I'm looking for some High Mileage oil to use soon. I was looking at Pennzoil and Valvoline. Both Conventional oils meet Chrysler's MS-6395 specs, but there is no specific mention of that on the High Mileage oils. Anyone know what High Mileage oils meet MS-6395 and why Valvoline and Pennzoils would not?
Chrysler MS-6395 High Mileage
- Thread starter XtraRevsSurely
- Start date
- Status
What year, make and model is your car? And what is the recommended grade of oil for it? Mobil 1 HM may be your best bet.
Last edited:
I believe the ILSAC GF-4/5 Energy/Resource Conserving deal is part of Chrysler's Material Spec 6395. High mileage oils generally do not have the Energy/Resource Conserving label.
Why do you think you need a "high mileage oil"? Anything other than the mileage mark you hit? Leaks? Noise? useage?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The MS-6395 test is a field/fleet test that is run in addition to the standard API test protocols. At least that's what I could find about it.
Originally Posted By: XtraRevsSurely
I'm looking for some High Mileage oil to use soon. I was looking at Pennzoil and Valvoline. Both Conventional oils meet Chrysler's MS-6395 specs, but there is no specific mention of that on the High Mileage oils. Anyone know what High Mileage oils meet MS-6395 and why Valvoline and Pennzoils would not?
You wont find a HM oil with the MS6396 spec. I've looked since I've got consumption in the Charger the best thing I could find was that Valvoline explicitly states that use of their HM oil will not void the manufacturer's warranty.
I'm looking for some High Mileage oil to use soon. I was looking at Pennzoil and Valvoline. Both Conventional oils meet Chrysler's MS-6395 specs, but there is no specific mention of that on the High Mileage oils. Anyone know what High Mileage oils meet MS-6395 and why Valvoline and Pennzoils would not?
You wont find a HM oil with the MS6396 spec. I've looked since I've got consumption in the Charger the best thing I could find was that Valvoline explicitly states that use of their HM oil will not void the manufacturer's warranty.
Check out Kendall HM. It is a synthetic blend and has the info you( the OP )are after. It is API SN w/ Starburst and lists Chrysler MS6395...
http://www.conocophillipslubricants.com/...ndall+Motor+Oil
If you can't find it I would just use Valvoline Maxlife( blend or the full syn ). Maxlife is API SN/ILSAC-GF5. If you need a HM oil chances are warranty is not an issue but even if it is I would think it would easily meets Chrysler's MS-6395. At least the performance parts. If the spec calls for the API Starburst it would be a small issue.
http://www.conocophillipslubricants.com/...ndall+Motor+Oil
If you can't find it I would just use Valvoline Maxlife( blend or the full syn ). Maxlife is API SN/ILSAC-GF5. If you need a HM oil chances are warranty is not an issue but even if it is I would think it would easily meets Chrysler's MS-6395. At least the performance parts. If the spec calls for the API Starburst it would be a small issue.
wonder if the titanium competes with the Zn/Phos and Boron as they are all AW agents?
I have an 06 Pacifica with 55k miles on it. I am planning on switching at 75k miles and just looking into oils. Recommeded oil is 10w-30. Currently, I'm using Valvoline NextGen with a PureOne Filter.
But why plan on switching? If no reason to change, why do it? Many HM oils now are same viscosity as non HM. The newer SN may well have lower consumption than any SM or unrated HM oil, if consumption is your concern. OTW - it's all marketing.
I plan on switching for the benifits advertised with HM oil vs. Conventional (more additives, conditioners for seals, prevent leaks, etc.). I'm not burning oil or having leaks now. I've read mixed info/reviews/opinions on HM oil. What I've taken away from what I've read is that if you wait until you're experiencing the need HM oil it's too late.
Although, with my vehicle warranty (lifetime powertrain), Chrysler specifies oils that meet MS-6395. If there is not a HM oil that does not specfically meet MS-6395 I would just stick with a convential that does.
Since my vehicle has a LT powertrain warranty why would consider spending more for HM oil if it's not necessary? Because I like the feeling of giving my cars the best reasonalble maintenance I can.
Although, with my vehicle warranty (lifetime powertrain), Chrysler specifies oils that meet MS-6395. If there is not a HM oil that does not specfically meet MS-6395 I would just stick with a convential that does.
Since my vehicle has a LT powertrain warranty why would consider spending more for HM oil if it's not necessary? Because I like the feeling of giving my cars the best reasonalble maintenance I can.
