Schaeffer Oil not MS-A0921 spec'd

Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,600
Location
Upper Midwest
As a Schaeffer fanboy, I just felt a little annoyed at the responses. There are many other oil makers that also do not meet the recommended spec., but this was "my" manufacturer and it stung a little. Plus I have a little over 6 gallons of the stuff in the shop I was hoping to use. Still might.
Actually I'm impressed they told you what they did. In the past I've always considered the company a bit loose in clearly stating what are actual licenses and specifications their products hold as compared to recommendations. I found it interesting they didn't just pencil whip this one but told you outright they weren't going to pursue the specification.

Another consideration they may have is the cost, those material specifications are unique to the automaker and aren't free. They may be weighing a cost/benefit to the amount of oil being sold. If that's the case you might see the product disappear altogether.
 

ClawSS

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
27
Location
Hubble, KY
The first email didn't say much more than stating that the new cert is "The FCA MS-A0921 specification is the updated specification for Pennzoil’s 0w-40 Ultra Platinum SAE 5W-40 and for an engine oil that meets API SP and ILSAC GF-6. This new specification supersedes the previous FCA MS-12633 and is recommended for use starting with model years 2022. The FCA MS-A0921 specification is also backwards compatible and can be used in older models that specify the use of the FCA MS-12633 specification. The 9040 (model number of the 0w40 Supreme 9000) only meets the older Chrysler specification."

Later in the exchange was there stated, "We have product updates in the works, but due to Covid some of the third-party testing and certification are taking longer to complete."

As for the phone call interaction....yeah that was just as vague and tight-lipped as you stated.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
23,070
Location
Iowegia - USA
Well, they are right about testing and pursuing the newer specifications.

I have a number of lubricants being tested by Savant and other labs. Test facilities lab staff had been furloughed or left so they are behind the 'eight ball.' Now they are trying to ramp up and rehire and train new staff.

Frustrating I know but it seems Schaeffer's has given you an upfront a view of their situation.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,776
Location
Ontario, Canada
Well it recommends it in black and white for the 2022. 2021 was the older MS-12633. It seems that Pennzoil has the exclusive on this so far.

Will they void it? Dunno. Would they look when the Hemi eats a lobe off the cam due to their inherent nature of under lubing the roller lifters? Also dunno.
They don't under lube the roller lifters. The lifters fail due to materials issues, which is why the vast, VAST majority of the engines never have the problem.
 
Joined
May 12, 2018
Messages
323
Location
CA
They don't under lube the roller lifters. The lifters fail due to materials issues, which is why the vast, VAST majority of the engines never have the problem.
Exactly…there are so many engine types out there that if the oil were to blame then it wouldn’t be JUST dodge/Chrysler products experiencing this phenomenon
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,776
Location
Ontario, Canada
A "lack of consideration" in the design. If a Hemi sits for long periods and does not get a chance to rev high enough for splash lubrication on the roller lifters and cam lobes, you will see lobe wear beginning. At some point the needle bearings in the lifter will fail and wipe a lobe. Happened on my 6.1 SRT after 140k mile, but only because I took it out of daily service and it would sit and be ran once a month for a pretty day grocery run. Otherwise I got a lot of fun miles out of it and a "clean as a whistle" engine when torn down from Schaeffer usage immediately on break-in oil change.

I want the same, but also fear a warranty denial if I get an extended because large corporations tend to do that.
The cam and lifters aren't intended to be splash lubed on the HEMI, there's a lot of metal in the way between the cam/lifters and the crank throws on the 5.7L (there's a big oil gallery that runs below the cam):
1644429454951.jpg


And it's even worse on the 6.4L, where that gallery is modified for the piston oil cooling jets:
1644429507673.jpg


The primary means of lubrication is oil coming down the lifter bodies from the pressure-lubed lifter bores. On old flat tappet mills, the cam/lifters were indeed sprayed oil from the crank/rod throw area, but they needed more lubrication than a roller setup does.

There have been at least three, if not more, revisions of the lifters. The issue appears to be related to improper hardening of either the pin or roller. The needles break through the surface hardening and once that happens, it isn't long until they pile-up, the roller stops rolling and then it eats the lobe. GM has basically the same issue on their AFM engines and have had QC issues with lifters to the point that our one mechanic member here won't even use anything other than the "bowtie" lifters for fear of failure.

