Fiat 124 Spider Forum banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just got off the phone with Motul technical support. Fascinating information.

The Chrysler MS-12991 specification is an almost exact carbon copy of the Mercedes-Benz 229.5 specification. It is a borrowed spec from Mercedes.

So much for MS-12991 being something special.

Adding Motul Excess 5W-40 to the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Well if that is the case, Mobil 1 Formula M 5w40 is approved to Merceds-Benz 229.5. Then it should be approved for MS-12991 then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuidoVeloce

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
I sometimes wonder if I'm the only one who actually cares about technical accuracy, and other people are just promoting the product they like the most. That's a genuine sentiment, fueled by the fact that I seem to be the only one actually doing the research.

I spoke to the guy at Motul again, who was extremely helpful, and got some interesting information. Apparently, Chrysler material standards are in fact approvals. No Stelvio, you don't get the "see, I was right" jab for this one, because you did not provide any supporting evidence to indicate this; I had to dig it up myself, against my own beliefs. Unfortunately, none of the products listed on this page actually state whether or not the product meets the specification or if it is actually approved by Chrysler; the spec is typically listed under "specifications, approvals, and recommendations" so you don't know which is which. As a result, I have filtered out the products that explicitly state that they meet the specification from the ones that do not make any distinction at all.

I want to make something perfectly clear to everyone here. The order of these products and the section they are in does not dictate the quality of that product in any way. An oil that does not have the FCA MS-12991 specification listed is not necessarily better or worse than an oil that does not have it listed. All it means is that the manufacturer of that oil might have gone to FCA and requested an approval.

I inquired more deeply about this approval process with the Motul tech guy, and was informed that this actually a rather expensive process that drives up the cost of a lubricant (or rather, drives down the quality to keep price constant). In addition, it is common practice for Chrysler to charge royalties on product sold with their specification listed (a blood-sucking oil tax passed on to you). Typically, FCA approvals have a 36 month renewal and FCA is the one that performs the testing (like Mercedes-Benz does). As a result, it can not just be implied, but assumed that one of the reasons some oils do not have the spec listed is because they do not want to incur the expense of going through the formal approval process, paying the royalties per gallon sold, and having to renew that approval every three years. Large companies like Shell and Chevron have the resources to pay for that process, while smaller companies, which often make superior formulated products, do not want to incur the expense (re: pass it on to you). It is also interesting that Fiat (global) does have a specification for vehicles with this engine, but that it does not involve an approval; it is merely a specification that manufacturers are free to state if they meet or don't.

Use this information to make your purchasing decision.

I had hoped that MS-12991 would be a specification and not similar to the dexos1 approval/licensing scheme, but it appears that this is not the case, and furthermore, that the nomenclature is misleading.

It is my personal belief is that any oil meeting MB 229.5 will be suitable for use in this application under normal and spirited driving conditions. If you are tuned or driving in especially harsh conditions, you may want to look into other options like AMSOIL and Motul as those are known to focus more on performance than mass-market cost effectiveness.

This thread will be updated to include products that are recommended for this application by their respective manufacturers.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Well if that is the case, Mobil 1 Formula M 5w40 is approved to Merceds-Benz 229.5. Then it should be approved for MS-12991 then.
I would say that if you have had good experiences with that product, that it would do well in this application. As always, I encourage the use of oil analysis to keep track of engine wear patterns.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts
Before I respond, a couple of notes. I did send you a private response. This portion of it can be public. I have NO problem with the way you have currently listed the oil brands in your original post now that you have segregated the oils that publish compliance to the MS-12991 standard and those that you believe meet that standard though for unknown reasons they are unwilling to publish that fact. I also let you know that as time allows, I will get the links to the manufacturer's data sheets that do list the MS-12991 specification.

In response to the relevant portions of your other copious posts I respectfully offer the following -

The first section of my original post.
"To understand the importance of the Chrysler MS-12991 specification that FIAT recommends owners adhere to when purchasing oil for their 124, a general understanding of standards is required.
Every standard - API, ANSI, SAE, ISO - are all specifications. A product can "meet" a standard, state that it "performs" to the standard, "comply" with a standard, or be "certified" or "approved" to a standard. API, ANSI and many other standards are "owned" by third parties. In many cases these third parties issue "certifications" or "approvals". The rules of what the vendor must do to receive a "certification" or "approval" vary widely, and are dictated by the owner of the standard. Some require extensive testing by 3rd party labs, some require submittals of documents describing the details of the chemical nature of the product, and some will accept approvals to someone else's standard as evidence.
Chrysler owns the MS-12991 standard. If the owner of the product wants Chrysler approval, there is process for getting it. I created this thread in order to track the manufacturers who have gained Chrysler approval or claim it by modifying their formulation to match the MS-12991 specification.

