Schaeffer Oil not MS-A0921 spec'd

kschachn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, the only receipts that an individual can provide would be receipts for parts purchases. There is no way for an individual to prove that those parts were actually installed into the vehicle in question.

Any of us could make a maintenance log tomorrow indicating that oil services were done at the proper intervals, but between the log and the receipts, it really doesn't prove that the work was actually done.
 
The Critic said:
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.
Click to expand...


It is prudent for the DIYer to keep these records.
 
The Critic said:
Well, the only receipts that an individual can provide would be receipts for parts purchases. There is no way for an individual to prove that those parts were actually installed into the vehicle in question.

Any of us could make a maintenance log tomorrow indicating that oil services were done at the proper intervals, but between the log and the receipts, it really doesn't prove that the work was actually done.
Click to expand...


These are the scenarios a dealership will encounter, each on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both customers come in with engine failures.

Customer A has a log with receipts showing his oil changes. The engine is opened and everything is clean and proper. He will likely be covered.

Customer B doesn’t have a log or receipts and when the engine is opened there is obvious signs of a lack of maintenance. He will get a bill.


Obviously a simplistic example but it shows when a dealer will give the benefit of the doubt
 
PimTac said:
These are the scenarios a dealership will encounter, each on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both customers come in with engine failures.

Customer A has a log with receipts showing his oil changes. The engine is opened and everything is clean and proper. He will likely be covered.

Customer B doesn’t have a log or receipts and when the engine is opened there is obvious signs of a lack of maintenance. He will get a bill.


Obviously a simplistic example but it shows when a dealer will give the benefit of the doubt
Click to expand...
I had a conversation with the previous SM for my dealership about me using M1 0w-40 in my 2014 SRT at the time, which was when they stopped carrying Mobil and everything was switching to Shell. I was going to continue using the Mobil oil and I mentioned that to him and kinda chuckled about the warranty thing and he turns to me and laughs and says something along the lines of: "listen, it was the SRT oil for HOW many years? you aren't going to get any pushback over using it. The engine didn't change, that oil didn't change, just the ownership of Chrysler did and now we have to use Pennzoil stuff. Nobody is going to care if you continue to use the old oil as long as you are changing it."
 
OVERKILL said:
I had a conversation with the previous SM for my dealership about me using M1 0w-40 in my 2014 SRT at the time, which was when they stopped carrying Mobil and everything was switching to Shell. I was going to continue using the Mobil oil and I mentioned that to him and kinda chuckled about the warranty thing and he turns to me and laughs and says something along the lines of: "listen, it was the SRT oil for HOW many years? you aren't going to get any pushback over using it. The engine didn't change, that oil didn't change, just the ownership of Chrysler did and now we have to use Pennzoil stuff. Nobody is going to care if you continue to use the old oil as long as you are changing it."
Click to expand...


Yep and I believe common sense like this will play a part in most of these situations. They can tell.

Just like the stories of Subaru owners who had modded their engines and then had failures. The owners quickly removed the mods to make it look like it was a fault on Subaru’s behalf and get a new motor. Subaru quickly caught on.
 
PimTac said:
Yep and I believe common sense like this will play a part in most of these situations. They can tell.

Just like the stories of Subaru owners who had modded their engines and then had failures. The owners quickly removed the mods to make it look like it was a fault on Subaru’s behalf and get a new motor. Subaru quickly caught on.
Click to expand...

I posted pictures of an ISB with a couple melted pistons on here years back from my dealership. Guy said he was towing trailer when it happened IIRC (the actual story is in the thread) but it turned out he was at the truck pulls and had a tuner on it. They could see the evidence of the tuner on the ECM and somebody else mentioned seeing the truck at the pulls. When confronted about it the owner caved and admitted it. Needless to say, FCA didn't cover the engine replacement.
 
I saw the term "fear" be played in addressing my use of Schaeffer Oil and warranty compliance. An oil forum isn't the perfect place for THE answer, but there are a few professionals here as well as a number of DIY'ers that could speak to experience in coming up "against" one of the big manufacturers for any routine maintenance proof or lack thereof.

So I am not certain that I "fear", but I do wonder. I love word games and recommended vs "must" in the manual can certainly be played, but dang if it wouldn't take $ to play if FCA decides it has a different definition.

@OVERKILL , your take on the Hemi is spot on and I stand corrected and will use many of your words in my future discussion. THANK YOU.
 
ClawSS said:
I saw the term "fear" be played in addressing my use of Schaeffer Oil and warranty compliance. An oil forum isn't the perfect place for THE answer, but there are a few professionals here as well as a number of DIY'ers that could speak to experience in coming up "against" one of the big manufacturers for any routine maintenance proof or lack thereof.

So I am not certain that I "fear", but I do wonder. I love word games and recommended vs "must" in the manual can certainly be played, but dang if it wouldn't take $ to play if FCA decides it has a different definition.

@OVERKILL , your take on the Hemi is spot on and I stand corrected and will use many of your words in my future discussion. THANK YOU.
Click to expand...
You are quite welcome!
 
PimTac said:
These are the scenarios a dealership will encounter, each on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both customers come in with engine failures.

Customer A has a log with receipts showing his oil changes. The engine is opened and everything is clean and proper. He will likely be covered.

