Please Recommend Oil for my Pentastar 3.6

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Man, this is OLD hat oil stuff:
you MUST use an approved lubricant thet meets the specs, or, is on the mfg approval list for the particular Brand/engine or BMW/MERC or VAG can and will legally deny warranty claims.
But If you use Pennzoil conventional API SN/ILSAC GF5/ ACEA A1 from IffyyLube in your BMW 3.0 twin turbo I6 and the engine died at 10Kmi due to completely varnished and sludged internals, I'm certain SOPUS would not cover you for your ignorance in using an incorrect spec oil for the application.

ARCO makes a very valid point here. Automakers aren't the only ones offering a warranty. Filter manufacturers and oil companies do, too. I do not get to use GTX 5w-20 or 20w-50 in my G and expect BP to pick up the tab if something goes wrong. Or, if I use the correct grade, they're not going to help me if I run it for 50,000 miles.

If an oil isn't formally certified for a manufacturer's specification, that's fine and dandy if and only if the oil company will actually stand behind their product. To pick on GM this time, we're all confident here that plenty of oils out there do meet dexos1 but aren't licensed. I'm also sure that Pennzoil Conventional would work fine in a dexos1 engine over shorter OCIs.

Are my pockets deep enough to fight GM on this, particularly if the oil company isn't going to back me up? Sure, winning is possible, perhaps even likely. The first round of legal battles will cost more than the average vehicle is worth, though, let alone appeals, and ignoring the cost of having a vehicle down for the count for whatever period of time.

The automaker wants you to use the correct oil and the correct filter to protect the warranty. The oil companies tend to warranty the oil if it's used in a suitable application and with the correct filter. The filter companies are the same way, providing warranty for following their application guide and using the oil called for by the manufacturer.

One might trust RP and Amsoil to stand behind their product. I would trust them in that regard. With respect to the Chrysler specification, XOM dumped it. And I don't believe for one minute that it was only because they felt the test regime was onerous. dexos1 without the Chrysler spec? Really?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Ive broken in over 60 engines over the years


Sorry Arco, I couldn't help myself and just had to fix that for you!

That gave me a chuckle

Really only since API - SL IIRC have things been going south on the cars. Never really had any recurring engine issues that were oil/filter related before the late 1990's. I guess feul has beeen reformed a bit in the s time frame. Hard to find good fuel up here since the 70's. Had pretty good luck with Texaco, Gulf and American back in the day.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite

Man, this is OLD hat oil stuff:
you MUST use an approved lubricant thet meets the specs, or, is on the mfg approval list for the particular Brand/engine or BMW/MERC or VAG can and will legally deny warranty claims.


Nope. Disagree. If the fluid is advertised as meeting or exceeding the oil spec by the oil mfg you are good. You have done your part to comply. You do not have to use a "certified" oil( car mfg's spec ). Sorry. No way. If the oil is advertised as meeting a spec and it turns out not to then you have a law suit against the oil mfg for false claims.

If the oil does in fact meet/exceed the spec the car mfg can NOT deny your claim just because it is not a certified oil. Of course you need the data from the oil mfg proving it does in fact meet/exceed the oil spec in question to back it up.

Can a car mfg tell you what spec an oil must meet? YES!

Can a car mfg make you use an oil officially certified to the spec? NO!

Must you be able to show the non certified oil does in fact meet/exceed the spec if a problem arises and the car mfg calls the oil into question? YES

 

[OVERKILL]

Per AMSOIL:

Originally Posted By: AMSOIL

APPLICATIONS
AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil is excellent for use in all types of gasoline-fueled vehicles. It is recommended for all domestic and foreign vehicles requiring any of the listed performance specifications:

0W-20 (ASM): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…; ACEA A1/B1; GM 6094M; Chrysler MS-6395


Per Mobil:
Originally Posted By: MOBIL

Mobil 1 0W-40 meets or exceeds the requirements of:
API SN, SM, SL, SJ
ACEA A3/B3, A3/B4
Nissan GT-R


Then in a separate section:
Originally Posted By: MOBIL

Mobil 1 0W-40 has the following builder approvals:
MB-Approval 229.3
MB-Approval 229.5
BMW LONGLIFE OIL 01
VW 502 00/505 00
PORSCHE A40


Then in ANOTHER separate section:
Originally Posted By: MOBIL

According to ExxonMobil, Mobil 1 0W40 is of the following quality:
API CF
VW 503 01
SAAB
OPEL Long Life Service Fill GM-LL-A-025
OPEL Diesel Service Fill GM-LL-B-025
FIAT 9.55535 - M2
FIAT 9.55535 - N2
FIAT 9.55535 - Z2


To me, this seems as though there are three rather distinct classes being defined here:

1. One that the manufacturer has demonstrated to the required body/bodies (in this case the API, ACEA and Nissan) that their product meets or exceeds the requirements set for a given approval.