Valvoline, Pennzoil, Shell and Ravenol publish data sheets that clearly state that their oils are either "approved" or have "performance levels" equal to the MS-12991 specification.

I think it is only fair that the oils that list the MS-12991 recommended by the manufacturer of our vehicles, be kept separate from those that aren't willing or haven't made the effort or investment in testing required, to put it in writing."

The latest response from my antagonist.
I inquired more deeply about this approval process with the Motul tech guy, and was informed that this actually a rather expensive process that drives up the cost of a lubricant (or rather, drives down the quality to keep price constant). In addition, it is common practice for Chrysler to charge royalties on product sold with their specification listed (a blood-sucking oil tax passed on to you). Typically, FCA approvals have a 36 month renewal and FCA is the one that performs the testing (like Mercedes-Benz does). As a result, it can not just be implied, but assumed that one of the reasons some oils do not have the spec listed is because they do not want to incur the expense of going through the formal approval process, paying the royalties per gallon sold, and having to renew that approval every three years. Large companies like Shell and Chevron have the resources to pay for that process, while smaller companies, which often make superior formulated products, do not want to incur the expense (re: pass it on to you). It is also interesting that Fiat (global) does have a specification for vehicles with this engine, but that it does not involve an approval; it is merely a specification that manufacturers are free to state if they meet or don't.

I had hoped that MS-12991 would be a specification and not similar to the dexos1 approval/licensing scheme, but it appears that this is not the case, and furthermore, that the nomenclature is misleading.
And drop the mic.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Just got off the phone with Motul technical support. Fascinating information.

The Chrysler MS-12991 specification is an almost exact carbon copy of the Mercedes-Benz 229.5 specification. It is a borrowed spec from Mercedes.

So much for MS-12991 being something special.
(snip)
This being the apparent case, the question I have is this- when did MS-12991 come into being? Did it coincide with Fiat's purchase/merger of Chrysler away from MB? Is its creation equated to "a disgruntled employee photocopying corporate trade secrets and taking it with him to share with his new employer?" Or something like that? If this information from Motul is correct, that is how I would read it... between the lines.

Maybe the answer to this next question is an already found needle that I missed in the haystack that is these recent oil threads, but what exactly is MS-12991 specifying for the oil that may be lacking in other non-MS-12991 oils? For that matter, same question for the MB 229.5?

Thanks,
Steve.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
This being the apparent case, the question I have is this- when did MS-12991 come into being? Did it coincide with Fiat's purchase/merger of Chrysler away from MB? Is its creation equated to "a disgruntled employee photocopying corporate trade secrets and taking it with him to share with his new employer?" Or something like that? If this information from Motul is correct, that is how I would read it... between the lines.

Maybe the answer to this next question is an already found needle that I missed in the haystack that is these recent oil threads, but what exactly is MS-12991 specifying for the oil that may be lacking in other non-MS-12991 oils? For that matter, same question for the MB 229.5?

Thanks,
Steve.
I don't know when MS-12991 came into being, but I think you might be accurate regarding the purchase/merger of Chrysler and Fiat, since Fiat has its own specification for the 1.4 Multiair.

I had suggested before that MS-12991 isn't anything special, although not in those words. You will find many oils that meet manufacturer approvals for MB 229.5, VW 502/505, and Porsche A40, and also meet specifications for BMW LL-01. It is very consistent across the board for all of these oils to meet those specifications, and I know of few exceptions to this trend. Likewise, I know of absolutely no examples where an oil meets MS-12991 but does not meet the other specifications or approvals. Knowing what I do about the technical aspects of lubrication, I cannot fathom, aside from regulatory and emissions, how the Multiair 1.4L Turbo presents operating conditions that are more severe or special than that of all engines made by VW, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Porche.

I believe that the only thing MS-12991 is specifying that MB 229.5 is not, is that the company in question has paid for FCA's approval process, and met whatever regulatory burdens exist in the United States that do not exist in Europe. Of course, I have no evidence of that, it's just my hypothesis.

