There was a period where Mobil refused to put the FCA Material Specifications on their flagship products (Mobil 1) after Fiat pulled their factory fill and service contract after the merger, and gave it to Shell. It had nothing to do with the performance of the product, it was politics and a bit of a protest by Mobil. That's how M1 FS 0W-40 overnight went from the SRT oil to not the SRT oil, and we got the watered down "SRT" 0W-40.
Filters are generally rated for 10K miles or more. I rarely exceed 5K OCIs. I used to be in the every OCI filter camp, but no more.
Those are standard API SN/GF-5 tests. We've been over this.
Which are again part of the API SN/GF-5 standard.
Look up what? All you've done is attempted to gaslight people by saying there were extra tests in the standard, when, other than the fleet test, which we've both agreed is at least *something* but we don't know the details of, you've brought absolutely no evidence forward that there are.
TBN, TAN and MRV are not "extra tests". Please, if you are going to profess to be an expert, at least understand the material you are pretending to be an authority on.
No, I'm not. Again, if you understood the material (which it is clear you don't) you wouldn't have posted those "examples" because you would have understood what they were.
No, you are dealing with people that understand what these standards ARE, while you are cosplaying "oil expert" and getting caught with your pants down. Dancing around and deflecting is not helping your cause.
What lubrication related failures would that be? If you are talking about the HEMI lifter failures or the Pentastar roller follower failures, that would be incorrect. Those were materials issues.
So you are basing this on the fleet testing results? Because, as we've already covered, otherwise it's just SN/GF-5, which doesn't set the bar very high.
Because it's lower than the previous limit of 120ppm. Generally, the idea is to make the performance requirements more stringent with subsequent API/ILSAC standard revisions.
Which tests? Again, TBN/TAN and MRV are not "performance tests" as you are trying to use them here, they are physical properties of a product. If there are other ones that you haven't mentioned, I'm all ears.
How does dexos, being more stringent than API/ILSAC, fit in here with this discussion about MS-6395? If anything, it underscores the inadequacy of those base API approvals, which is the same reason the Euro OEM's developed their own extensive test protocols.
What experts? What recommendation? By this metric, running the cheapest possible 5W-20 that meets MS-6395 (and not dexos) is "knowing better", rather than a Mobil 1 product that doesn't carrying the material specification, but does carry dexos.
I asked you to show me that you know what the specs indicate. I was expecting you to at least say that, for example, the cam wear test is done on a Nissan camshaft. I was prepared to ask you to detail the difference between that Nissan and a Pentastar camshaft in terms of hardness, material selection, tolerances, lobe profile etc. Instead, I got the most kindergartener response imaginable - "Uhhhhh less wear means more better."
No, you asked me why it was 90 microns, I told you because it's less than the previous limit of 120 microns. You didn't ask for any details about the test. Knowing that the limit was previously higher should have been a prompt for you to ponder why. This was not some elaborate trap Moriarty, regardless of how you are trying to spin it post-mortem.
Every oil that meets the requirements of SN/GL-5 doesn't have MS-6395. You aren't making sense here. You are singling out one part of the SN/GL-5 test protocol that mentions wear, and trying to spin it into having this relationship with MS-6395 that simply doesn't exist. SN/GF-5 is simply the baseline for MS-6395, just like the ACEA protocols like A3/B4 are the baseline for the Euro approvals. Except in this instance, the only additional test appears to be the fleet test.
Right, the guy that didn't know that MRV is a property of an oil in the grading system and not a performance test is telling me I don't understand the standards. Forgive me if I don't take your criticisms too seriously.
Right, I'm sure you did
Dude, you haven't understood the subject since the beginning. This is the biggest load of Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen, but I do admire your commitment to it! Your statement makes no sense. The API/ISLAC approvals are the baseline; they are the bare minimum to ensure a performance "floor". GM decided that this was wholly inadequate, hence the development of dexos. Chrysler felt it was adequate, hence the simple addition of the fleet test. Honda and Toyota both feel it's adequate and don't have additional approvals/standards/tests.
You've been sidestepping the fact that Chrysler very clearly states MS-6395 is meant to address wear in Chrysler vehicles. It is not GL-5. You're the one who keeps trying to make it seem that way. It has additional tests. You singled out the TAN/TBN and ignored the rest.No, you asked me why it was 90 microns, I told you because it's less than the previous limit of 120 microns. You didn't ask for any details about the test. Knowing that the limit was previously higher should have been a prompt for you to ponder why. This was not some elaborate trap Moriarty, regardless of how you are trying to spin it post-mortem.
Every oil that meets the requirements of SN/GL-5 doesn't have MS-6395. You aren't making sense here. You are singling out one part of the SN/GL-5 test protocol that mentions wear, and trying to spin it into having this relationship with MS-6395 that simply doesn't exist. SN/GF-5 is simply the baseline for MS-6395, just like the ACEA protocols like A3/B4 are the baseline for the Euro approvals. Except in this instance, the only additional test appears to be the fleet test.
Right, the guy that didn't know that MRV is a property of an oil in the grading system and not a performance test is telling me I don't understand the standards. Forgive me if I don't take your criticisms too seriously.
Right, I'm sure you did
Dude, you haven't understood the subject since the beginning. This is the biggest load of Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen, but I do admire your commitment to it! Your statement makes no sense. The API/ISLAC approvals are the baseline; they are the bare minimum to ensure a performance "floor". GM decided that this was wholly inadequate, hence the development of dexos. Chrysler felt it was adequate, hence the simple addition of the fleet test. Honda and Toyota both feel it's adequate and don't have additional approvals/standards/tests.
What's your end goal here? It's clearly not to reach a consensus on what is and isn't in MS-6395, if so, we'd be discussing the points I've made about these additional "tests" you claim exist, rather than sidestepping them and trying to turn this around and making it a personal attack on me and my credibility. You also completely avoided my mention of MS-6395 pre-dating the Pentastar, the very first point in the post you've quoted and something you seemed to, at the time, feel was important, since you chose to preface it with "one more time"
Believe it or not, I am actually trying to have a productive conversation with you here. I'm not being disingenuous. I am aware of what the material specification SAYS it is, but it also says it's SN/GF-5 (with "additional requirements"):
So far, the 2-year fleet test is the only thing we can both agree, stands out from SN/GF-5. We may disagree on its relevance, but it's at least SOMETHING beyond SN/GF-5.
Most of them do
(though most of them are SP/GF-6A now)Good, let's keep the conversation that way.
Idk. Filters are cheap. 10-12 bucks and you can even find cheaper ones. I don’t see a point of stretching that out.
I finally got around to purchasing a tester and I was amazed at the results. I had a brand new jug of pre-mixed coolant that I just bought for my daughter's car so I used that as a test dummy. As expected, it tested perfectly, burying the needle on both freeze and boil point tests. Then I cleaned the tester and tested my car with its at least 14 y/o coolant. The coolant in my car buried the needle too on both tests; boil protection to over 268F and freeze protection to under -45F, as well as being quite transparent and free of any visible debris. Just to verify the tester was working, I cleaned it again and then tested it just using plain water and it returned results one would expect of plain tap water. I was really quite surprised.
I did test it and the results were the same as brand new coolant still in the jug! Details in post #95.
