Fiat 124 Spider Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
To understand the importance of the Chrysler MS-12991 specification that FIAT recommends owners adhere to when purchasing oil for their 124, an 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.

There is an excellent article on Edmunds explaining how this all works. Here is the link: https://www.edmunds.com/car-care/do-i-have-to-use-the-manufacturers-oil.html

Attached Thumbnails
Manufacturers create these MS standards because the unique characteristics of their engines require a unique formulation of oil. Chrysler specifically created the MS-12991 specification for the FIAT engines. The formulation of these oils is unique. If you want to label your product as meets or exceeds the manufacturer's specification, you have to purchase a license after proving to the manufacturer that your formulation meets their specification. So yes, manufacturers have created unique formulations to meet the unique demands of their engine design. And because they invested a lot of time and money in researching and testing their formulation, if you want to advertise that your oil meets those requirements, you have to purchase a license.

The oils listed here, 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.

Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40 (Rebates may be available)
- Ravenol 5W-40 VST
- Valvoline 5W-40 MST SynPower
-Shell Ultra Helix 5W-40

Please add other brands if you find the MS-12991 standard on their specification sheets or listed on the container.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
Every standard is a specification; they are effectively the same. A product can meet a standard, which means it performs to that standard's requirements. Certification or approval are totally different topics. These topics have already been discussed, and quite thoroughly at that, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat that discussion.

There are no rules for what a vendor must do to meet a specification aside from simply meeting that specification. If they claim to meet the specification but do not, they will find themselves in a legal predicament that no company is stupid enough to get themselves into. Your entire discussion regarding approvals and certifications is totally irrelevant because MS-12991 is neither a certification nor an approval. In fact, that discussion is irrelevant to this entire forum.

Chrysler does own the MS-12991 standard, because they created it to ensure that owners use a minimum oil quality in their vehicles. Note, minimum. There are products out there that will outperform that standard. However, you make a statement for which you have absolutely no evidence. You state that if an owner of a product wants Chrysler approval, there is a process for getting it. Wait a minute, I thought it's a standard, not an approval?

1. Please provide clear evidence that MS-12991 is an approval, and that FCA provides an approval or certification to oil manufacturers for that material standard. I have asked you to do so before and you've failed to.

2. Please explain how you concluded that a manufacturer's absence of publishing a specification means that they did not perform the testing required. I'm looking for evidence here, not speculation.

Manufactures do not create MS standard. MS is an acronym almost exclusive to FCA material standards. Do not confuse these with other approvals, certifications, specifications, or standards set forth by other auto makers.

The formulation of those oils is not unique. We know that they are not unique because those formulations also carry approvals from Mercedes-Benz and specifications from BMW, Porsche, and VW.

You state that if "you" want to label your product as meets or exceeds, you have to purchase a license. This is a false statement that has no supporting evidence.

3. Please provide evidence that states that MS-12991 is a license, and that any auto maker must prove to FCA that it meets MS-12991 in order to list their oil as being suitable for vehicles that require it.

This is the problem with gathering your information from generic online sources like Edmunds; you lack specific knowledge of a specification and try to apply general concepts that are totally irrelevant. You talk about approvals, certifications, and licensing. If this was a General Motors forum and we were discussing Dexos1, I'd be in agreement, but we're not talking about Dexos1, which does require licensing. We are talking about MS-12991.

4. Please provide proof that a manufacturer must purchase a license in order to list the MS-12991 specification.

Since this is erring dangerously close to blatant spread of misinformation, I am going to ask you to clearly address all four of the primary questions/requests I have made in this thread. Since this is the second time we are going through this exact same topic, and this exact same subject was explained very thoroughly once before, I will not take no for an answer.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
If a manufacturer states that they meet a specification, what gives you the authority to state otherwise?
As I clearly stated, please feel free to add other brands that meet the MS-12991 specification. The more choices ourmembers have the better. That is the purpose of this thread. Please include a link to their data sheet which lists the MS-12991 standard or a photo of the product label with MS-12991 listed.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
As I clearly stated, please feel free to add other brands that meet the MS-12991 specification. The more choices ourmembers have the better. That is the purpose of this thread. Please include a link to their data sheet which lists the MS-12991 standard or a photo of the product label with MS-12991 listed.
I already did add brands that meet the MS-12991 specification, on the basis that those manufactures have stated that their oils meet the specification on their data sheets or via direct contact. I see no need for a duplicate thread.

