Why does Castrol 5w20 say meets the needs of Ford ,
Honda or Chrysler
does this mean that it's better than ,say
Pennzoil ?
Honda or Chrysler
does this mean that it's better than ,say
Pennzoil ?
dinos...what's better castrol or pennzoil 5w20?
- Thread starter blackhondaccord
- Start date
- Status
They meet all the same 20wt specifications for those 3 car makers you listed. Pennzoil has turned in several impressive 20wt UOA's.
I was told by a pennzoil tech via e-mail that ONLY Pennzoil Platinum meets the chrysler MS-6395M specification, their dino oils do not. The odd thing is that quaker state 5w-20 meets the chrysler spec. As to blackhondaaccord's question, I don't know that one is better than the other, because no one seems to know what the Chrysler MS-6395M specification really entails (if anything). They are both highly regarded oils, and I've used pennzoil in my honda in the past without worry.
I'd have to see the current DaimlerChrysler owner's manuals's verifying that only full synthetic motor oils meet the company's engine protection requirements before I'd even remotely consider accepting that Pennzoil CSR stooge's assertion. You can trust what I say, too, because I'm the President of the United States... (dum-dumpty-dum-dumpty-dumpty-dumpty-dum-dum)
Ray, he was saying of Penzoil products only PP meets the spec, not the only oil period.
We all know there are quite a few other syn and non syns that do meet it.
We all know there are quite a few other syn and non syns that do meet it.
Here's a problem with meeting that spec. Just because an oil doesn't have that spec listed, doesn't mean it doesn't meet the spec. Maybe they just didn't go through that testing sequence. So, we don't really know by reading the back of the bottle if a non-rated oil is necessarily better than a rated oil.
However, NO oil is going to state the tests it failed. It comes back to UOA's to determine if a specific oil is performing well in YOUR application. (And, of course, to maintain warranties, you'd better use an oil that is officially rated for the specs required by the manufacturer.)
However, NO oil is going to state the tests it failed. It comes back to UOA's to determine if a specific oil is performing well in YOUR application. (And, of course, to maintain warranties, you'd better use an oil that is officially rated for the specs required by the manufacturer.)
It doesn't seem realistic that a major co. like Pennzoil wouldn't go through the testing sequence.
Why would they intentionally exclude themselves from the market of all Chrysler products?
Why would they intentionally exclude themselves from the market of all Chrysler products?
Coke or Pepsi?
Ginger or Maryann?
Ginger or Maryann?
Per the Pennzoil conventional motor oil product data sheet:
Meets or exceeds Chrysler MS 6395 specification (SAE 5W-20, SAE 5W-30 and SAE 10W-30)
Pennzoil Yellow Bottle Product Data Sheet
This is a bit of a mystery specification, as no one has ever confirmed what the spec addresses beyond the normal GF-4 parameters.
Meets or exceeds Chrysler MS 6395 specification (SAE 5W-20, SAE 5W-30 and SAE 10W-30)
Pennzoil Yellow Bottle Product Data Sheet
This is a bit of a mystery specification, as no one has ever confirmed what the spec addresses beyond the normal GF-4 parameters.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Well, I stand corrected, but I did notice that the product sheet is dated March 2006. I believe it was sometime in March when I got the e-mail. The tech probably just looked at the old data sheet and left it at that.
MS-6395 is definitely a mystery, since oils such as Cam-2 meet the spec., but yet mobil clean 5000 and exxon superflo do not publish that they meet the spec. (mobil 1 does list the DC spec by the way). Chrysler's owner's manual makes it seem pretty dang important that your oil meet this spec., so I would think any oil that meets it would publish the spec. when they could.
I actually wrote Chrysler when I got my 04 Neon about MS-6395 as most oils did not list this specification. Well the information I got back was the GF-4 specification line for line that I fould online somewhere. So MS-6395 was GF-4. They said there was something different but could not find it. So it meets GF-4 you are OK. What was also interesting was that the alternative was a Sythetic SL. NO great biggy. just GF-4 line for line!
- Status
