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

[alarmguy]

I always used 5w30 in my wife’s 2012 Mazda SkyActive engine.
It called for 20 inside the USA but interesting 30 allowed outside including Mexico

Anyway just sold it to someone in our community with 95,000 miles on it. Never needs oil added between changes and never needed a repair.

With that said we do live in a warm to hot climate depending on time of year of course. Cold below 20f rarely happens but summertime 90f+ common for months

We now have a 2025 GM Equinox and undecided what to do. Engine Calls for 0w20 I suspect I will do the same 5w30, have time to think about it. First change provided by the dealer at no cost

 

[OVERKILL]

MS-6395 is why. Chrysler's oil spec, and they mean it.

What part of MS-6395 are you specifically referring to here?

 

[siriusc1024]

What part of MS-6395 are you specifically referring to here?

S

Post in thread 'Pentastar Owners! Any oil usage?'

Apr 30, 2025

Wear is not the issue with any fully-formulated motor oil.

That's what I'm trying to explain. This spec was created to address wear in Chrysler engines, and they do indeed test for it.

• siriusc1024

 

[OVERKILL]

S

Post in thread 'Pentastar Owners! Any oil usage?'

Apr 30, 2025

Wear is not the issue with any fully-formulated motor oil.

That's what I'm trying to explain. This spec was created to address wear in Chrysler engines, and they do indeed test for it.

• siriusc1024

That's just API SN/ILSAC GF-5:

 

[Glenda W.]

MS-6395 isn’t exactly the pinnacle of approvals. SOPUS(QS/Pennzoil) conventional oils hold the approval…

 

[siriusc1024]

MS-6395 isn’t exactly the pinnacle of approvals. SOPUS(QS/Pennzoil) conventional oils hold the approval…

Valvoline does as well. Just put some R&P in a Hemi, and it's on there.

Pinnacle of approvals no. It's the approval by Chrysler that targets wear in Chrysler engines specifically. If the oil doesn't have that approval then the same protection isn't guaranteed.

 

[kschachn]

That's just API SN/ILSAC GF-5:

Part of the discussion a long time ago in this thread.

 

[kschachn]

Pinnacle of approvals no. It's the approval by Chrysler that targets wear in Chrysler engines specifically. If the oil doesn't have that approval then the same protection isn't guaranteed.

For one thing it’s not an approval it’s a material specification. And it doesn’t target wear in Chrysler engines any different than the API license @OVERKILL showed.

You’re just making stuff up at this point.

 

[Glenda W.]

For one thing it’s not an approval it’s a material specification. And it doesn’t target wear in Chrysler engines any different than the API license @OVERKILL showed.

You’re just making stuff up at this point.

I used the term approval which he/she responded to. I’ll take the blame on that one. But yes the bar is low.

 

[siriusc1024]

I don't know what is so hard about this. It's an approval. One of the requirements is 2 years fleet operation to get it. It's for wear in Chrysler engines.

 

[kschachn]

I don't know what is so hard about this. It's an approval. One of the requirements is 2 years fleet operation to get it. It's for wear in Chrysler engines.

Agreed. It says right in the picture that it’s a standard.

 

[OVERKILL]

I don't know what is so hard about this. It's an approval. One of the requirements is 2 years fleet operation to get it. It's for wear in Chrysler engines.

View attachment 278900

It’s your bog standard API approval with the addition of a fleet test, which is a pretty low bar. There is nothing “stringent” about it, and as I mentioned earlier, the parts you highlighted as being about Chrysler are not, they are just part of the (now obsolete) API SN/ILSAC GF-5 standard.

This is extremely similar to the Ford WSS material standards, which include some slight variation to the standard API protocols.

 

[swrve]

MS-6395 is why. Chrysler's oil spec, and they mean it.

I dont think I understand? both the Mobil 1 and Valvoline Advanced have the MS-6395 certification.

 

[Bullwinkle007]

Use a decent Syn for 5K OCIs and swap the filter every 2nd service. I just serviced my grand niece's beautiful 2015 Mazda 3 using M1 0w20.

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?

 

[siriusc1024]

Agreed. It says right in the picture that it’s a standard.

You're playing semantics. Whatever you want to call it, MS-6395 was developed to address wear in Chrysler engines.

It’s your bog standard API approval with the addition of a fleet test, which is a pretty low bar. There is nothing “stringent” about it, and as I mentioned earlier, the parts you highlighted as being about Chrysler are not, they are just part of the (now obsolete) API SN/ILSAC GF-5 standard.

This is extremely similar to the Ford WSS material standards, which include some slight variation to the standard API protocols.

That's not an honest statement. You didn't read through the spec sheet. It's based on GF-5 (API SN), and it has additional tests. I underlined that part red for you above, but you conveniently ignored it because why exactly?

To get MS-6395, an oil must be at a minimum GF-5. I've crossed out those GF-5 sequences. Some more red for you. Here are additional tests:

What stands out is:
D664a - TAN (total acid number)
D2896 - TBN (total base number)
D4684a - low temp yield stress and apparent viscosity
D6278 - shear stability of polymer containing fluids
D6335 - high temperature deposit by thermo-oxidation
D7528 - oil aging test bench oxidation

The 2 year fleet run is an additional test on top for verification. Unfortunately, I couldn't find details on how those results were evaluated.

BTW you won't find those tests in GF-6 (API SP), either.
https://www.infineuminsight.com/media/2841/api-engine-oil-classifications-brochure2.pdf

 

[siriusc1024]

I dont think I understand? both the Mobil 1 and Valvoline Advanced have the MS-6395 certification.

M1 has a bunch of different oils. He was most likely running one that didn't have that spec. Mobil 1 Super is the only one I know of that has it.

 

[kschachn]

M1 has a bunch of different oils. He was most likely running one that didn't have that spec. Mobil 1 Super is the only one I know of that has it.

Which in and of itself is a peripheral indicator that it is nothing special.

This is turning into the Twilight Zone.

 

[swrve]

M1 has a bunch of different oils. He was most likely running one that didn't have that spec. Mobil 1 Super is the only one I know of that has it.

I thought most Mobil 1 5w-20 “meets or exceeds MS-6395” even the basic Walmart ones do as far as I can tell?

 

[Glenda W.]

QS/Pennzoil/Valvoline conventional oils meet the spec. which indicates just how low the bar is set.

 

[OVERKILL]

That's not an honest statement. You didn't read through the spec sheet. It's based on GF-5 (API SN), and it has additional tests. I underlined that part red for you above, but you conveniently ignored it because why exactly?

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.

To get MS-6395, an oil must be at a minimum GF-5. I've crossed out those GF-5 sequences. Some more red for you. Here are additional tests:

View attachment 279010

What stands out is:
D664a - TAN (total acid number)
D2896 - TBN (total base number)
D4684a - low temp yield stress and apparent viscosity
D6278 - shear stability of polymer containing fluids
D6335 - high temperature deposit by thermo-oxidation
D7528 - oil aging test bench oxidation

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:

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.

The 2 year fleet run is an additional test on top for verification. Unfortunately, I couldn't find details on how those results were evaluated.

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.

BTW you won't find those tests in GF-6 (API SP), either.
https://www.infineuminsight.com/media/2841/api-engine-oil-classifications-brochure2.pdf

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.