I see valvoline HM appear somewhat more viscous than the resource conserving GF5 oils. If you dont have seal leaks, you dont want a seal swelling agent. Additives? The Phos % must meet SN/GF5. I think a formula changeover at this moderate mileage may be more prone to cause problems than sticking with whats currently working for you. My point may be a moot argument as we just changed to GF-5. Dont be swayed by marketing hyperbole, most benefits are on PAPER only and dont pan out in the pudding.
Originally Posted By: XtraRevsSurely
I plan on switching for the benifits advertised with HM oil vs. Conventional (more additives, conditioners for seals, prevent leaks, etc.). I'm not burning oil or having leaks now. I've read mixed info/reviews/opinions on HM oil. What I've taken away from what I've read is that if you wait until you're experiencing the need HM oil it's too late.
Although, with my vehicle warranty (lifetime powertrain), Chrysler specifies oils that meet MS-6395. If there is not a HM oil that does not specfically meet MS-6395 I would just stick with a convential that does.
Since my vehicle has a LT powertrain warranty why would consider spending more for HM oil if it's not necessary? Because I like the feeling of giving my cars the best reasonalble maintenance I can.
As I posted Kendall HM meets all of your LPTW needs.
I plan on switching for the benifits advertised with HM oil vs. Conventional (more additives, conditioners for seals, prevent leaks, etc.). I'm not burning oil or having leaks now. I've read mixed info/reviews/opinions on HM oil. What I've taken away from what I've read is that if you wait until you're experiencing the need HM oil it's too late.
Although, with my vehicle warranty (lifetime powertrain), Chrysler specifies oils that meet MS-6395. If there is not a HM oil that does not specfically meet MS-6395 I would just stick with a convential that does.
Since my vehicle has a LT powertrain warranty why would consider spending more for HM oil if it's not necessary? Because I like the feeling of giving my cars the best reasonalble maintenance I can.
As I posted Kendall HM meets all of your LPTW needs.
Originally Posted By: XtraRevsSurely
I plan on switching for the benifits advertised with HM oil vs. Conventional (more additives, conditioners for seals, prevent leaks, etc.). I'm not burning oil or having leaks now. I've read mixed info/reviews/opinions on HM oil. What I've taken away from what I've read is that if you wait until you're experiencing the need HM oil it's too late.
Although, with my vehicle warranty (lifetime powertrain), Chrysler specifies oils that meet MS-6395. If there is not a HM oil that does not specfically meet MS-6395 I would just stick with a convential that does.
Since my vehicle has a LT powertrain warranty why would consider spending more for HM oil if it's not necessary? Because I like the feeling of giving my cars the best reasonalble maintenance I can.
FWIW as they say, my Chrysler 98 minivan(that takes not so mini 4x8 sheets inside) 3.8 has 211k and I use 5w-30, trop artic from a few years ago stash, right now. The drivetrain hasn't been repaired, yet, and it runs very well, although now I hardly use it, just to haul things. I'm going to go risky and try 10w-30 synthetic from WM next year.
I was wondering about that warranty, seems they no longer offer it? I think if the dealer charge is reasonable I would take mine there if I had that kind of warranty, get the book stamped, and forget about the oil advertising hype, IMO.
I plan on switching for the benifits advertised with HM oil vs. Conventional (more additives, conditioners for seals, prevent leaks, etc.). I'm not burning oil or having leaks now. I've read mixed info/reviews/opinions on HM oil. What I've taken away from what I've read is that if you wait until you're experiencing the need HM oil it's too late.
Although, with my vehicle warranty (lifetime powertrain), Chrysler specifies oils that meet MS-6395. If there is not a HM oil that does not specfically meet MS-6395 I would just stick with a convential that does.
Since my vehicle has a LT powertrain warranty why would consider spending more for HM oil if it's not necessary? Because I like the feeling of giving my cars the best reasonalble maintenance I can.
FWIW as they say, my Chrysler 98 minivan(that takes not so mini 4x8 sheets inside) 3.8 has 211k and I use 5w-30, trop artic from a few years ago stash, right now. The drivetrain hasn't been repaired, yet, and it runs very well, although now I hardly use it, just to haul things. I'm going to go risky and try 10w-30 synthetic from WM next year.
I was wondering about that warranty, seems they no longer offer it? I think if the dealer charge is reasonable I would take mine there if I had that kind of warranty, get the book stamped, and forget about the oil advertising hype, IMO.