Where did you draw the conclusion that if a product label does not explicitly list the MS-12991 specification that the oil does not meet or exceed that specification? Why is it insufficient for the technical department of a given oil company to state via e-mail that the product meets the specification? Who gave you the authority to make that determination for every member of this forum?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I already did add brands that meet the MS-12991 specification, on the basis that those manufactures have stated that their oils meet the specification on their data sheets or via direct contact. I see no need for a duplicate thread.

Where did you draw the conclusion that if a product label does not explicitly list the MS-12991 specification that the oil does not meet or exceed that specification? Why is it insufficient for the technical department of a given oil company to state via e-mail that the product meets the specification? Who gave you the authority to make that determination for every member of this forum?
Again, this list is for oils that publish that they meet or have the approval of Chrysler that their formulation meets the specified requirements of MS-12991.
Other oils that merely claim but are unwilling to document it, should be listed in the Oil & Filter Master Thread
but perhaps with an asterisk with a footnote explaining why the oil was included even though there is nothing published that would provide evidence of their claim.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
Again, this list is for oils that publish that they meet or have the approval of Chrysler that their formulation meets the specified requirements of MS-12991.
Other oils that merely claim but are unwilling to document it, should be listed in the Oil & Filter Master Thread
but perhaps with an asterisk with a footnote explaining why the oil was included even though there is nothing published that would provide evidence of their claim.
You cannot produce a list of oils that have the approval of Chrysler if the MS-12991 spec does not involve an approval process through Chrysler. Doing so would be a deliberate spread of misinformation and a waste of your time. Be careful what conclusions you draw and on what evidence you draw them.

Four questions remain unanswered.

It is not my responsibility to investigate and document a company's marketing timeline or decisions. If their technical services team tells me the oil meets the specification, if they back the use of that product with an engine warranty, and if they specifically recommend that product for the application, then it either meets or exceeds the specification. No further explanation is required.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
425 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
Every standard is a specification; they are effectively the same. A product can meet a standard, which means it performs to that standard's requirements. Certification or approval are totally different topics. These topics have already been discussed, and quite thoroughly at that, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat that discussion.

There are no rules for what a vendor must do to meet a specification aside from simply meeting that specification. If they claim to meet the specification but do not, they will find themselves in a legal predicament that no company is stupid enough to get themselves into. Your entire discussion regarding approvals and certifications is totally irrelevant because MS-12991 is neither a certification nor an approval. In fact, that discussion is irrelevant to this entire forum.

Chrysler does own the MS-12991 standard, because they created it to ensure that owners use a minimum oil quality in their vehicles. Note, minimum. There are products out there that will outperform that standard. However, you make a statement for which you have absolutely no evidence. You state that if an owner of a product wants Chrysler approval, there is a process for getting it. Wait a minute, I thought it's a standard, not an approval?

1. Please provide clear evidence that MS-12991 is an approval, and that FCA provides an approval or certification to oil manufacturers for that material standard. I have asked you to do so before and you've failed to.

2. Please explain how you concluded that a manufacturer's absence of publishing a specification means that they did not perform the testing required. I'm looking for evidence here, not speculation.

Manufactures do not create MS standard. MS is an acronym almost exclusive to FCA material standards. Do not confuse these with other approvals, certifications, specifications, or standards set forth by other auto makers.

The formulation of those oils is not unique. We know that they are not unique because those formulations also carry approvals from Mercedes-Benz and specifications from BMW, Porsche, and VW.

