Oil Change - What lube, and should I have Jeep do it?

[TheGrayRider]

Interesting, this must have changed fairly recently.

ETA: That is Mobil Super Synthetic not Mobil 1

https://www.mobil.com/en-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GL-XX-Mobil-1-5W20

Here is a link to Mobil 1 5-20w it does not show MS6395

https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide.pdf

None of the Mobil 1 products are MS6395 as of this October 2019 product guide from Mobil

You are absolutely correct ... I sit corrected. I’m an idiot

Sponsored

 

[bgenlvtex]

You are absolutely correct ... I sit corrected. I’m an idiot

Idiot might be a little strong, we all make mistakes.

 

[PyrPatriot]

You are absolutely correct ... I sit corrected. I’m an idiot

Good thread on it. If it wasn't fraud, I'd buy the extra "qualifying" oil for "proof" and use Mobile 1 Full Synthetic like I've done on all my cars. Might use Shell if I have to stay honest

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3174751

I'll check my warranty booklet if the use of non-magic oil will void warranty. Doubt it. But better to check. I'd even expect FCA to lose a court battle over it, because they'd have to prove just HOW their engines need the certified oil and only that certified oil to operate properly

 

[TheGrayRider]

Idiot might be a little strong, we all make mistakes.

Received a reply from Mobil

“Thanks for writing to us. You're right, you don't want to risk your warranty by using an oil which does not meet the Chrysler spec.
While we do not currently have a Mobil 1 oil formulated for the particulars of MS-6395, a lot of oils are currently being reformulated in anticipation of the new API SP and ILSAC GF-6 specs coming out in mid-2020. This will be a great opportunity to also address the needs of the MS-6395 specification, and we hope to have some Mobil 1 oils we can recommend for the Jeep next year.

On a side note, how do you like the Gladiator so far? I've seen a few on the road, but have yet to talk with an owner.

Thank you for choosing Mobil,
Jim
Mobil Help Desk Team Lead”

 

[bgenlvtex]

Good thread on it. If it wasn't fraud, I'd buy the extra "qualifying" oil for "proof" and use Mobile 1 Full Synthetic like I've done on all my cars. Might use Shell if I have to stay honest

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3174751

I'll check my warranty booklet if the use of non-magic oil will void warranty. Doubt it. But better to check. I'd even expect FCA to lose a court battle over it, because they'd have to prove just HOW their engines need the certified oil and only that certified oil to operate properly

Using oil that does not meet the requirements of the manufacturer is just silly.

Mobil 1 is good oil, I used it for a couple of decades but it does not meet the manufacturers requirements. No, the manufacturer will not have to prove that, Magnusson-Moss does not provide an avenue to use the wrong oil.

 

[PyrPatriot]

Using oil that does not meet the requirements of the manufacturer is just silly.

Mobil 1 is good oil, I used it for a couple of decades but it does not meet the manufacturers requirements. No, the manufacturer will not have to prove that, Magnusson-Moss does not provide an avenue to use the wrong oil.

Sure, and I'll file the lawsuit in state court. M-M doesn't place limitations on state law, nor does it limit other Federal/common law. Finally, if I recall correctly, it lays the burden on the defendant or breach of warranty to show that the plaintiff's action caused the damage. During discovery FCA would have to provide their internal documents and experts showing non-spec oil will harm the engine, specifically BETTER oil will harm the engine. And to a jury, they'd understand that here is Penzoil charging $10+ a quart for their premium ultra oil and here is Mobile 1 charging $5 for their top oil, and the normal person would go with the cheaper option. Just spitballin' here.