MB 229.5 does specify minimum performance requirements, which includes ASTM metrics such as NOACK volatility, TBN, thermo-oxidation, and a number of MB-specific tests. I came across this sheet in my research: http://www.lubritecinc.com/PDF/MB_Spec_EO_Service_Oils_2012.1.pdf.

For example, MB 229.5 requires a pour point of at least -27C, a NOACK volatility of no higher than 13%, and a TBN of at least 7.0, as of December 2012. Oils that do not pass those tests or meet those requirements cannot receive MB's approval. I have been unable to find a performance requirement list for MS-12991.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
.. I know of absolutely no examples where an oil meets MS-12991 but does not meet the other specifications or approvals. Knowing what I do about the technical aspects of lubrication, I cannot fathom....
Are you saying that if an oil meets MS-12991 then it meets other specifications? Nonsense! Viscosity is a specification, right? How about ZDDP content? Everything in engineering design is about compromises. Examples of competing requirements: allowed miles between oil changes, lubrication qualities, non-contamination of catalytic converter, energy conservation, flash point, low temperature flow, etc., etc. MS-12991 being an energy-conserving oil, I can see how there would be other more severe specifications for other applications. It's all about design choices and it is dangerous to try to be smarter than those who make a living optimizing those decisions.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
Are you saying that if an oil meets MS-12991 then it meets other specifications? Nonsense! Viscosity is a specification, right? How about ZDDP content? Everything in engineering design is about compromises. Examples of competing requirements: allowed miles between oil changes, lubrication qualities, non-contamination of catalytic converter, energy conservation, flash point, low temperature flow, etc., etc. MS-12991 being an energy-conserving oil, I can see how there would be other more severe specifications for other applications. It's all about design choices and it is dangerous to try to be smarter than those who make a living optimizing those decisions.
Read what I wrote in context. Find me an oil that meets MS-12991 specifications that does not meet BMW LL-01, Porsche A40, MB 229.5, and VW 502.00/505.00 specifications. I haven't yet been able to find a single one. You took my statement out of context. MB 229.5 is also a resource conserving specification. Specifications don't always list viscosity requirements; those are often separate from the specification since more than one viscosity can meet a given specification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
I believe that the only thing MS-12991 is specifying that MB 229.5 is not, is that the company in question has paid for FCA's approval process, and met whatever regulatory burdens exist in the United States that do not exist in Europe. Of course, I have no evidence of that, it's just my hypothesis.
Does Fiat not require oils meet MS-12991 in Europe, as is required in the USA?

How can an auto company require something here but not require it there without disclosing the reason(s) why? Europe, if I'm correct, has pollution standards that are as strict, if not more strict, than the USA, so I can't see it as a matter of more strict resourse conservation for the USA market. It must be for some other reason.

XR, you seem to have quite a background into the research of this topic. If I could suggest volunteering you to lead the charge to prove your hypothesis, to formally get FCA to disclose what makes MS-12991 oils unique, and therefore required for our cars, I'd sign on to a letter/petition with my support to get that information. (I don't want to put you on the spot, but if this is something that has occurred to you to do, I'd support it.)

In reality, it seems to me that MS-12991, and the shrowd of mystery surrounding it, is one small step removed from FCA stating that only brand-X oil shall be used in the engine or the warranty is voided, which doing so, if I am correct, is not legal in the USA. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) This is smelling more like a money making scheme for FCA than assuring we are using the best, most protective lubricaton blend.

FCA, I want to know precisely what makes MS-12991 unique when compared to other "Euro-spec" 5w-40 oils, how and why it is superior to non-MS-12991 5w-40 oils (Euro-spec or otherwise), and why we must use MS-12991 oils in our engines? Precisely, as in engineering testing data and analysis, not vague marketing terms.

Steve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stelvio

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
Steve, I appreciate your intent, and perhaps I'm cynical, but I think your quest will be less productive than expected. Companies do what they do because they can and nobody can stop them. As far as the North American FCA, and the Euro FCA, they are legally independent entities .
Think "silo effect" as far as a host of details that differ between them. Not to mention culture clash.
Have fun storming the castle!
Best regards
Pete
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts
FYI here is a link to a document from Chrysler detailing the process that needs to be followed if a "marketeer wishes to claim MS-6395 performance". It is for a different oil related Chrysler Material Standard but other than technical details, there is no reason to believe the same document for MS-12991 would be much different.
http://www.kmn-lubricants.com/wp-con...e-05-03-13.pdf
 

Attachments

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Does Fiat not require oils meet MS-12991 in Europe, as is required in the USA?