You state that if "you" want to label your product as meets or exceeds, you have to purchase a license. This is a false statement that has no supporting evidence.

3. Please provide evidence that states that MS-12991 is a license, and that any auto maker must prove to FCA that it meets MS-12991 in order to list their oil as being suitable for vehicles that require it.

This is the problem with gathering your information from generic online sources like Edmunds; you lack specific knowledge of a specification and try to apply general concepts that are totally irrelevant. You talk about approvals, certifications, and licensing. If this was a General Motors forum and we were discussing Dexos1, I'd be in agreement, but we're not talking about Dexos1, which does require licensing. We are talking about MS-12991.

4. Please provide proof that a manufacturer must purchase a license in order to list the MS-12991 specification.

Since this is erring dangerously close to blatant spread of misinformation, I am going to ask you to clearly address all four of the primary questions/requests I have made in this thread. Since this is the second time we are going through this exact same topic, and this exact same subject was explained very thoroughly once before, I will not take no for an answer.
1. I can't provide evidence of a claim I never made. MS-12991 is a specification. The owner of the specification is Chrysler. The manual specifically recommends oil that meets MS-12991. I said that the oil producer can get approval from Chrysler "or claim it by modifying their formulation to match the MS-12991 specification." From the data sheets provided by the oil companies, there is no way to tell which method they used to support their listing. But whichever, they are confident enough to publish the fact that they do.
2. Again while I said approval from Chrysler is one way to claim MS-12991 compliance, they could also claim it "by modifying their formulation to match the MS-12991 specification." You focus on one suggested method and ignore the other.
3. see 1 and 2
4. see 1 and 2

Chrysler and GM are not alone. They are following the lead of BMW, VW, Mercedes, Honda and Acura, which were all referenced in the Edmund's article. BMW lists their oils along with other oils that meet their unique specifications. Good luck finding evidence that money changed hands to get that done, but I wouldn't try putting BMW approval on my oil's label without finding out. Mopar may leave it up to the oil manufacturer to determine what their oil is capable of but I understand their dealers use Shell. Of course there is no evidence of how much money changed hands to make that happen.

Now mandatory questions for you.
1. Why is it unreasonable to expect a manufacturer who "tells" you he meets a specification to add that statement to his data sheet?
2. Why would a concerned owner put an oil in his car that doesn't list the recommended specification when there are multiple brands of oils that do for a lot less money?
3. Why wouldn't a website that purports to have the interest of the owners in mind, not be encouraging postings of which oils publish a statement that they meet a specification?
4. And why would the moderator of such a website become hostile to someone who is simply attempting to help owners know which oils publicly list their compliance to the car maker's requirements.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Firstly, 'not this ****, again!'.

To summarize If it has MS-12991 on the bottle, and the correct weight, use it; if not, don't. (as long it isn't old from 'Ping Pong Poo' company which lists every specification ever made...). Personally, I think Amsoil is snake oil (hah!) but some people swear by it, and others don't.

I like Valvoline (for no particular reason; maybe the shape of the 5 quart jug?) and am glad to see that there's an MS-12991 listed oil in their lineup.

They are all about the same price, and while it's nice to save some money, a change in gas prices because some hippy blew up a pipeline in country Unknownistan will make the savings a moot point. Regardless, There's three (4 with Ravenol: never heard of them) well known name brands that publish the specification on their oil. If anybody has a 'which oil should I use?' question there's a pretty straightforward answer.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
1. I can't provide evidence of a claim I never made. MS-12991 is a specification. The owner of the specification is Chrysler. The manual specifically recommends oil that meets MS-12991. I said that the oil producer can get approval from Chrysler "or claim it by modifying their formulation to match the MS-12991 specification." From the data sheets provided by the oil companies, there is no way to tell which method they used to support their listing. But whichever, they are confident enough to publish the fact that they do.
2. Again while I said approval from Chrysler is one way to claim MS-12991 compliance, they could also claim it "by modifying their formulation to match the MS-12991 specification." You focus on one suggested method and ignore the other.
3. see 1 and 2
4. see 1 and 2

Chrysler and GM are not alone. They are following the lead of BMW, VW, Mercedes, Honda and Acura, which were all referenced in the Edmund's article. BMW lists their oils along with other oils that meet their unique specifications. Good luck finding evidence that money changed hands to get that done, but I wouldn't try putting BMW approval on my oil's label without finding out. Mopar may leave it up to the oil manufacturer to determine what their oil is capable of but I understand their dealers use Shell. Of course there is no evidence of how much money changed hands to make that happen.