2. One that the manufacturer has submitted for and obtained a formal approval from an OEM, which may denote that the OEM themselves are the one doing the testing.

3. One that the manufacturer BELIEVES that their product is of a sufficient quality that it can be used in applications that require the approvals noted. This applies to the last section of the Mobil information as well as blenders like AMSOIL, Royal Purple, Redline....etc that use the "Recommended For" phrase.

In my mind, 1 and 2 put the burden of failure on the OEM. The product has been either approved by them for use after the oil company demonstrated that the product is compliant or the OEM themselves tested the product and issued a formal approval. Number 3 would put the burden of failure on the oil company if there were to be warranty issue with the OEM regarding a lubricant-related failure, as they are simply claiming there product is sufficient for use in the application and is not actually formally approved for it.

 

[NHHEMI]

Overkill;

If an oil mfg just says "recommended for" I would tend to side more with you on being cautious. That is not saying it actually meets the spec. However, I am not talking about an oil mfg saying recommended for. I am talking about them stating, in writing( on the bottle, on company literature, PDS, website, etc... )their oil meets or exceeds the spec in question.

If the oil mfg actually uses the terms "meets" or "meets and or exceeds", and they put it in writing, they are stating unequivocally that their product meets/exceeds the spec requirements. If it did not they would be opening themselves up to HUGE law suits. No way they make those claims if it is not true. Not in this day and age with everyone sue happy.

If an oil mfg actually claims meets/exceeds then they know what the spec calls for and they know what their product tests at to make the claim. A car mfg might try to deny a warranty claim if you use an non certified oil but if the oil actually can pass the spec testing they will lose. The oil company that claims the oil meets/exceeds the spec either helps you prove it and the car mfg ends up having to make the repair or you sue them for false claims if the oil really doesn't meet spec.

I am actually one of the biggest sticklers for the rules there is re: preserving warranty. I have been on both sides of the counter with engine related warranty issues and I know not to take crazy chances. I just don't agree that a car mfg can force mfg spec certified lubricants on you. They can force the spec just not the certified brands.

Also, just FYI as you talked about them specifically, Royal Purple does not state recommended for on their regular API oils( which is what people worrying about warranty would use ). They use meets or meets and or exceeds and they are specific as to what spec they are talking about. While RP may not pay for car mfg certifications( they do get API certified )they are clear in what spec's their product meets so I feel 100% confident using their products in a vehicle under warranty. If RP used recommended for as far as car mfg's spec's I would not use them in a vehicle under warranty under warranty.

Again, my point of view is based on the oil mfg stating meets or meets/exceeds not recommended for. Seeing as you used 0W-40 here is what RP says...

Originally Posted By: royalpurple.com

0W-40 meets and or exceeds European specs ACEA A3/
B3-04 warranty requirements.


So for me if I had a vehicle that called for a 0W-40 and those oil spec's I would not hesitate to use the RP. Not even if it was Mercedez or Audi. If they tried to deny my coverage because I didn't use a "certified" oil they would be in court really fast. If RP lied about the oil meeting the spec they would be in court just as fast.

As far as the OP he needs to worry about 5W-20 and Chrysler MS-6395 and here is what RP says on that...

Originally Posted By: royalpurple.com

5W-20 and 5w30 meets Chrysler MS-6395T


Not recommended for but unequivocally MEETS. So the OP would be perfectly fine using RP. IT would apply to any brand using similar wording.

 

[TKNY]

Lol I love this forum. My simple little question turned into a discussion of epic proportions.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI

However, I am not talking about an oil mfg saying recommended for. I am talking about them stating, in writing( on the bottle, on company literature, PDS, website, etc... )their oil meets or exceeds the spec in question.


