chance to meet a 2 year spec before even releasing the testing for the spec to other companies. A big nono unless you like monopolies. I hope you have a costco, m1 best deal for a top shelf oil on the planet.
A side note, if you ever get hemi tick from lifters, research hemi tick and lubrication. Also, something to consider is doing a uoa when the truck is in the 40k mile on odo range, if already there maybe want to consider this, do a uoa and look for wear metals asc with the cam. If they are shown blackstone will let you know. If you do have these metals there are a couple moves you can make as a strategy to protect that Cam. At that point look at and research 5w30 and ester/pao super high moly formulas.
M1 used to "recommend" m1 for ms6395 which is your hemi spec. This is what some oil companies do when they don't want to cert an oil for whatever reason, in this case a very good reason, FCA gave a sweetheart deal to Pennzoil and m1 was upset about it. A couple years ago, m1 took the recommendation down. I believe this is m1's way of letting FCA know that they are bigger then FCA and they are running the show and m1 not having the spec is a poor reflection on FCA not m1. FCA acted very inappropriately giving Pennzoil a chance to meet a 2 year spec before even releasing the testing for the spec to other companies. A big nono unless you like monopolies. I hope you have a costco, m1 best deal for a top shelf oil on the planet.
A side note, if you ever get hemi tick from lifters, research hemi tick and lubrication. Also, something to consider is doing a uoa when the truck is in the 40k mile on odo range, if already there maybe want to consider this, do a uoa and look for wear metals asc with the cam. If they are shown blackstone will let you know. If you do have these metals there are a couple moves you can make as a strategy to protect that Cam. At that point look at and research 5w30 and ester/pao super high moly formulas.
No Costco. We have Walmart, Autozone and O'Rileys.
Costco gets it down to 4.66 a quart, get near that via sale or jug size whatever, and you are doing good. Also, I don't know of any group 3 oil that is better then m1 when you are talking about the zero winter rated stuff if needed. If you are in the -20f areas, look at the youtubes cold flwo test with synthetic oils, eye opening stuff that when added to CCS numbers tell a story. GL, Peace
You're overthinking. Oil on sale, whatever filter in a brand you've heard of. Right now Napa synthetic and Napa conventional are on sale in my region.
I tend to stick with OEM on newer cars. Filters are usually as cheap or cheaper than aftermarket. Any synthetic oil sold at any auto parts store or Walmart is fine if you want synthetic.
I tend to stick with OEM on newer cars. Filters are usually as cheap or cheaper than aftermarket. Any synthetic oil sold at any auto parts store or Walmart is fine if you want synthetic.
Originally Posted by burla
M1 used to "recommend" m1 for ms6395 which is your hemi spec. This is what some oil companies do when they don't want to cert an oil for whatever reason, in this case a very good reason, FCA gave a sweetheart deal to Pennzoil and m1 was upset about it.
If MS-6395 isn't on the bottle, then it technically doesn't meet the spec. No oil company is going to not cert an oil that they know meets a spec, and not show it does on the bottle. You lose sales of oil that way.
M1 used to "recommend" m1 for ms6395 which is your hemi spec. This is what some oil companies do when they don't want to cert an oil for whatever reason, in this case a very good reason, FCA gave a sweetheart deal to Pennzoil and m1 was upset about it.
If MS-6395 isn't on the bottle, then it technically doesn't meet the spec. No oil company is going to not cert an oil that they know meets a spec, and not show it does on the bottle. You lose sales of oil that way.
Just so the OP knows the MS-6395 spec is largely so that the oil is capable of lasting long enough to the maximum oil change interval that the oil life monitoring system his FCA vehicle and others have which is 10,000 miles (16,000km) if memory serves me correctly. Aside from that it's just a GF-5 oil. Any major brand of oil is going to be able to handle the MS-6395 specification if it meets the GF-5 standard so there is no worries as far as that is concerned. The only time I would worry is using a GF-5 oil from say a dollar store where it might be fine for 5,000 miles but not the full 10,000 miles.
Where the concern is, is during the warranty period. If not using an oil that specifically meets MS-6395 and he has a warranty claim this could create "headaches" before warranty is honoured if they want to be a jerk about it. (I haven't seen this case personally and we have had engines warrantied by Chrysler in the family), and you are also protected by the Moss-Magnuson act as well but it's better to err on the side of using something where it officially meets it to have iron-clad warranty intact without needing to fight for it should that arise if you weren't comfortable taking that chance.
Unfortunately FCA was a jerk to Exxon Mobil and had a spat with them when they went to Shell for their factory fills and well Exxon Mobil decided to pull certifying their oils past the Clean 5000 which is a certified oil with regards to MS-6395. But IMO for the cost of Clean 5,000 better oils can be had anyway. At least that is the case here.
Valvoline meets the MS-6395 specification and funny enough it doesn't have Moly in it... Explain that one Burla. Why would Chrysler license it if Moly was absolutely needed?
Where the concern is, is during the warranty period. If not using an oil that specifically meets MS-6395 and he has a warranty claim this could create "headaches" before warranty is honoured if they want to be a jerk about it. (I haven't seen this case personally and we have had engines warrantied by Chrysler in the family), and you are also protected by the Moss-Magnuson act as well but it's better to err on the side of using something where it officially meets it to have iron-clad warranty intact without needing to fight for it should that arise if you weren't comfortable taking that chance.