Now mandatory questions for you.
1. Why is it unreasonable to expect a manufacturer who "tells" you he meets a specification to add that statement to his data sheet?
2. Why would a concerned owner put an oil in his car that doesn't list the recommended specification when there are multiple brands of oils that do for a lot less money?
3. Why wouldn't a website that purports to have the interest of the owners in mind, not be encouraging postings of which oils publish a statement that they meet a specification?
4. And why would the moderator of such a website become hostile to someone who is simply attempting to help owners know which oils publicly list their compliance to the car maker's requirements.?
Are you serious? You can't prove a claim you never made? You keep bouncing back and forth between a specification and an approval. Make up your mind already and answer the questions you are being asked. Your incessant beating around the bush on these points for two threads now is annoying. I will quote you, "Chrysler owns the MS-12991 standard. If the owner of the product wants Chrysler approval, there is process for getting it."

1. Answer the question. Please provide clear evidence that MS-12991 is an approval. If an oil producer can get approval from Chrysler, then MS-12991 is an approval, not just a specification. Is a manufacturer required to get approval from Chrysler in order to list the specification on the product or not? I know there is no way to tell, which is why I'm calling you out on making assumptions on what they are. Making those assumptions, when you have no basis for them, is a direct contributor to the spread of misinformation and on a technical level, I simply will not allow it. Now, answer the question again.

2. You said approval from Chrysler is one way to claim MS-12991 compliance, but you have absolutely no evidence that an oil maker CAN get approval from Chrysler, or that there is even a process for obtaining approval in the first place. Again, you are making assumptions that Chrysler has a process of approval for a specification. Provide evidence! If you cannot, present it as conjecture or speculation, not as fact as you have done. Furthermore, you did not answer my question, so I will repeat it. Explain how you concluded that a manufacturer's absence of publishing a specification means that they did not perform the testing required.

3. Answer the question or acknowledge it as speculation.

4. Answer the question or acknowledge it as speculation.

I will not be answering your questions for as long as you refuse to address mine. You made unsubstantiated claims and I am calling you out on those.

Firstly, 'not this ****, again!'.

To summarize If it has MS-12991 on the bottle, and the correct weight, use it; if not, don't. (as long it isn't old from 'Ping Pong Poo' company which lists every specification ever made...). Personally, I think Amsoil is snake oil (hah!) but some people swear by it, and others don't.

I like Valvoline (for no particular reason; maybe the shape of the 5 quart jug?) and am glad to see that there's an MS-12991 listed oil in their lineup.

They are all about the same price, and while it's nice to save some money, a change in gas prices because some hippy blew up a pipeline in country Unknownistan will make the savings a moot point. Regardless, There's three (4 with Ravenol: never heard of them) well known name brands that publish the specification on their oil. If anybody has a 'which oil should I use?' question there's a pretty straightforward answer.
Indeed, not this **** again. I thought we had gone through this very thoroughly, but apparently some people don't think it's enough.

I see we have an echo chamber. Big surprise that someone who thinks AMSOIL is snake oil would be particular about marketing. Might want to call Mercedes-Benz and tell them the approval they gave this product for their own specification is BS, because it's snake oil.

I deeply resent the fact that I am put in a position to have to defend that level of ignorance.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
I want to make one thing abundantly clear here since it seems that my integrity is under attack. I do not take such attacks lightly, nor do I find it fitting for members engaging in technical conversations to feel I am being hostile to them when I am attacking the logic they have employed and the information they have provided as fact. It is assumed that in technical sections of the forum, members can refrain from making personal references and allow their technical knowledge and information to do the talking. It appears that given the 4th "mandatory question" was given, that this is clearly not the case.