Yes, we are on the same page here. I think my question with respect to this is more in-line with what that statement actually MEANS. Because, as I noted, Mobil uses it with respect to their API/ACEA and Nissan approvals, and we know it is officially approved for all three of those applications. Nissan specifically states that the only oil officially approved for use in the GT-R is Mobil 1 0w-40. Yet it falls under the "Meets or Exceeds" heading for that product, just like the API/ACEA specs.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Quote:
If the oil mfg actually uses the terms "meets" or "meets and or exceeds", and they put it in writing, they are stating unequivocally that their product meets/exceeds the spec requirements. If it did not they would be opening themselves up to HUGE law suits. No way they make those claims if it is not true. Not in this day and age with everyone sue happy.

If an oil mfg actually claims meets/exceeds then they know what the spec calls for and they know what their product tests at to make the claim.


And here is where I have a theory with respect to what actually happens here. I think that Meets/Exceeds as well as "Approved" mean the same thing depending on the specification in question.

Just going by the Mobil 1 0w-40 PDS again, I see formal approvals for the Euro stuff. I would bet that in order to get the Euro approvals, the Euro marques themselves actually have to run the test. Therefore, the product is quite literally "approved" by the OEM. I think for many of the domestic specs, and apparently even the Nissan GT-R, the oil company simply needs to demonstrate to whatever body or whichever car company that has the spec that the product meets or exceeds the performance requirements for that approval. Subsequently, the approval is granted.

Say for example we look at the Ford manual I posted earlier, they say you must use a lubricant meeting Ford spec A. This may mean that the oil company simply has to demonstrate to Ford that the oil is able to meet or exceed the terms or performance necessary for that approval and then they are allowed to put that statement on their bottle.

But if we look at say Mercedes, their "approval" may literally require that the oil company submit their product TO Mercedes for testing. At which point Mercedes tests the product, and, if the product demonstrates acceptable performance in Mercedes testing, they put it on their approved lubricant list and allow the manufacturer to state that their product is approved by Mercedes.

So in effect, we have perhaps the same end result, but with different terminologies due to different protocols

I think both may be acceptable, it simply depends on the requirement of the OEM in question. With Mercedes, they want to approve the oil, with Chrysler or Ford, they simply want a demonstration by the oil company that product is compliant with the terms of the specification. In fact, Mobil's response about why they don't have the Chrysler approval supports this theory, as Mobil said THEY would have to perform a 2-year fleet test of the product, meaning that THEY are required to test their product and show that it performs as required to Chrysler so that they can say it Meets/Exceeds the spec on their PDS. With Porsche or Mercedes, the testing is done BY Porsche or Mercedes, not Mobil.

Of course then there's the obvious "recommended for"

Meaning that no formal approval has been issued and no demonstration of a product meeting or exceeding a spec has been performed.

Thoughts?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: TKNY
Lol I love this forum. My simple little question turned into a discussion of epic proportions.

That's how we roll around here, LOL!

 

[billythekid]

In reality, how many people on here can honestly say they've had an oil related failure on a car with warranty and had a dispute over the oil used with the manufacturer? I don't know anyone. I think there's way too much over thinking in here.

I have the pentistar in a jeep and I'm now going to have to read the manual to see what it says for my own piece of mind...not that I'm worried about an oil related issue.

 

[Durango]

Originally Posted By: TKNY
Hey guys,

Just picked up a '13 Jeep Wrangler and would like to decide what oil to use. I plan on changing my oil at 1k miles, 4k miles and then 10k miles. I am planning on doing 6k intervals for the life of the motor, maybe go longer after sending in for an analysis. I would ideally like to do 10k intervals with a filter change every 5k but I guess the oil analysis will tell me what I can do.

I was planning on using an inexpensive synthetic for my first change at 1k since it will only be used for 3k miles, and then move on to a more expensive oil for the 6k intervals.

I was thinking Mobil 1 for first change since its cheap at Autozone, and then switch over to something else.

So my friendly oil analyzers and scientists, what do you recommend for me?


TKNY,

Don't mess with your warranty. Use the oil that came from the factory until it's first prescribed oil change and then switch over to a synthetic oil of your choice. If your use a dealership they use Pennzoil now over Mobil 1 due to the major share bought by Fiat. I have t now in my Durango and it seems fine just like it had M1 in it.

Durango

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
So for me if I had a vehicle that called for a 0W-40 and those oil spec's I would not hesitate to use the RP.