 

[Elwenil]

Just use the oil that is spec'd out for the vehicle. The engineers who designed the engine know a lot more about it than you do. Trying to be some sort of wise guy and acting like you are looking for a fight about some potential lawsuit just makes you look like an ass and you would probably deserve FCA's army of lawyers taking you to the cleaners. Don't make the stupid mistake of thinking this is Chrysler's first rodeo, this sort of thing has been around a long time and I've seen a lot of people who pulled the "I'll sue!" card and go home with their tail between their legs for trying to pull something stupid or shady. If you want to be an activist of some sort, there are plenty of so called "causes" that would be more worthy than "taking it to the man" by going rogue with oil specifications. Now that I have typed it out, it really is even more laughable than when I read what was posted above.

 

[bgenlvtex]

Sure, and I'll file the lawsuit in state court. M-M doesn't place limitations on state law, nor does it limit other Federal/common law. Finally, if I recall correctly, it lays the burden on the defendant or breach of warranty to show that the plaintiff's action caused the damage. During discovery FCA would have to provide their internal documents and experts showing non-spec oil will harm the engine, specifically BETTER oil will harm the engine. And to a jury, they'd understand that here is Penzoil charging $10+ a quart for their premium ultra oil and here is Mobile 1 charging $5 for their top oil, and the normal person would go with the cheaper option. Just spitballin' here.

If you have ever hired an attorney in your lifetime that didn't advertise on the menu of a Chinese restaurant, you know that you will spend more money in his first day on the job than putting the proper oil in your engine will cost for the rest of your life.

Your pricing is not only incorrect, but if hyperbole supports your ill informed position, then by all means use it.

Or you could just go to WalMart and discover that the Pennzoil that meets FCA standards is the same price as Mobil 1 that does not.

Regardless, put whatever you want in your engine.

 

[bgenlvtex]

Just use the oil that is spec'd out for the vehicle. The engineers who designed the engine know a lot more about it than you do. Trying to be some sort of wise guy and acting like you are looking for a fight about some potential lawsuit just makes you look like an ass and you would probably deserve FCA's army of lawyers taking you to the cleaners. Don't make the stupid mistake of thinking this is Chrysler's first rodeo, this sort of thing has been around a long time and I've seen a lot of people who pulled the "I'll sue!" card and go home with their tail between their legs for trying to pull something stupid or shady. If you want to be an activist of some sort, there are plenty of so called "causes" that would be more worthy than "taking it to the man" by going rogue with oil specifications. Now that I have typed it out, it really is even more laughable than when I read what was posted above.

 

[PyrPatriot]

Just use the oil that is spec'd out for the vehicle. The engineers who designed the engine know a lot more about it than you do. Trying to be some sort of wise guy and acting like you are looking for a fight about some potential lawsuit just makes you look like an ass and you would probably deserve FCA's army of lawyers taking you to the cleaners. Don't make the stupid mistake of thinking this is Chrysler's first rodeo, this sort of thing has been around a long time and I've seen a lot of people who pulled the "I'll sue!" card and go home with their tail between their legs for trying to pull something stupid or shady. If you want to be an activist of some sort, there are plenty of so called "causes" that would be more worthy than "taking it to the man" by going rogue with oil specifications. Now that I have typed it out, it really is even more laughable than when I read what was posted above.

I do enjoy the discourse. It's a moot point for the first 2 years anyway, as there are free oil changes. After that, specs may change, Mobile 1 may come out with an approved oil, etc. And you're right, spending thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) in that sort of litigation (if it even came to it, FCA may be bluffing - seen it before with similar matters involving other companies) over possibly a $200 in savings on oil over the life of the powertrain warranty. 60k miles divided by an oil change every 10k miles is 6 oil changes. 2 are free (first 2 years, 20k miles) so that is 4 oil changes. At a difference in $40/5qt that is $160 more. Add a difference of $40 from $160 to $200 as cost increase in filters.

Assuming FCA could even prove you didn't use their fancy oil. Vehicle sensors MAY be able to check such things, I don't know.

 

[mazeppa]

Yea, an oil thread!