I am an engineer, as I'm sure some of you are as well. First and foremost, my primary concern is factual accuracy of technical topics. Do not assume that I am making my statements because I am an AMSOIL dealer. Do not assume that I am pressing my questions because I have a personal gripe against another member. Statements were made that lacked evidence, and I am demanding that they either be acknowledged as lacking evidence, or that evidence be provided of those statements. I will not allow this forum to run rampant with misinformation because members have a hidden agenda or simply don't feel that they need to be factually accurate in their statements.

I asked four questions, and did not get a straight answer for any of them. No amount of liking each others' posts in an echo chamber of back-patting is going to change my approach on this subject. I am fully aware that my position on this subject is not a popular one and couldnt't care less; I'm stating what I am in the interest of factual accuracy, not popularity. Everyone here should be invested in the same goal, but I am rather disappointed to find myself the only one remotely concerned with it on this subject, especially with how much wealth of knowledge our members possess.

I will admit I have been more than hesitant to take any of Stelvio's feedback given his repeated refusal to address technical points in the past. It is difficult to respect someone who doesn't respect you enough to answer your questions or acknowledge technical correction. That being said, out of an effort to do be factually accurate and objective, I've updated my thread to acknowledge that AMOSIL's product does not display the MS-12991 specification. I will not state that it does not meet the specification as I was very explicitly told by AMSOIL's technical team that it does.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
Now mandatory questions for you.
1. Why is it unreasonable to expect a manufacturer who "tells" you he meets a specification to add that statement to his data sheet?
2. Why would a concerned owner put an oil in his car that doesn't list the recommended specification when there are multiple brands of oils that do for a lot less money?
3. Why wouldn't a website that purports to have the interest of the owners in mind, not be encouraging postings of which oils publish a statement that they meet a specification?
4. And why would the moderator of such a website become hostile to someone who is simply attempting to help owners know which oils publicly list their compliance to the car maker's requirements.?
To extend the courtesy you did not extend me, I will answer your questions.

1. Because manufacturers have reasons for not displaying specifications that have absolutely nothing to do with the performance of that product, and it is a disservice to make assumptions as to why that specification is not printed while the product is recommended for the application. It is possible that specifications sometimes create limits for regulatory reasons (re: California), imposed by clueless politicians thinking they're improving the environment. I am speaking of truly clueless regulations such as ash or sulfer levels in engine oils, not EPA-mandated emissions standards. For the purposes of performance, the oil may meet the specification while it may not meet regulatory burdens. One example of this is the dexos1 licensing scheme, which imposes caps on ash levels. Due to the massive market share for vehicles requiring the dexos1 specification, a manufacturer may be willing to publish "this product is suitable for applications requiring dexos1," knowing full well that their product outperforms any other product that is licensed to the dexos1 specification.

My awareness of the legal and regulatory environment surrounding oil specifications, approvals, and licenses is the reason I am not the least bit concerned as to why some companies neglect to print a specification on their product. Let me make this clear: I have spent a great deal of the last four years of my life deeply invested in the research of and understanding of this exact industry. Relevant to this particular scenario, 5W-40 full-SAPS oils are all within a small quality variance of each other. They all have BMW LL-01 specifications, they all have VW 502 and 505 manufacturer approvals, they all have Mercedes-Benz 229.5 approvals, and Porsche A40 approvals. Where an actual approval process exists, an oil that meets one will generally meet the rest. Can you find me a single 5W-40 euro oil that meets Porshce A40 that does not meet the others I just listed? I strongly doubt it. Then, you have outliers such as MS-12991, Ferrari, and Maserati; specifications that are born out of contracts between oil suppliers and manufacturers, often in an effort by those oil suppliers to reduce competition and gain exclusivity. It isn't because Fiat, Maserati, or Ferrari have some exceptional lubrication requirements that all the direct injected, turbo, high-stress engines made by the other companies somehow do not. Pennzoil's use of a group 3 base oil certainly does not place it at the top of the list of the best 5W-40 European oils available (given the existence of PAO based oils), but it does make it a good value given the price. In some of those cases, a manufacturer may have to reduce the quality of their product in order to meet the regulatory or legal requirements for publishing a given specification. This is a small price to pay for a company more interested in mass-market competition and minimum quality specifications than total performance.