How can an auto company require something here but not require it there without disclosing the reason(s) why? Europe, if I'm correct, has pollution standards that are as strict, if not more strict, than the USA, so I can't see it as a matter of more strict resourse conservation for the USA market. It must be for some other reason.

XR, you seem to have quite a background into the research of this topic. If I could suggest volunteering you to lead the charge to prove your hypothesis, to formally get FCA to disclose what makes MS-12991 oils unique, and therefore required for our cars, I'd sign on to a letter/petition with my support to get that information. (I don't want to put you on the spot, but if this is something that has occurred to you to do, I'd support it.)

In reality, it seems to me that MS-12991, and the shrowd of mystery surrounding it, is one small step removed from FCA stating that only brand-X oil shall be used in the engine or the warranty is voided, which doing so, if I am correct, is not legal in the USA. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) This is smelling more like a money making scheme for FCA than assuring we are using the best, most protective lubricaton blend.

FCA, I want to know precisely what makes MS-12991 unique when compared to other "Euro-spec" 5w-40 oils, how and why it is superior to non-MS-12991 5w-40 oils (Euro-spec or otherwise), and why we must use MS-12991 oils in our engines? Precisely, as in engineering testing data and analysis, not vague marketing terms.

Steve.
In Europe, Fiat has their own specification for the 1.4L Multiair turbo engine.

Europe has pollution standards that are strict, but note that diesel engines have been commonplace for a long time. The USA has pollution standards that are occasionally stupid, especially with certain states like California.

I've already reached out to the powertrains communication contact at FCA to inquire about this exact topic. I sent the e-mail yesterday morning. I also asked my regional manager at AMSOIL if they could provide me the specification requirements of MB 229.5 and MS-12991 for my review, although I am doubtful that they will do so. Believe me, I'm trying.

I can't make the following statement as a concrete fact; it is merely my opinion and observation, albeit an educated one with respect to the knowledge I have of the rest of the industry. I think you are correct in that MS-12991 is one small step away from FCA attempting to require owners to use one specific brand of oil, but again would have no way to prove it. You are correct that such a thing is not legal in the United States, which is why they might try to employ that strategy using a convoluted path that doesn't outright dictate what oil brand you use.

I can assure you that FCA is concerned far more with cost than they are with ultimate lubrication performance. Given their relationship with Pennzoil and their heavy marketing relationship with the SRT line of products, there may be a great deal of politics behind this specification.

I'll continue my research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
XR, you're like a bloodhound going for its quarry. Thank you for your efforts. I, for one, sure appreciate it.

Steve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XtremeRevolution

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
I find myself back where I started; full circle. Post 1 has been updated with a disclaimer. A summary of my findings to date is provided below:

1. The above reference to MS-6395 is a Chrysler specification produced by Chrysler Group LLC in 2013 for Chrysler vehicles. MS-12991 is a Fiat specification produced by FCA US LLC for Fiat & Alfa Romeo engines. As a result, no concrete conclusions can be made for MS-12991 based on MS-6395.

2. None of the technical data sheets in post 1 differentiate whether MS-12991 is a specification, an approval, or merely a recommendation; that distinction is not made.

3. Valvoline MST 5W-40 does list the MS-12991 specification, but deliberately omits an asterisk indicating "OEM approval," and is a low-SAPS formulation that is significantly different from the dealer fill Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40.

4. Ravenol 5W-30 VST does list the MS-12991 specification, but does not place it under "specifications" or under "approvals," but under "Practice and tested in aggregates with filing."

5. No evidence has been found to concretely indicate whether MS-12991 is a specification or an approval.

6. There are only three oils on that entire list that one can even bother investigating to determine if they actually meet the specification; Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40, Total Quartz 9000 energy 5W-40, and Havoline ProDS 5W-40. Of those three, Total Quartz does not list it in their data sheet, only on their website, Havoline claims it meets the specification, but is not approved, and Pennzoil doesn't clarify if it's a specification, an approval, or a recommendation.

As a result of conclusions 2, 3, 4, and 5, I find absolutely no logical or technical justification for dividing the list of oils into groups other than Full-SAPS and Low-SAPS. Due to Valvoline's use of the MS-12991 specification while being a significantly different formulation than the dealer's fill (Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40) and Ravenol's use of the MS-12991 specification while blatantly neglecting to specify it as a specification or an approval, the act of merely listing the specification on one's technical data sheet is absolutely meaningless to the 124 Spider owner.