My suspicion is that there is a common supplier in play because there are so few roller pushrod engines being manufactured now and that supplier clearly has problems with consistency on the hardening phase.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,776
Location
Ontario, Canada
It would seem so. depending on how many grains of salt you have near you, there are a few U-tube videos on the subject. Uncle Tony could be a hack, or disguised as one, but the logic seems sound. I have experienced it firsthand as well.
In Tony's first "kick at the can" he didn't even know the lifter bores were pressure lubed.
 
Joined
May 12, 2018
Messages
323
Location
CA
The cam and lifters aren't intended to be splash lubed on the HEMI, there's a lot of metal in the way between the cam/lifters and the crank throws on the 5.7L (there's a big oil gallery that runs below the cam):
View attachment 88271

And it's even worse on the 6.4L, where that gallery is modified for the piston oil cooling jets:
View attachment 88272

The primary means of lubrication is oil coming down the lifter bodies from the pressure-lubed lifter bores. On old flat tappet mills, the cam/lifters were indeed sprayed oil from the crank/rod throw area, but they needed more lubrication than a roller setup does.

There have been at least three, if not more, revisions of the lifters. The issue appears to be related to improper hardening of either the pin or roller. The needles break through the surface hardening and once that happens, it isn't long until they pile-up, the roller stops rolling and then it eats the lobe. GM has basically the same issue on their AFM engines and have had QC issues with lifters to the point that our one mechanic member here won't even use anything other than the "bowtie" lifters for fear of failure.

My suspicion is that there is a common supplier in play because there are so few roller pushrod engines being manufactured now and that supplier clearly has problems with consistency on the hardening phase.
Layman here….but I’d assume the cam assembly is a casting that’s machined down. Castings are notorious for issues due to various reasons. Material/processing issue for sure
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,776
Location
Ontario, Canada
As a Schaeffer fanboy, I just felt a little annoyed at the company's responses. There are many other oil makers that also do not meet the recommended spec., but this was "my" manufacturer and it stung a little. Plus I have a little over 6 gallons of the stuff in the shop I was hoping to use. Still might.
If it has the API donut, that's all you need.

The SRT HEMI's were all originally spec'd for a Euro 0w-40 (Mobil 1 0w-40). That was the factory and service fill. When FIAT bought Chrysler, they terminated the contract with Mobil and came up with the "SRT" 0w-40, which is basically a 0w-40 version of your cookie cutter API SN/GF-5 5w-30. This is a lesser oil than the one it replaced, that met Porsche A40, BMW LL-01, the VW and Mercedes approvals...etc and had both lower volatility (8.8% vs 13%) and higher levels of AW additives.

I don't use the SRT 0w-40, I use a Euro 0w-40 still, and the one I'm running presently has absolutely no moly in it, instead the blender has opted to use a tungsten FM package instead. The cold temperature performance is primarily what I'm after (I recently started it when it was -32C) so that's why I'm using this particular oil.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,776
Location
Ontario, Canada
Layman here….but I’d assume the cam assembly is a casting that’s machined down. Castings are notorious for issues due to various reasons. Material/processing issue for sure
The cam uses a SADI core (surface hardened ductile iron) but it isn't the cam that fails first, it's one of the lifters, the cam is just a casualty, though we've seen some sketchy looking HEMI cam lobes (pitting) where the lifter was just fine, so yes, there's definitely an angle to cam materials, but it doesn't seem to play into this particular failure mode.

GM isn't being as cheap as Chrysler, so they are using billet cores. When they lose a lifter, if it is caught early enough, the cam often survives.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
28,584
Location
CA
Only if the oil was the cause of the failure and that won’t be the case. That sounds like a material or design defect in the engine.
Probably a non-issue, but FCA is somewhat known to pull shenanigans when there is a large claim and there is no dealer service history. If they put an onus on the owner to prove that maintenance was done, the cost of winning that battle can be expensive and involve a lot of downtime.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,600
Location
Upper Midwest
Probably a non-issue, but FCA is somewhat known to pull shenanigans when there is a large claim and there is no dealer service history. If they put an onus on the owner to prove that maintenance was done, the cost of winning that battle can be expensive and involve a lot of downtime.
Perhaps but in this case the’s not violating anything in the manual.
 