Unfortunately FCA was a jerk to Exxon Mobil and had a spat with them when they went to Shell for their factory fills and well Exxon Mobil decided to pull certifying their oils past the Clean 5000 which is a certified oil with regards to MS-6395. But IMO for the cost of Clean 5,000 better oils can be had anyway. At least that is the case here.
Valvoline meets the MS-6395 specification and funny enough it doesn't have Moly in it... Explain that one Burla. Why would Chrysler license it if Moly was absolutely needed?
Last edited:
I tired of being asked the same question about moly, what is wrong with every dude that asked that past the first time it was asked, did you not see that was asked? The OP spoke on the matter, he appreciates the info on Moly and appears he wants it in his formula. The thread is over, he got what he needed thanks to someone who bothered to give him hemi specific information. The OP said in very nice tone, thanks for nothing for the rest of you that brought like zero helpful info but a ton of drama. Anytime you want to debate the importance of moly to the coefficient of friction left me know via PM, as in any of you, as in ever want to know that info, as in if you have average TN moly you have a lower coefficient of friction by 1/2. I'm not wasting time on the repeated silly questions about tsb or moly and specs. It's time for oil guys to start talking about oil and not the person posting.
Just to set the story straight on Valvoline. There is moly in it. Two recent threads.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-charger-pursuit-w-5-7l-hemi#Post4962732
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-6-2l-valvoline-syn-5w30-10k#Post4961188
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-charger-pursuit-w-5-7l-hemi#Post4962732
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-6-2l-valvoline-syn-5w30-10k#Post4961188
Originally Posted by PimTac
Just to set the story straight on Valvoline. There is moly in it. Two recent threads.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-charger-pursuit-w-5-7l-hemi#Post4962732
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-6-2l-valvoline-syn-5w30-10k#Post4961188
Yeah, it was mentioned by others too, but apparently people missed the comments.
Just to set the story straight on Valvoline. There is moly in it. Two recent threads.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-charger-pursuit-w-5-7l-hemi#Post4962732
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-6-2l-valvoline-syn-5w30-10k#Post4961188
Yeah, it was mentioned by others too, but apparently people missed the comments.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Just to set the story straight on Valvoline. There is moly in it. Two recent threads.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-charger-pursuit-w-5-7l-hemi#Post4962732
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-6-2l-valvoline-syn-5w30-10k#Post4961188
Old news, we have discussed this many times as well. We seen one or two with moly, 100's w/o moly.
Just to set the story straight on Valvoline. There is moly in it. Two recent threads.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-charger-pursuit-w-5-7l-hemi#Post4962732
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-6-2l-valvoline-syn-5w30-10k#Post4961188
Old news, we have discussed this many times as well. We seen one or two with moly, 100's w/o moly.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/download/Number/6602/filename/12%20CHARGER-181205.jpg "[Linked Image]")
wemay
Site Donor 2023
There are various types of Moly, some which don't require 100ppm to be effective.
Where this "commitment" idea comes from is puzzling. Valvoline switched their formula to meet dexos1 Gen2 and SN Plus, that's pretty much it.
Where this "commitment" idea comes from is puzzling. Valvoline switched their formula to meet dexos1 Gen2 and SN Plus, that's pretty much it.
My point was that if Chrysler needed Moly because it had problems with it's HEMI's that Moly was somehow the magic cure for then they would have mandated it in the MS-6395 spec, or come out with another Material Standard (MS) spec for this like they have for the SRT line which isn't MS-6395 but instead a different spec because it has different requirements. Or their would be a TSB issued to dealers telling them that any MS-6395 oil that is used must contain moly and a communication would go out to owners informing them of this crucial component.
This hasn't happened and aside from a limited number of HEMI's that have had issues, we still don't see any of this.
That's all. If the oil has Moly in it great. The formulator, blender or manufacturer decided it was necessary in the overall composition of the oil in order for it to perform properly. But it doesn't mean that it's required in other oils or bad things will happen especially in HEMI's. Only Chrysler Material Specifications or TSB's would make it required and those to date don't exist even though the 5.7 Hemi has been around a long time.
This hasn't happened and aside from a limited number of HEMI's that have had issues, we still don't see any of this.
That's all. If the oil has Moly in it great. The formulator, blender or manufacturer decided it was necessary in the overall composition of the oil in order for it to perform properly. But it doesn't mean that it's required in other oils or bad things will happen especially in HEMI's. Only Chrysler Material Specifications or TSB's would make it required and those to date don't exist even though the 5.7 Hemi has been around a long time.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wemay
There are various types of Moly, some which don't require 100ppm to be effective.
Where this "commitment" idea comes from is puzzling. Valvoline switched their formula to meet dexos1 Gen2 and SN Plus, that's pretty much it.
My commitment statement comes from when I was using RP because of the moly level only to find the went away from it, just like Valvoline did for a decade, very disappointing. Meanwhile, all of the other oils proved their commitment to moly as in it's in every single uoa, Case over.
There are various types of Moly, some which don't require 100ppm to be effective.
Where this "commitment" idea comes from is puzzling. Valvoline switched their formula to meet dexos1 Gen2 and SN Plus, that's pretty much it.
My commitment statement comes from when I was using RP because of the moly level only to find the went away from it, just like Valvoline did for a decade, very disappointing. Meanwhile, all of the other oils proved their commitment to moly as in it's in every single uoa, Case over.
- Status
Similar threads