Another SAE 0W-20 oil choice that meets Chrysler MS-6395

 

[bgenlvtex]

I do enjoy the discourse. It's a moot point for the first 2 years anyway, as there are free oil changes. After that, specs may change, Mobile 1 may come out with an approved oil, etc. And you're right, spending thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) in that sort of litigation (if it even came to it, FCA may be bluffing - seen it before with similar matters involving other companies) over possibly a $200 in savings on oil over the life of the powertrain warranty. 60k miles divided by an oil change every 10k miles is 6 oil changes. 2 are free (first 2 years, 20k miles) so that is 4 oil changes. At a difference in $40/5qt that is $160 more. Add a difference of $40 from $160 to $200 as cost increase in filters.

Assuming FCA could even prove you didn't use their fancy oil. Vehicle sensors MAY be able to check such things, I don't know.

Used oil analysis is a thing. They can gtell you definitively if you have the correct oil installed.

Magnusson-Moss protects you from the manufacturer requiring that you use THEIR parts, it does not relieve you of the responsibility to use similar parts.

Pretending for a moment it actually got to court, I promise you the first person that FCA will call to testify is a representative of Mobil 1 and it will go like this:
FCA attorney: "Mr. M1 representative, do you recommend or certify your Mobil 1 product for use in FCA engines which require the MS-6395 specification?"

Mr. M1 representative: "No sir we do not."

FCA attorney: "Why is that Mr. M1 representative?"

Mr. M1 representative: " Because despite the fact that our Mobil 1 product line is a very good quality oil, it does not possess the qualities identified by FCA in their MS-6395 specification"

FCA attorney: " Thank you for that Mr. M1 representative, would you believe it fair to say that a manufacturers specifications for oil have a foundation in known qualities, and that those qualities have specific purpose with regards to engine durability and performance?"

Mr. M1: "Yes sir , I would."

FCA attorney: "Can you think of any circumstances where it would be considered prudent to install engine oil which does not meet a manufacturers certification? Outside of a dire life and death type of circumstance say."

Mr. M1 representative: "No sir, I cannot."

FCA attorney" "Thank you Mr. M1 representative, you have been very helpful, I have no more questions for you today."

 

[PyrPatriot]

Used oil analysis is a thing. They can gtell you definitively if you have the correct oil installed.

Magnusson-Moss protects you from the manufacturer requiring that you use THEIR parts, it does not relieve you of the responsibility to use similar parts.

Pretending for a moment it actually got to court, I promise you the first person that FCA will call to testify is a representative of Mobil 1 and it will go like this:
FCA attorney: "Mr. M1 representative, do you recommend or certify your Mobil 1 product for use in FCA engines which require the MS-6395 specification?"

Mr. M1 representative: "No sir we do not."

FCA attorney: "Why is that Mr. M1 representative?"

Mr. M1 representative: " Because despite the fact that our Mobil 1 product line is a very good quality oil, it does not possess the qualities identified by FCA in their MS-6395 specification"

FCA attorney: " Thank you for that Mr. M1 representative, would you believe it fair to say that a manufacturers specifications for oil have a foundation in known qualities, and that those qualities have specific purpose with regards to engine durability and performance?"

Mr. M1: "Yes sir , I would."

FCA attorney: "Can you think of any circumstances where it would be considered prudent to install engine oil which does not meet a manufacturers certification? Outside of a dire life and death type of circumstance say."

Mr. M1 representative: "No sir, I cannot."

FCA attorney" "Thank you Mr. M1 representative, you have been very helpful, I have no more questions for you today."

That is one way it can play out. It also assumes said representative won't have his own attorneys there to object to questions, or cross-examine said rep to negate any answers elicited from FCA attorney. And there are certainly other questions I could ask the rep, or the FCA engineers on the engine. Or my own expert witness. The witness game can be dragged out quite a bit. And given Mobile1 and FCA history, M1 rep wouldn't be so cooperative.

