Mobil 1 and Chrysler MS-6395 requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
281
Location
Illinois
I noticed when I changed my oil that Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance no longer state on the package that they meet Chrysler MS-6395 warranty requirements. I noticed that the Pennzoil line does state they meet that requirement. I spoke with my dealer and they did advise that if the engine failed due to oil and that oil didnt meet the requirement, then I would be fully responsible. I cant imagine that Mobil 1 would be bad for the motor, but is it advisable for me to discontinue using Mobil 1 until they meet the warranty requirements for my van?
 
This has been discussed before, here's Mobil's answer:
Chrysler’s latest revision to the MS-6395 specification calls for a field trial spanning multiple seasons over two years. While we fully expect the exceptional performance of Mobil 1 synthetic motor oil to meet Chrysler’s specification requirements, at this time we are in the process of evaluating our timeline to start this testing.
 
As Mobil said, the Chrtsler spec takes two years to field test the MS-6395 Chrysler requirement. All of these silly Euro, Asian, and engine builder specs must be a massive headache for engine oil producers.
 
Last edited:
Plus Chrysler is in bed with Pennzoil now. I believe this magic Pennzoil 5W-40 elixir for the SRT motors is hard to find except at Chrysler dealers.
 
Last edited:
I would love to see the court case where Chrysler blames an owners use of Mobil 1 for an engine failure. Buy any Mobil 1 in the proper grade for your car and sleep easy.
 
Originally Posted By: bigt61
I would love to see the court case where Chrysler blames an owners use of Mobil 1 for an engine failure. Buy any Mobil 1 in the proper grade for your car and sleep easy.


So your saying manufacturer specs like Chrysler MS-6359 would not even hold up in court, So in that case why should people that have a GM car or truck use Dexos1, or ford spec. and going by your statement if a auto manufacturer specs 0w20 and you run 10w40 they should still stand by there warranty, Because going by your statement Car specs would not hold up in court.
Well I know this statement to be false. Because I lost a court battle on this because I believed what people like you told me.
 
My Dad was using M1 in Mom's GC and I switched it to PP recently for the same reason. The oil costs the same so why not use the approved oil and have one less thing to worry about?
 
Originally Posted By: 72Cude426
Originally Posted By: bigt61
I would love to see the court case where Chrysler blames an owners use of Mobil 1 for an engine failure. Buy any Mobil 1 in the proper grade for your car and sleep easy.


So your saying manufacturer specs like Chrysler MS-6359 would not even hold up in court, So in that case why should people that have a GM car or truck use Dexos1, or ford spec. and going by your statement if a auto manufacturer specs 0w20 and you run 10w40 they should still stand by there warranty, Because going by your statement Car specs would not hold up in court.
Well I know this statement to be false. Because I lost a court battle on this because I believed what people like you told me.
Well, let's hear the story!
35.gif

That's why Internet advice is always worth what you paid for it!
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
As Mobil said, the Chrtsler spec takes two years to field test the MS-6395 Chrysler requirement. All of these silly Euro, Asian, and engine builder specs must be a massive headache for engine oil producers.

I think XOM is just doing the smiling answer when they say that. Even some smaller companies' oils meet the Chrysler spec and Mobil conventional does, too.

XOM and Chrysler are clearly sore at each other. Chrysler being passed from manufacturer to manufacturer and obtaining a hodge podge of nonsensical oil specifications will be a perfect match for SOPUS and their preference to create phantom data sheets for non-existent products over the actual desire to ship product.

Look at the certifications on M1 0w-40 or even normal M1 5w-30. M1 0w-40 has everything and the kitchen sink. 5w-30 has ACEA specifications that few "regular" synthetics meet; heck, the previous version had some rather obscure Ford/Jaguar specs that are impossible to find. If XOM isn't meeting a specification, there's one reason for it and one reason only. They have absolutely no intention to obtain that certification and couldn't be bothered. I don't blame them one bit.

You look at any Chryslers manufactured in the last few years, and you see them calling for everything from an API type 10w-30, to a Benz spec, an almost imaginary version of PU, or a Fiat spec. What a Charlie Foxtrot. And people wonder why GM came out with dexos?

Like I said in another thread, in five years from now when Fiat's had enough of Chrysler, Tata Motors will take over, and Chryslers will start calling for SE rated monogrades. Perhaps they'll even introduce the three-wheeled, two-stroke buckboard to North America. They can call it a Plymouth.
 
Originally Posted By: 72Cude426
Originally Posted By: bigt61
I would love to see the court case where Chrysler blames an owners use of Mobil 1 for an engine failure. Buy any Mobil 1 in the proper grade for your car and sleep easy.


So your saying manufacturer specs like Chrysler MS-6359 would not even hold up in court, So in that case why should people that have a GM car or truck use Dexos1, or ford spec. and going by your statement if a auto manufacturer specs 0w20 and you run 10w40 they should still stand by there warranty, Because going by your statement Car specs would not hold up in court.
Well I know this statement to be false. Because I lost a court battle on this because I believed what people like you told me.


I don't see how you interpret bigt61's statement that way at all. Not even close.

The spec will "hold up in court" just fine. But the fact that M1 meets or exceeds the spec (or not) remains a fact regardless of whether or not Mobil bothers to get certified.

The warranty requirement is to meet or exceed the spec, not get Chrysler's approval.

Sorry to drag up a stale thread...
 
From a 2013 Dodge Dart owners manual:

"We recommend you use SAE 0W-20 API Certified Engine Oil, meeting the requirements of Chrysler Material Standard MS-6395. Refer to your engine oil filler cap for correct SAE grade. If 0W-20 engine oil is not available, SAE 5W-20 API Certified may be used as a temporary suitable alternative."

Recommend and require are two different things. Use the right API grade and I'm pretty sure the manufacturer would not have a problem. My son just had his Dart serviced at the dealer where he bought it and they used a 5W-20 blend - completely ignoring the owners manual and the 0W-20 printed on the oil cap. Even the new car dealers are incompetent when doing an oil change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top