I am disturbed that my initial refusal to divide the list resulted in my being accused of "pushing AMSOIL" and accusations of bias despite my doing so for purely logical reasons. I'd like to remind participants that a potential conflict of interest does not imply or guarantee a violation of ethics. In the coming week, I will evaluate how the list should be formatted and will remove any of my posts that I discover to be either irrelevant or incorrect based on my communications with the contacts I have reached out to.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts
I find myself back where I started; full circle. Post 1 has been updated with a disclaimer. A summary of my findings to date is provided below:

1. The above reference to MS-6395 is a Chrysler specification produced by Chrysler Group LLC in 2013 for Chrysler vehicles. MS-12991 is a Fiat specification produced by FCA US LLC for Fiat engines. As a result, no concrete conclusions can be made for MS-12991 based on MS-6395.

2. None of the technical data sheets in post 1 differentiate whether MS-12991 is a specification, an approval, or merely a recommendation; that distinction is not made.

3. Valvoline MST 5W-40 does list the MS-12991 specification, but deliberately omits an asterisk indicating "OEM approval," and is a low-SAPS formulation that is significantly different from the dealer fill Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40.

4. No evidence has been found to concretely indicate whether MS-12991 is a specification or an approval.

As a result of conclusions 2, 3, and 4, I find absolutely no logical or technical justification for dividing the list of oils into groups other than Full-SAPS and Low-SAPS. Due to Valvoline's use of the MS-12991 specification while being a significantly different formulation than the dealer's fill (Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40), the act of merely listing the specification on one's technical data sheet is absolutely meaningless to the 124 Spider owner.

I am disturbed that my initial refusal to divide the list resulted in my being accused of "pushing AMSOIL" and accusations of bias despite my doing so for purely logical reasons. I'd like to remind participants that a potential conflict of interest does not imply or guarantee a violation of ethics. In the coming week, I will evaluate how the list should be formatted and will remove any of my posts that I discover to be either irrelevant or incorrect based on my communications with the contacts I have reached out to.
1. Correction. MS-12991 is a Chrysler spec as acknowledged by all the oil manufacturers listed in the first list who refer to it on their data sheets acknowledge. Chrysler is now owned by FIAT. FIAT now owns Chrysler specs.The example I posted of another Chrysler spec MS-6395 is therefore relevant. FCA owns that too.
2. While only a copy of MS-12991 can be definitive, this statement taken from MS-6395 is a reliable indicator of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA, LLC) position regarding marketeers including references to their specifications on a data sheet:

"Any oil marketer wishing to claim MS-6395 performance must send a letter to Chrysler with the form in Appendix A completely filled out"
The form in Appendix A is an extensive lists of tests, Quality Controls, and submittals which must be sent to FCA,


Vendors listing MS-12991 on their data sheets without completing FCA requirements for doing so, based on the statement from FCA in bold, risk legal repercussions.
3. FCA may not issue approvals. That does not mean they don't require any oil marketer wishing to claim MS-XXXX performance, to provide a set of submittals proving compliance to the FCA specification.
4. MS-12991 is by definition a specification. You need to fulfill the FCA submittal requirements to have the right to state on your product data sheet that you perform to, meet, or comply with, an FCA specification. This isn't that hard as this is common practice across all industries. Vendors need to do this whether the Specification owner issues formal approvals or not.

Based on 1,2,3, and 4, I find every reason to maintain a distinction between those vendors who list the FCA MS-12991 specification on their data sheets and those that don't. Those that list it, have provided FCA with the proof FCA requires that their oil meets the specification. In short, as many posters have said, if your desire is to use an oil that FCA will stand behind, choose one from the first list. I think you'll be safe assuming they are not committing fraud.

For the rest of us, the second list is useful for providing more choices of quality oils vetted by Xtremerevolution an expert in the field.