Or, as will most likely be the case because FCA doesn't have their own in-house counsel do the litigation, they hire outside firms in the area where the litigation is happening, who charge $900/hr per attorney on the "team" (prices may vary by level of partner, attorney, paralegal, expert witness fees in the tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc., but I have seen such disputes cost over $1mil in attorney fees per side alone). Instead of going that route, they'll write a strongly worded letter saying "you should have used our oil", but will service the engine while under warranty period anyway.

Don't ruin my philosophizing and speculation, internet debates are fun. I did agree with you on the cost-benefit ratio. And I do like the thought you put into that discourse of attorney-witness. I'm not in the mood to play out a transcript.

 

[bgenlvtex]

That is one way it can play out. It also assumes said representative won't have his own attorneys there to object to questions, or cross-examine said rep to negate any answers elicited from FCA attorney. And there are certainly other questions I could ask the rep, or the FCA engineers on the engine. Or my own expert witness. The witness game can be dragged out quite a bit. And given Mobile1 and FCA history, M1 rep wouldn't be so cooperative.

Or, as will most likely be the case because FCA doesn't have their own in-house counsel do the litigation, they hire outside firms in the area where the litigation is happening, who charge $900/hr per attorney on the "team" (prices may vary by level of partner, attorney, paralegal, expert witness fees in the tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc., but I have seen such disputes cost over $1mil in attorney fees per side alone). Instead of going that route, they'll write a strongly worded letter saying "you should have used our oil", but will service the engine while under warranty period anyway.

Don't ruin my philosophizing and speculation, internet debates are fun. I did agree with you on the cost-benefit ratio. And I do like the thought you put into that discourse of attorney-witness. I'm not in the mood to play out a transcript.

LOL, FCA is a multinational corporation, what in Gods name would make you think that they don't have a staff of attorneys?


You just put whatever you want in your engine and I'll wish you luck.

 

[PyrPatriot]

LOL, FCA is a multinational corporation, what in Gods name would make you think that they don't have a staff of attorneys?


You just put whatever you want in your engine and I'll wish you luck.

I never said they didn't have their own attorneys. I said their own attorneys don't deal with such litigation.

Because companies like them don't have attorneys licensed to practice in every state. They have an army of attorneys, for things like corporate transactions, managing lawsuits (i.e personal injury, contract disputes), but the lawyers actually of record and making the arguments are ALWAYS outsourced. It just isn't reasonable for them to have hired that many lawyers. They have in-house counsel for company-related matters. But for lawsuits against them, they hire local big-firms and have them on retainer. I first got interested in who represents who with the NRA. I wondered who their attorneys were fighting for gun rights across the country in the big cases like Heller and McDonald. Turns out, they hired local firms because with their own attorneys not being licensed in the state where a lawsuit was brought, they could not be the counsel of record. Then speaking with in-house attorneys for some local companies (Yum! brands, banks, etc) I learned that they just hire lawyers where the lawsuit is brought. From there I learned that it isn't just one attorney that gets hired, it is a team of attorneys. You'll have a senior partner, junior partner, associate, junior associate, paralegal, and secretary all on one case. Each will be recording their billing, up to $1200/hr or more for folks like the partners. You will almost always a group for each aspect of a case, with one group dealing with contracts, another dealing with corporate law, another dealing with torts/liability, etc. That is how a 2 year case (relatively short) can end up with a bill of $1-2mil for a company in just the money they pay to OUTSIDE attorneys. Now, I haven't gotten to see too many such cases nor learn more than such a general scheme because I'm not an attorney, but I can figure that it is much cheaper to just bite the bullet, service the vehicle or settle before the issue ever gets to a court filing. Just cheaper to replace a $5k engine and make the customer promise to never tell, than spend $5k on a few hours of work from some lawyers and have the case be public record. That is why when you buy a car/finance you sign an arbitration agreement, and the company will often front your costs (like filing, your share for the arbitrator, etc). My experience anyway.

Sponsored