Hootbro
Well-Known Member
Verbiage is everything and I read it the same way as you. Castrol is basically self certifying they "meet" the MS-12991 vs. stating they carry the "Approvals" which signifies it has actually gone through a certification test as administered by FCA/Stellantis.I read it more like they claim it meets those requirements. Who is the decision maker?
I hate the world we live in where you have to question everything because so much is deception.
This really is not unique to Castrol as about all the major oil brands do it but may express it with statements like "suitable for .......", "meets" and "acceptable" . These are monikers to mean that from their perspective they meet the technical intent of whatever spec they are using it on, just they have not completed the certification process and obtained the "Approvals" from the entity defining the spec.
I am pretty familiar with the MS-6395 spec and certification process for the gas engine oils. The technical chemical and material to formulate is not really that unique and super special. The sticking point to many oil companies getting "approvals" out the gate for the oil is the performance requirement that the oils are run through a special Chrysler Las Vegas taxi fleet for 100K miles across two summers and one winter. At it's fastest, that is a two year process to get "approvals" and companies like Castrol will either forgo that part and stick with the "meets" type language or just use the same language selling the product while they wait out the process to get the approvals.
I cannot find any data on what the MS-12991 entails for true approval process, but I suspect it is probably a similar process.
Sponsored
Attachments
-
56.4 KB Views: 95