If there really is no benefit of HM oil then I wouldn't use it.
I believe Chrysler only offer LT warranties on new vehs now. Ours was CPO.
I believe Chrysler only offer LT warranties on new vehs now. Ours was CPO.
On a "lifetime" warranty I would opine that documenting regular and scheduled oil & filter changes with the correct viscosity oil is much more important than whether all individual quart bottles have the MS-6395 spec listed...
In other words, showing you used (for example) the "required" 5W-30 SM oil and changed it and the filter each & every 5K is going to outway any speculation that an individual oil change done at 35K was not performed with an oil that list(ed?)s MS-6395 on the spec sheet.
This is assuming that the "lifetime" warranty does not require some dealership's stamp in a book to be valid: you have to admit it would be pretty hard to even allege that a quart of oil used 50K ago contributed to an "oil-related" failure, much less prove that it was caused by it?
Just IMHO & Cheers!
In other words, showing you used (for example) the "required" 5W-30 SM oil and changed it and the filter each & every 5K is going to outway any speculation that an individual oil change done at 35K was not performed with an oil that list(ed?)s MS-6395 on the spec sheet.
This is assuming that the "lifetime" warranty does not require some dealership's stamp in a book to be valid: you have to admit it would be pretty hard to even allege that a quart of oil used 50K ago contributed to an "oil-related" failure, much less prove that it was caused by it?
Just IMHO & Cheers!
Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
On a "lifetime" warranty I would opine that documenting regular and scheduled oil & filter changes with the correct viscosity oil is much more important than whether all individual quart bottles have the MS-6395 spec listed...
In other words, showing you used (for example) the "required" 5W-30 SM oil and changed it and the filter each & every 5K is going to outway any speculation that an individual oil change done at 35K was not performed with an oil that list(ed?)s MS-6395 on the spec sheet.
This is assuming that the "lifetime" warranty does not require some dealership's stamp in a book to be valid: you have to admit it would be pretty hard to even allege that a quart of oil used 50K ago contributed to an "oil-related" failure, much less prove that it was caused by it?
Just IMHO & Cheers!
The Chrysler LPTW requires you follow the maintenance info in the owner's manaul and then have an inspection every 5 years( no charge ). No special stamps required.
On a "lifetime" warranty I would opine that documenting regular and scheduled oil & filter changes with the correct viscosity oil is much more important than whether all individual quart bottles have the MS-6395 spec listed...
In other words, showing you used (for example) the "required" 5W-30 SM oil and changed it and the filter each & every 5K is going to outway any speculation that an individual oil change done at 35K was not performed with an oil that list(ed?)s MS-6395 on the spec sheet.
This is assuming that the "lifetime" warranty does not require some dealership's stamp in a book to be valid: you have to admit it would be pretty hard to even allege that a quart of oil used 50K ago contributed to an "oil-related" failure, much less prove that it was caused by it?
Just IMHO & Cheers!
The Chrysler LPTW requires you follow the maintenance info in the owner's manaul and then have an inspection every 5 years( no charge ). No special stamps required.
Originally Posted By: XtraRevsSurely
If there really is no benefit of HM oil then I wouldn't use it.
I believe Chrysler only offer LT warranties on new vehs now. Ours was CPO.
Chrysler no longer offers the LPTW( unless you buy it yourself as an extended warranty ). They have adopted a 5 year/100K PTW.
The LPTW was offered on 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 model year vehicles only. It is non transferable so the warranty only covers the original owner of the vehicle. For a 2006 or 2007 model year vehicle to be covered under the LPTW it must have been purchased on or after July 26, 2007. Any 2006 or 2007 model year vehicle purchased before that date only came with a standard 3/36 warranty.
If there really is no benefit of HM oil then I wouldn't use it.
I believe Chrysler only offer LT warranties on new vehs now. Ours was CPO.
Chrysler no longer offers the LPTW( unless you buy it yourself as an extended warranty ). They have adopted a 5 year/100K PTW.
The LPTW was offered on 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 model year vehicles only. It is non transferable so the warranty only covers the original owner of the vehicle. For a 2006 or 2007 model year vehicle to be covered under the LPTW it must have been purchased on or after July 26, 2007. Any 2006 or 2007 model year vehicle purchased before that date only came with a standard 3/36 warranty.
- Status
Similar threads