Remember, though, RP actually endorses that product for such applications, and I expect they would stand behind that. Not every company out there wants their stuff to be used in an application where the certification is lacking. Valvoline says Synpower is fine in a dexos1 application, even though it's not certified. They don't say the same thing about Valvoline conventional.

 

[The_Captain]

To the original poster:
My Jeep Grand Cherokee has the Pentastar V6. I have no complaints about this engine. I drained the factory fill at 2,200 miles. I am running Pennzoil Ultra right now and plan to continue to do so in the future. Stick with the recommended OCI and use an approved oil while under warrenty. If their should happen to be some issue I guarantee Chysler/Fiat is going to review everything before they drop $5,000 + for a new engine. Pennzoil Ultra, Pennzoil Platinum, QS Ultimate Durability and Kendall full synthetic are all great choices and would serve you well.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
So for me if I had a vehicle that called for a 0W-40 and those oil spec's I would not hesitate to use the RP.

Remember, though, RP actually endorses that product for such applications, and I expect they would stand behind that. Not every company out there wants their stuff to be used in an application where the certification is lacking. Valvoline says Synpower is fine in a dexos1 application, even though it's not certified. They don't say the same thing about Valvoline conventional.


Right. But that is my point. If an oil mfg says their oil meets a certain spec you can bet it does. To say their oil meets a spec it doesn't just opens them up to being sued( and losing ). If an oil mfg does not list their oil as meeting a spec then don't use it there. I never suggested using an oil that does not say it meets/exceeds a spec. My point is you don't have to use an oil that is "certified".

 

[Garak]

This just comes back to my wondering about why M1 really doesn't have the Chrysler specification. Aside from the time argument, I think they're still annoyed with Chrysler/Fiat.

It's ironic the RP would say use their 5w30 or 5w-20 (certified or not), while M1 basically says they haven't bothered with the certification.

 

[georgef]

Originally Posted By: "Mobil 1 FAQ"

Question:
Mobil 1 5W-20 and Chrysler MS-6395
Why is your Mobil 1 5W-20 not Chrysler MS-6395 spec approved? Or if it is, why is the certification not on the bottle or website?
-- Josh Eads, Cabot, AR

Answer:
Chrysler’s latest revision to the MS-6395 specification calls for a field trial spanning multiple seasons over two years. While we fully expect the exceptional performance of Mobil 1 synthetic motor oil to meet Chrysler’s specification requirements, at this time we are in the process of evaluating our timeline to start this testing.


I "fully expect" the sun to rise tomorrow morning, that doesn't mean it will.

 

[Garak]

I'd bet on the sun rising. I won't bet on them bothering with the certification anytime soon, or, for that matter, even completing testing. Their internal memo on the timeline probably mentions when a certain very hot place freezes over.

 

[hemitruck]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: TKNY
Thanks guys. I'll use Pennzoil Conventional for my first 2 changes, and decide on my Synthetic down the line.

I've always been such a sucker for Amsoil advertising I have to actually fight myself to not use it. LOL

What kind of change intervals could I get with top of the line Amsoil 5w30 synthetic?


First off if you're concerned with your warranty your Wrangler calls for 5W20 not 5W30. Good luck with it! With any luck I'll be ordering a 2014 in a few months.


the 2012 wrangler reqiures 5-30.

 

[qnyla]

Originally Posted By: hemitruck
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

First off if you're concerned with your warranty your Wrangler calls for 5W20 not 5W30. Good luck with it! With any luck I'll be ordering a 2014 in a few months.


the 2012 wrangler reqiures 5-30.


Same Pentastar 3.6 engine in the Wrangler, same part numbers, for both 2012 and 2013, but 2012 specifies 5W30 and 2013 specifies 5W20.

A safe bet the change was made for ever tightening CAFE requirements, but both 2012 and 2013 are rated the same for MPG.

So the question is, what would you run in a 2013 Wrangler 5W20 or 5W30 ?

 

[Norm Olt]

Yes. Either one makes Chrysler's MS-6395 in Chevron Supreme, BTW...

And Castrol GTX...

Cheers!

et cetera, ad nausium, ad infinitum

 

[Norm Olt]

Yes. Either one meets Chrysler MS-6395 in Chevron Supreme, BTW...

And Castrol GTX...

Cheers!

et cetera, ad nausium, ad infinitum