And I would advise participants that a conflict of interest, is not a choice. You have one, or you don't. "a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity."
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
1. Correction. MS-12991 is a Chrysler spec as acknowledged by all the oil manufacturers listed in the first list who refer to it on their data sheets acknowledge. Chrysler is now owned by FIAT. FIAT now owns Chrysler specs.The example I posted of another Chrysler spec MS-6395 is therefore relevant. FCA owns that too.
2. While only a copy of MS-19921 can be definitive, this statement taken from MS-6395 is a reliable indicator of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA, LLC) position regarding marketeers including references to their specifications on a data sheet:

"Any oil marketer wishing to claim MS-6395 performance must send a letter to Chrysler with the form in Appendix A completely filled out"
The form in Appendix A is an extensive lists of tests, Quality Controls, and submittals which must be sent to FCA,


Vendors listing MS-12991 on their data sheets without completing FCA requirements for doing so, based on the statement from FCA in bold, risk legal repercussions.
3. FCA may not issue approvals. That does not mean they don't require any oil marketer wishing to claim MS-XXXX performance, to provide a set of submittals proving compliance to the FCA specification.
4. MS-12991 is by definition a specification. You need to fulfill the FCA submittal requirements to have the right to state on your product data sheet that you perform to, meet, or comply with, an FCA specification. This isn't that hard as this is common practice across all industries. Vendors need to do this whether the Specification owner issues formal approvals or not.

Based on 1,2,3, and 4, I find every reason to maintain a distinction between those vendors who list the FCA MS-12991 specification on their data sheets and those that don't. Those that list it, have provided FCA with the proof FCA requires that their oil meets the specification. In short, as many posters have said, if your desire is to use an oil that FCA will stand behind, choose one from the first list. I think you'll be safe assuming they are not committing fraud.

For the rest of us, the second list is useful for providing more choices of quality oils vetted by Xtremerevolution an expert in the field.

And I would advise participants that a conflict of interest, is not a choice. You have one, or you don't. "a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity."
1. Technically, Havoline ProDS lists it as, "FCA US LLC (formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC) MS-12991." You are incorrect in referring to "all the oil manufacturers listed." Regardless of who owns what and at what time, the MS-12991 specification came from FIAT, for FIAT and Alfa Romeo engines. It is not a Chrysler specification in the way that MS-6395 is a Chrysler specification for the 3.6L Pentastar engine. It is a European engine oil specification. It would probably be a fantastic time to point out that not all specifications have the same requirements. As you clearly acknowledged in your second reply, only a copy of MS-12991 can be definitive. Anything else a hypothesis at best.

2. Correct you are, only a copy of MS-12991 can be definitive. The rest of your statement is irrelevant and does not provide concrete proof of anything. You may note that I requested concrete evidence in post 1. That statement is only a reliable indicator of Chrysler Group LLC's position regarding marketeers. We have two vendors on that list that display the specification in their data sheet yet explicitly avoid categorizing them with OEM approval. Therefore, your statement that vendors listing MS-12991 on their data sheets risk legal repercussions if they don't complete FCA requirements is not plausible.

3. Actually, that's exactly what it means. If an oil marketer wants to claim that their oil meets a specification, and they have to provide a set of submittals proving compliance to FCA, for what purpose do you think they would be required to do so, if not for approval? What reason is there to require an oil maker to submit documentation proving that they meet a specification if there is no approval process in place? If there is an approval process in place, then it's an approval, not just a specification. Valvoline, being a low-SAPS oil, has a significantly different formulation than Pennzoil's option. Therefore, if we are to assume that Pennzoil's oil meets the specification (which we can't just by looking at the data sheet, but will do so only because the dealers sell it for a massive profit), we have no choice but to assume that Valvoline's does not. I'd like to remind you, you had this one on your list in addition to Ravenol.

4. Of course it's a specification. Whether or not it's a specification was never under question. Given we have two oils that clearly did not get that approval but list it anyway, we can assume either that an approval is not required to merely list the spec, or that both Ravenol and Valvoline are long overdue for a lawsuit, based on the information you've presented as fact.

Ravenol and Valvoline are listing the specification on their data sheets without actually getting the approval from FCA. The proof is right there in the data sheets, it could not be more clear. They both have formatting that allow them to list MS-12991 as an approval, and they did not. Ravenol has formatting that allows them to list it as a specification, and they chose not to. I am not willing to add oils to the first list, even though we know they did not go through this unverified FCA approval process, just because they have the spec listed there.