Customer B doesn’t have a log or receipts and when the engine is opened there is obvious signs of a lack of maintenance. He will get a bill.


Obviously a simplistic example but it shows when a dealer will give the benefit of the doubt
Click to expand...
A lot of this also depends on the politics of the dealer at the time of repair. If they feel that they are at risk of being audited because they've been doing too many engine jobs lately, they are likely to push back harder. Sometimes FCA has parts on restriction and that could potentially add complexities to the situation. Or, the job pays very poorly and the dealer really doesn't want to do the job.

Point is, having more cards stacked in your favor is always a better approach.
 
kschachn said:
There are no approvals anywhere in any of that text. Having the API Donut is assuring that whatever oil is being used has an API license at the minimum. That is their base requirement to assure at least a scintilla of quality. The truth is though that pretty much any 0W-40 oil on the market is going to have manufacturer approvals and an ACEA sequence that assures high performance way beyond whatever MS-A0921 might specify. I don't know about Schaeffer products specifically, but if you walk into Walmart and walk out with a 0W-40 you'll have an oil that does.
Click to expand...
Thank you, all of you BITOG folks who opened my eyes. Since I been on BITOG, here & online I have read so much about today's most improved modern oils. I know I have no need any longer to mail order oils. I will keep using my stock of Amsoil in our 2009 2.4l but once I run thru the specialty oils I have on hand for the Di Turbo engine I will simply head down the street to pick up some Castrol or Mobile 1 and use with confidence. :)
 
We recommend using Mopar® API Certified SAE 0W-40 Full Synthetic Engine Oil which meets the requirements of the manufacturer Material Standard MS-A0921. Equivalent full synthetic SAE 0W-40 engine oil can be used but must have the API Donut trademark "⇨American Petroleum Institute (API) Approved Engine Oil".
Interesting,,,,, Equivalent full synthetic SAE 0W-40 engine oil can be used but must have the API Donut trademark
 
Something to consider:

Dealers do have not qualified analysts to determine condition of oil, nor to make a determination if the oil was at fault.

If I have a major problem with a dealer, I always ask them to provide the reasoning behind the breakage or failure and make the comment, "So if this is a design or material suppliers fault, shouldn't the manf. be paying for the warranty labor and cost of part/component replacement?"
 
MolaKule said:
Dealers do have not qualified analysts to determine condition of oil, nor to make a determination if the oil was at fault.
Click to expand...
That's correct. The company from which they purchased it does, though. I handled the field work on many dealer and garage oil claims. Any time an oil is blamed for damage, we insisted on being supplied with a sample of oil from the failed component. The oil is tested, and the other parties are invited to do the same. Whether we paid a claim or not depended on the results of the tests. We always shared the results, and in my experience never paid a claim.
Damage was most often caused because the oil was contaminated with fuel, coolant or dirt. Those claims would be refused. Also refused would be claims whose sample was on spec, mixed with an oil additive or another company's lube product.
 
OVERKILL said:
I posted pictures of an ISB with a couple melted pistons on here years back from my dealership. Guy said he was towing trailer when it happened IIRC (the actual story is in the thread) but it turned out he was at the truck pulls and had a tuner on it. They could see the evidence of the tuner on the ECM and somebody else mentioned seeing the truck at the pulls. When confronted about it the owner caved and admitted it. Needless to say, FCA didn't cover the engine replacement.
Click to expand...
You know its so surprising these days that every now and then a strange thing happens. As addicted to technology as the world is today, especially with younger folks they forget some things. There is almost no place on earth these days anyone can hide anything. There seems to be a video of every ****ed thing that occurs. Needed or not. Also, this guy sounds smart enought to jack with his vehicles etc (tuners) and yet he completely
does not realize he has been either seen flogging his vehicles and that there is an ECM inside! OOPs on him - and a lot of others who wind up getting busted telling different stories vs reality.
 
I am of the age to not purposefully video my escapades, but I am certain that now someone else would be more than willing to incriminate. Thank the Lord phones didn't have cameras back in "my day".

With this comes back my original question and the expected opinions of others...Does anyone know what the new spec would yield in an analysis that and oil with just a donut would show? I know I have the donut on my current stash of Schaeffers, and most likely roll forward on the "must have" donut rule in the book.

I am really enjoying the opinions and I am learning stuff at the same time!
 
ClawSS said:
I am of the age to not purposefully video my escapades, but I am certain that now someone else would be more than willing to incriminate. Thank the Lord phones didn't have cameras back in "my day".

With this comes back my original question and the expected opinions of others...Does anyone know what the new spec would yield in an analysis that and oil with just a donut would show? I know I have the donut on my current stash of Schaeffers, and most likely roll forward on the "must have" donut rule in the book.

I am really enjoying the opinions and I am learning stuff at the same time!
Click to expand...
I expect the new "spec" isn't really any different from the old one. Keep in mind that the API approvals are "foundational" and that other approvals, like Dexos, build on top of them with stricter requirements and/or additional testing. This is why I run a Euro 0w-40 instead of the SRT 0w-40, because the Euro approvals are much more demanding with stricter limits on many fronts (Noack for example) and have higher levels of AW additives to boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top