Oil for 2.0 Skyactiv - Battle of the 0w-20

I thought most Mobil 1 5w-20 “meets or exceeds MS-6395” even the basic Walmart ones do as far as I can tell?
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.
 
Why would you swap oil filters every other oil change? They’re cheap, and why would want to contaminate fresh oil with used oil in the filter?
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.
The MityVac allows for such quick and clean services. So this is where I am at now.

If I did 10K OCIs, the filter would be similar to 2 5K OCIs, right?
 
I read the entire document, I have a copy. It's SN/GF-5 with a fleet test. This is not a high bar, as evidenced by some extremely cheap conventional oils able to obtain it.

Why do those stand out in your expert opinion?

D664A - TAN - You get this on a used oil analysis.
D2896 - TBN - You get this on a used oil analysis.
D4684A - This is a standard property of an oil (MRV) as measured for SAE J300:
View attachment 279029
D6278 - This is the same as D6709, Shear Stability, as indicated in SN/GF-5
D6335 - TEOST 33C, standard part of SN/GF-5
D7528 - Aged oil low temp viscosity test, standard part of SN/GF-5

With the utmost respect, I think you are well out of your depth on this subject. The fact that not only did you think that TBN/TAN were some sort of "gotcha" as an unincluded test, but that you didn't recognize MRV as part of the grading system, really works to underscore that.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing this stuff. Might be time to hit "pause" and revisit how you interact with the rest of us, starting there.

Yes, the 2-year 100,000 mile Las Vegas taxi fleet test is the only real additional test that's been brought up so far, but we know it's relatively easy to pass, as I said earlier; it doesn't set the bar very high.

Which ones? Because all the ones you listed, save for TBN/TAN, which are done as part of used oil analysis, not an API/ILSAC sequence, are indeed present in SN/GF-5 or the SAE grading system.

I pointed out the ones that stand out because within the table I posted, as they are related to engine wear. The others are for things like durometer and gasket compatibility. Seeing as how inconvenient facts have been glossed over before, I knew some wouldn't take the time to actually look up what they were. Obviously, this is still true.

You said there were no extra tests. I showed you the extra tests. You declare that those extra tests are either redundant or not applicable. Those aren't the same ASTM tests, sorry. All you're doing is changing the goalposts.

I'm dealing with emotionally invested people who can't maintain objectivity.
 
I pointed out the ones that stand out because within the table I posted, as they are related to engine wear.
Those are standard API SN/GF-5 tests. We've been over this.
The others are for things like durometer and gasket compatibility.
Which are again part of the API SN/GF-5 standard.
Seeing as how inconvenient facts have been glossed over before, I knew some wouldn't take the time to actually look up what they were. Obviously, this is still true.
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.
You said there were no extra tests. I showed you the extra tests.
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.
You declare that those extra tests are either redundant or not applicable. Those aren't the same ASTM tests, sorry. All you're doing is changing the goalposts.
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.
I'm dealing with emotionally invested people who can't maintain objectivity.
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.

If you want to discuss the merits of any one standard here, I'm more than willing to engage. If you have an example, other than the fleet test, of something that exists in this material specification that is NOT part of SN/GF-5, again, let's have that conversation. But you do not appear interested in actually having that conversation and learning, you want to be right, because you are emotionally invested in being right (nice projection BTW), and this is preventing you from acknowledging that you don't really understand this stuff, which, as I said is just fine! But that's a you problem, because the rest of us already know that.
 
One more time. Some Chrysler engines had a series of lubrication-related failures. MS-6395 was developed by Chrysler to address this. This information is readily verifiable.

While a non-cert oil can potentially protect adequately, this isn't something you or I can verify to the extent that the OEM's have.

For example, pick an ASTM. You can explain what it's testing, but can you do the same for the Pass/Fail Metric. GL-5 cam wear. Why is 90 microns the limit?

As for the extra tests, it's also verifiable that they are not part of GL-5. They are their own tests, and they have been selected because Chrysler chooses to evaluate this way beyond GL-5. This isn't unique to Chrysler. GL-5 is a minimum, and various manufacturers, such as GM, have gone above.

"Rhoads indicates that dexos 1 will require the lubricant market to make some adjustments by moving beyond for-
mulating of components to meet just GF-5...These new requirements cannot be met with optimized GF-5 chemistry alone...added complexity as OEM needs diverge and it will become increasingly difficult to have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach."


https://www.stle.org/images/pdf/STL...ce Needed to Meet GF-5_tlt article_Sept10.pdf

The sarcastic remarks about calling me the expert and projecting are notable. I'm the one saying stick to what the experts recommend. You, however, think you know better.
 
One more time. Some Chrysler engines had a series of lubrication-related failures. MS-6395 was developed by Chrysler to address this. This information is readily verifiable.
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.