ClawSS

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
27
Location
Hubble, KY
Perhaps but in this case the’s not violating anything in the manual.
And that is the discussion....Or so I believe. PuP will meet both recommended & the "must have" donut, but Schaeffer's meets only the "must have" donut. How tight on a "recommendation" can FCA get against a failed lifter....and what is my proof of Schaeffer Oil usage? Am I building a database of timestamped videos every 5-8k miles?
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
28,584
Location
CA
And that is the discussion....Or so I believe. PuP will meet both recommended & the "must have" donut, but Schaeffer's meets only the "must have" donut. How tight on a "recommendation" can FCA get against a failed lifter....and what is my proof of Schaeffer Oil usage? Am I building a database of timestamped videos every 5-8k miles?
I think anytime the OEM asks for maintenance records and the work wasn't done by a licensed repair facility using the same oil and filters as the dealer, you are in unchartered territory.

I am 100% certain there are threads on the "burden of proof" in the doityourself oil changes and warranty.
Of course, but most people do not have the money or resources to fight those battles when they do happen. A lot of conversation that takes place is strictly theoretical.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,600
Location
Upper Midwest
And that is the discussion....Or so I believe. PuP will meet both recommended & the "must have" donut, but Schaeffer's meets only the "must have" donut. How tight on a "recommendation" can FCA get against a failed lifter....and what is my proof of Schaeffer Oil usage? Am I building a database of timestamped videos every 5-8k miles?
If you have that fear despite the language printed in your manual, then I’m not really sure what more to say except that I’d recommend using an oil with the recommended material specification.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,600
Location
Upper Midwest
I think anytime the OEM asks for maintenance records and the work wasn't done by a licensed repair facility using the same oil and filters as the dealer, you are in unchartered territory.


Of course, but most people do not have the money or resources to fight those battles when they do happen. A lot of conversation that takes place is strictly theoretical.
None of this is uncharted territory. Surely you’re not suggesting that anyone who performs their own oil changes instead of a “licensed” mechanic is at risk of violating some (unstated) provision of the new car warranty? For one thing I’m not sure I ever met a licensed mechanic, some have certain third-party certifications but somehow I doubt those are the ones performing oil changes in the Quick Lane bay. And second it is hardly theoretical to read the owner’s manual and do exactly what it states.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
28,584
Location
CA
None of this is uncharted territory. Surely you’re not suggesting that anyone who performs their own oil changes instead of a “licensed” mechanic is at risk of violating some (unstated) provision of the new car warranty? For one thing I’m not sure I ever met a licensed mechanic, some have certain third-party certifications but somehow I doubt those are the ones performing oil changes in the Quick Lane bay. And second it is hardly theoretical to read the owner’s manual and do exactly what it states.
I absolutely am. If you are DIYing maintenance while under warranty, there is a certain level of risk that you are assuming. Usually manufacturers do not ask for maintenance records unless there is a clear sign of neglect, but if they choose to push back for whatever reason, showing up with your own records and walmart receipts for oil/filter purchases will always cast a certain level of doubt. The more variables you potentially introduce, the greater your battle may be.

Ultimately, it is a calculated risk that one is assuming.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,600
Location
Upper Midwest
I absolutely am. If you are DIYing maintenance while under warranty, there is a certain level of risk that you are assuming. Usually manufacturers do not ask for maintenance records unless there is a clear sign of neglect, but if they choose to push back for whatever reason, showing up with your own records and walmart receipts for oil/filter purchases will always cast a certain level of doubt. The more variables you potentially introduce, the greater your battle may be.

Ultimately, it is a calculated risk that one is assuming.
Yes. They would ask for receipts that would show the owner did exactly what the owner’s manual said to do.

I guess I was not aware that I’ve been in mortal danger of warranty violation all these years because a licensed mechanic (whatever that means) didn’t do any of my oil changes nor virtually any of the repairs on my vehicles.
 
Top