Sounds like we need to create another list just for Ravenol, because they're a Full-Saps oil that lists the specification but does not claim they meet it or have its approval. Let's play a game, shall we? How many lists can we create before we realize how silly this is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
Use of the term SAPS which is a completely meaningless acronym to a consumer;
the continuous word games to imply that any marking of any oil as meeting the required specification as 'not important';
that the first listed oil is listed to meet the specification (!) 'because the manufacturer of the oil said so';
there's a demonstrated conflict of interest by the OP for that oil;
the threat to delete any other discussion on which oil to use;
The already 'locked' thread on oils which specify the FCA standard (regardless of the 'word games' already noted);
this thread is disingenuous.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,029 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Use of the term SAPS which is a completely meaningless acronym to a consumer;
the continuous word games to imply that any marking of any oil as meeting the required specification as 'not important';
that the first listed oil is listed to meet the specification (!) 'because the manufacturer of the oil said so';
there's a demonstrated conflict of interest by the OP for that oil;
the threat to delete any other discussion on which oil to use;
The already 'locked' thread on oils which specify the FCA standard (regardless of the 'word games' already noted);
this thread is disingenuous.
Post 18 explains what SAPS levels are. A reference to post 18 is listed in post 1.

There are no continuous word games; there is an effort to remain objective and factual. The facts have been presented, nothing omitted. I did not place importance on one or lack of importance on another; I have left the owner to make their own determination and have not made an effort to sway them one way or another in post 1.

The lists simply separates Full-SAPS from Low-SAPS because that is the only way to keep the format presentable enough without creating 4 or 5 separate lists for each individual caveat.

It was very clearly noted which oils do not carry the MS-12991 specification in their data sheet. I find it comical that there is a conflict of interest for AMSOIL, but not for Motul, which is in exactly the same boat and has a very similar formulation, or Castrol for that matter, but you won't talk about those in public because then you'd have to assume that I'm not acting out of my own self-interest. Anything to accuse me of potential unethical behavior seems to be fair game around here. No, it's not that I felt that this method of organization was best given 4 years of heavy research and studies into the lubrication industry, it's clearly because of my conflict of interest. (/sarcasm).

Since you pressed me on this subject (I wanted to avoid discussing it in order to be polite), the thread already locked is a crock of BS, and you've demonstrated either blatant ignorance of the inaccuracies presented in that thread or a disingenuous agenda of your own. The reason why has been adequately explained in this thread. Stelvio claimed that there were 4 oils that, and I will quote since you pressed me on this subject, "have made the investment in working with Chrysler to get their approval and have paid the license fees so that they can list the MS-12991 standard in their specification."

Ravenol 5W-40 VST made it VERY clear that they did exactly the opposite by avoiding listing MS-12991 under either "specifications" or "approvals."
Valvoline 5W-40 MST made it VERY clear that they did exactly the opposite by avoiding adding the asterisk that indicates the specification carries an OEM approval, and if MS-12991 is anything like MB 229.5, it would be impossible for it to meet the specification, being a low-SAPS oil.

This is of course ignoring the claims that there is an approval in the first place (with no definitive proof), and furthermore, that there is a licensing scheme in place for that approval.

I'm not going to stand around and watch people post blatantly false information, refuse to acknowledge correction of that information, and then redirect the discussion to my making decisions as a result of conflict of interest simply because they don't like how the data is being presented or they are bent out of shape about being proven wrong. If you don't like it, you know where the door is. I am absolutely fed up with people treating me like I am incapable of making ethical decisions that benefit the interests of this community over my own (a thinly veiled attack on my character and integrity), and suggesting that I need their approval before making changes to an initiative that I have spent more time researching than I would ever admit.

If you don't like it, tough. If you have a technical contribution to make, by all means make it, but I've had enough of this BS.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts
Use of the term SAPS which is a completely meaningless acronym to a consumer;
the continuous word games to imply that any marking of any oil as meeting the required specification as 'not important';
that the first listed oil is listed to meet the specification (!) 'because the manufacturer of the oil said so';
there's a demonstrated conflict of interest by the OP for that oil;
the threat to delete any other discussion on which oil to use;
The already 'locked' thread on oils which specify the FCA standard (regardless of the 'word games' already noted);
this thread is disingenuous.
To me the difference between fulfilling the FCA extensive requirements for claiming you meet their specification and just "saying so" is the difference between actually planting your flag on Mt. Everest or looking at the mountain and saying "Yeah, I can climb that." You may be the best mountain climber in the world, and might indeed succeed if you attempted it, but there is still a difference.
"I sell AMsoil" plus "I am the moderator" ='s "Conflict of interest" Add "I will delete your posts and have closed your thread" it now ='s "Disingenuous" Sad.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top