Synpower doesn't meet min spec for Chryslers

[Kestas]

I can understand where Valvman is coming from. Our company too has a requirement of a rather expensive regimen of sampling and testing for a company to become an approved supplier for our manufactured product.

I've also managed some of the MS specifications when I worked at Chrysler. At the end of the specification is an "approved source list".

I can imagine that Valvoline simply doesn't see the value of formally going through this sometimes tourtuous and expensive testing regimen to get on somebody's approved source list when it doesn't add any business value. After all, this approval process would only get the blessing of Chrysler. There's also Ford, GM, and many other automakers to deal with. This can get expensive in a hurry. This doesn't mean that their product doesn't meet the requirements per their company's test data. They can properly say their product meets the Chrysler specifications even though it hasn't been formally approved by Chrysler, and I wouldn't hesitate to believe them.

 

[RKBA]

Originally Posted By: PT1
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Sort of explains why I'm not a huge fan of Synpower. In all likelihood it will meet the Chrysler spec, but it's another reason why to use Pennz Platinum or another syn that does meet the spec.


Also explains why I am not a big DCX fan as their engines won't go past 150k anyway....

You've never owned any slant sixes, 318s, or Jeeps I take it.

 

[StevieC]

Ha... My dad is a retiree from Chrysler and a retired mechanic of 35 years... I have seen hundreds of Chrysler vehicles with well over 300,000KM on it.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: OilGuy
Non-high-performance Chryslers require an oil that:
1) an API certified oil and
2) also meets MS-6395 - regardless if conventional or syn



I would bet money that when you get your oil changed at a Chrysler dealership, you have a 50% chance that the bulk oil they pump out of their 1000 gallon tank does NOT meet this spec.

This statement is coming from a former dealership tech who knew the owner ordered his bulk oil from the cheapest source and it could have been a different brand each time.

Does anybody here, (besides me) think this specification is dreamed up so that there is some kickback that goes from the oil companies into the car manufacturers executives fat wallets, just so the spec is listed on the oil bottles as "approved".

 

[afoulk]

the only engines in their lineup I could see actually needing a oil that meets a certain requirement, are any of their vehicles using a mercedes engine, anything diesel, or possibly the new Hemi's. The Hemi's have that cylinder deactivation now, and I'm sure you can't use an oil that will sludge up and clog those oil passages. Other than that, I don't see anything special about most of their engines. I have heard a lot of complaints about their newer stuff having lifter ticks in them though. Even my dealer told me they've had problems with the hemi's and the 4.7ohc V8's especially. I wonder if it has to do with the newer SM oils not having as much phosphorus and zinc in them.