As a result of this, when AMSOIL or any other company tells me that a product meets the MS-12991 specification or that a product is suitable for use where the MS-12991 specification is required, I am not the least bit concerned with whether or not that product will perform at or above the level of the factory fill.

2. The only reason an owner would be concerned about putting a product in their engine that does not list a specification would be out of the fear that the product does not perform to the level required by that specification or out of the fear that the lack of that published number may cause complications in the event that a sleazy dealer blames the failure on the lubricant used (rare). One reason an owner may elect to do so is out of the desire to use a higher performing product. Allow me to shed some insight on this as I have personal experience with this exact scenario. For years, my lubricant of choice in my Chevy Cruze was AMSOIL's Signature Series engine oil. To date, we have not had a single turbo failure on that product due to the PAO/Ester blended base oil's ability to protect in extreme heat conditions. We have had plenty on other products, and countless turbo failures on GM's factory fill, dexos1 licensed product. I elected specifically to use an oil that is NOT licensed to the dexos1 specification knowing that my engine would be better off without it. In my specific case in the fiat 124 Spider, I am electing NOT to use a group 3 oil that lists the MS-12991 specification so that I can use a Group 4 that does not list the MS-12991 specification, but that I have personally validated the performance of through oil analysis in even higher stress environments and have been assured by the manufacturer that it meets the specifications and is suitable for this application. In short, because maybe an owner wants a better product than what the manufacturer deems the bare minimum necessary. If an owner is only concerned with two letters and five numbers, there are options that I presented in my thread that will suit them perfectly well.

3. Assuming you are referring to this website, since you neglected to be clear, myself as a moderator and this website will not be promoting threads that contain misinforming statements. Had you not made numerous errors in your replies in my own thread, they would have remained, but to be completely frank with you, my experience with you in two other lubrication related threads has lead me to conclude that you have absolute zero interest in technical accuracy and instead are far more interested in promoting an agenda born out of personal favor for a certain company. I joined this forum because I bought a Fiat 124 Spider, not because I need to sell oil here to make a living, while you fought tooth and nail to insist that Rotella T6 was the best oil for applications where it did not even meet the minimum requirements, a fact you never acknowledged. When you show me that you are genuinely interested in technical debate, factual accuracy, and show an effort in clarity, you will find me gleefully incorporating your feedback across many topics.

4. I am not hostile toward you. This is a technical thread. I am hostile toward the misinformation you provided and am repeatedly pressing you to either clarify your statements, acknowledge the lack of evidence, or provide proof or your statements. You have repeatedly neglected to clarify your statements, instead falling back on statements like "I didn't say that" or making absolutely no effort to understand and answer the questions that were asked of you. If you use the word approval with respect to MS-12991, and I ask you to provide proof that it is an approval and not just a specification, then it is expected that you either acknowledge it is not an approval or explain your choice of words. I can only assume that your avoidance of doing so is deliberate. Make an effort to choose your words more carefully, make an effort to understand and answer the questions asked of you, and make it your personal goal to be factually and technically accurate, and we will find ourselves in mutual harmony in short order.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
To best serve our members, I would much rather there be one thread instead of two, so please message me directly and we can privately resolve any remaining disagreements and discuss how your concerns can be incorporated into my thread. I don't want there to be a third recurrence of this approval vs specification discussion and I am certain that this exchange does not benefit any spectators. I would message you privately myself, but I've done that once before and received no reply.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top