The MS-6395 material standard long pre-dates the Pentastar engine.
While a non-cert oil can potentially protect adequately, this isn't something you or I can verify to the extent that the OEM's have.
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.
For example, pick an ASTM. You can explain what it's testing, but can you do the same for the Pass/Fail Metric. GL-5 cam wear. Why is 90 microns the limit?
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.
As for the extra tests, it's also verifiable that they are not part of GL-5. They are their own tests, and they have been selected because Chrysler chooses to evaluate this way beyond GL-5. This isn't unique to Chrysler. GL-5 is a minimum, and various manufacturers, such as GM, have gone above.
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.
"Rhoads indicates that dexos 1 will require the lubricant market to make some adjustments by moving beyond for-
mulating of components to meet just GF-5...These new requirements cannot be met with optimized GF-5 chemistry alone...added complexity as OEM needs diverge and it will become increasingly difficult to have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach."


https://www.stle.org/images/pdf/STLE_ORG/BOK/OM_OA/Additives/Special Report_Proper Additive Balance Needed to Meet GF-5_tlt article_Sept10.pdf
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.
The sarcastic remarks about calling me the expert and projecting are notable. I'm the one saying stick to what the experts recommend. You, however, think you know better.
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 have been using Liqui Moly Molygen 0w20 in my FA24 with great results. UOAs re good and power seems to be great and smooth on acceleration.
 
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.

The MS-6395 material standard long pre-dates the Pentastar engine.

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."

What do the numbers mean? Why 90 Microns. Why not 85?

It's a rhetorical question. You can't answer exactly; however, neither can I, and that's fine.

Chrysler can, GM can. Actually, they're nice enough to tell us all what's acceptable and not. Yes, that particular one is part of GL-5, but is it within the realm of possibility that this is one metric of wear after the real-world verification process of MS-6935?

Another thing your answer shows is that you don't fully understand GL-5. I figured as much, hence the question. If you don't understand GL-5 then you shouldn't be telling anyone what's better or worse about it, whether it needs additional tests to meet OEM acceptance criteria or not. Leave that to the OEM's. I do.
 
Last edited:
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.
What do the numbers mean? Why 90 Microns. Why not 85?

It's a rhetorical question. You can't answer exactly; however, neither can I, and that's fine.

Chrysler can, GM can. Actually, they're nice enough to tell us all what's acceptable and not. Yes, that particular one is part of GL-5, but is it within the realm of possibility that this is one metric of wear after the real-world verification process of MS-6935?
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.
Another thing your answer shows is that you don't fully understand GL-5.
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.
I figured as much, hence the question.
Right, I'm sure you did :ROFLMAO:
If you don't understand GL-5 then you shouldn't be telling anyone what's better or worse about it, whether it needs additional tests to meet OEM acceptance criteria or not. Leave that to the OEM's. I do.
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" 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
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 :ROFLMAO:

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"
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.

I also think you're minimizing the 2-year fleet test. Say you do your own test with 'x' brand. You run it for 2 years no problem. Still not as thorough a test. There are limits to your abilities. So since there are limits to your abilities, how can you tell the people who do have the resources (Chrysler) what's needed and not?

If MS-6395 was just GL-5 then, gee, just about any SN oil would already have the spec.

Moriarty...that did give me a pretty good laugh, though.
 
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.
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"):
1747244662253.webp


You presented a list that you thought were additional tests. I took the time to explain what the ones you called out were. You continue to argue with me that these are "tests", but I have clearly explained what the ones you listed were. Yes, two of them were TBN and TAN, the other was MRV, which is part of J300. Others still were indeed included in SN/GF-5, even though you thought they weren't.

If you have other examples, aside from the ones I've already addressed, let's discuss those. Or if you think I'm wrong about specific ones I've already described, call them out, let's have a conversation.

So far, "additional requirements" seems to mean the fleet test.
I also think you're minimizing the 2-year fleet test. Say you do your own test with 'x' brand. You run it for 2 years no problem. Still not as thorough a test. There are limits to your abilities. So since there are limits to your abilities, how can you tell the people who do have the resources (Chrysler) what's needed and not?
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.
If MS-6395 was just GL-5 then, gee, just about any SN oil would already have the spec.
Most of them do 🤷‍♂️ (though most of them are SP/GF-6A now)
https://pqia.org/mobil-special-sae-5w-30-synthetic-blend-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/pennzoil-sae-5w-30-synthetic-blend-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/warren-sae-5w-20-synthetic-blend-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/shield-valor-sae-5w-30-full-synthetic-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/syngard-sae-5w-30-full-synthetic-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/syntec-sae-5w-30-full-synthetic-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/valvoline-sae-0w-20-full-synthetic-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/castrol-edge-sae-0w-20-advanced-full-synthetic-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/sunoco-ultra-synthetic-blend-sae-5w-30-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/mobil-full-synthetic-5w-30-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/duramax-5w-30-full-synthetic/
https://pqia.org/mobil-super-5w-30-synthetic-blend-motor-oil/
https://pqia.org/majestic-5w-30-advanced-ld88/

I'm not going to prepare an exhaustive list, but there are a LOT of oils with it.
Moriarty...that did give me a pretty good laugh, though.
Good, let's keep the conversation that way.
 
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.
The MityVac allows for such quick and clean services. So this is where I am at now.

If I did 10K OCIs, the filter would be similar to 2 5K OCIs, right?
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 subscribe to the theory of ignorance is bliss! I'll check it though and provide results.
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.
 
Did you ever test the coolant with one of those cheap over the counter testers? Curious to what temp the coolant is still good for?

I typically don't touch the coolant for 75-100K in a new car anymore. Ater that, just do a drain and fill every 30K.
I did test it and the results were the same as brand new coolant still in the jug! Details in post #95.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom