Sponsored

Anyone with over 100k miles on their 3.6 yet ?

ShadowsPapa

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Threads
178
Messages
29,091
Reaction score
34,573
Location
Runnells, Iowa
Vehicle(s)
'22 JTO, '23 JLU, '82 SX4, '73 P. Cardin Javelin
Occupation
Retired auto mechanic, frmr gov't ntwrk security admin
Vehicle Showcase
3
The compression does not change - that is false.
Cam timing and valve lift do change compression. I've done enough cam swapping.........
LSA , LCA, valve lift, cam timing.

This is from a Honda discussion, actual test numbers>>
cam size AND cam timing will effect cranking compression numbers. Just changing the cam timing can effect the cranking compression numbers by over 20%.

Numbers for thinking
D16 with stock cam at zero, 200 psi across the board
same setup with cam at 2 degress retard, 180 psi
4 degrees retard and I got 160-165 psi cranking compression numbers.


This from Motortrend >>
Advancing or retarding a camshaft's timing from its original "zero" position causes the valve events to happen either earlier or later in the engine's cycle. A camshaft that is advanced four degrees will cause each opening and closing event to occur four degrees of rotation sooner than before. This changes the cylinder's ability to build pressure. On the other hand, if the camshaft timing is retarded, the intake valve will close later (usually sometime during the compression stroke).
It should be no surprise that this drops cranking compression


So, retarding the intake cam timing drops cranking compression, by a fair amount.

I've built enough engines to know what happens if you mess up degreeing the cam, or get the wrong cam for your volumetric calculations.

There's a whole page on turbo mopar talking about it - here's another fellow's test results -

I set the cam timing on the S3 cam to achieve max cranking pressure which was 135psi. It ran good set to that point. Pulled hard to 6800 to 7000rpm. Then I tried advancing beyond that point. That resulted in a serious drop in top end power with a small gain in bottom end torque. I have a fairly loose conveter 3500 to 4000 stall, so extreme bottom end torque is not really noticed.
Then I started retarding it 2 deg at a time all the way to 6 deg retard. Ended up at 4 deg retard. Had 125psi cranking pressure.


He went from 135 down to 125.

On a warm or hot engine, it matters.

I stand by my 50 years engine experience. (and am supported by many dozens saying the same thing)
If you want, I'll go dig out my old college engine building books - one guy who worked with Isky in the 60s talks about the impact of cam timing, making no other changes.

I didn't just walk in off the internet - I've a lifetime of study and experience, and have even made mistakes with cams that raised compression enough to cause me trouble.
Sponsored

 
OP
OP

jwolfejt

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Threads
12
Messages
143
Reaction score
84
Location
Culpeper VA
Vehicle(s)
2023 Jeep Gladiator Rubicon
Occupation
Engineer
Cam timing and valve lift do change compression. I've done enough cam swapping.........
LSA , LCA, valve lift, cam timing.

This is from a Honda discussion, actual test numbers>>
cam size AND cam timing will effect cranking compression numbers. Just changing the cam timing can effect the cranking compression numbers by over 20%.

Numbers for thinking
D16 with stock cam at zero, 200 psi across the board
same setup with cam at 2 degress retard, 180 psi
4 degrees retard and I got 160-165 psi cranking compression numbers.


This from Motortrend >>
Advancing or retarding a camshaft's timing from its original "zero" position causes the valve events to happen either earlier or later in the engine's cycle. A camshaft that is advanced four degrees will cause each opening and closing event to occur four degrees of rotation sooner than before. This changes the cylinder's ability to build pressure. On the other hand, if the camshaft timing is retarded, the intake valve will close later (usually sometime during the compression stroke).
It should be no surprise that this drops cranking compression


So, retarding the intake cam timing drops cranking compression, by a fair amount.

I've built enough engines to know what happens if you mess up degreeing the cam, or get the wrong cam for your volumetric calculations.

There's a whole page on turbo mopar talking about it - here's another fellow's test results -

I set the cam timing on the S3 cam to achieve max cranking pressure which was 135psi. It ran good set to that point. Pulled hard to 6800 to 7000rpm. Then I tried advancing beyond that point. That resulted in a serious drop in top end power with a small gain in bottom end torque. I have a fairly loose conveter 3500 to 4000 stall, so extreme bottom end torque is not really noticed.
Then I started retarding it 2 deg at a time all the way to 6 deg retard. Ended up at 4 deg retard. Had 125psi cranking pressure.


He went from 135 down to 125.

On a warm or hot engine, it matters.

I stand by my 50 years engine experience. (and am supported by many dozens saying the same thing)
If you want, I'll go dig out my old college engine building books - one guy who worked with Isky in the 60s talks about the impact of cam timing, making no other changes.

I didn't just walk in off the internet - I've a lifetime of study and experience, and have even made mistakes with cams that raised compression enough to cause me trouble.
You were talking about dynamic compression - I am referring to static compression (i.e. all valves closed). Going with a cam swap on a turbo d16 is NOT going to help prevent detonation for example. What you are describing is compression numbers related to engine timing. Also wet and dry tests will give you different numbers. But the static compression number will always remain the same as thats relative to the piston to deck/chamber.
 
Last edited:

ShadowsPapa

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Threads
178
Messages
29,091
Reaction score
34,573
Location
Runnells, Iowa
Vehicle(s)
'22 JTO, '23 JLU, '82 SX4, '73 P. Cardin Javelin
Occupation
Retired auto mechanic, frmr gov't ntwrk security admin
Vehicle Showcase
3
You were talking about dynamic compression - I am referring to dynamic compression (i.e. all valves closed). Going with a cam swap on a turbo d16 is NOT going to help prevent detonation for example. What you are describing is compression numbers related to engine timing. Also wet and dry tests will give you different numbers. But the static compression number will always remain the same as thats relative to the piston to deck/chamber.
I know all about engines, design, cams, timing, etc. - I spent quite a bit of time in college on the topic.

I'm talking about compression pressure, and in effect, compression ratio.

Ratio is the comparison of the volume of air the chamber can hold at BDC compared to the volume of the chamber at TDC.

I'm talking about changing the actual pressure in the chamber by changing valve lift and timing. You can change the pressure and make cranking harder or easier by changing cam timing.

Leaving things on high lift and retarding the intake cams, you release pressure as the valves are still open as the piston comes up - so in a sense you have changed the ratio because you have not closed the chamber off until the piston is up a little bit from BDC. So you are starting with a smaller volume of air and ending up with the same end volume. You've lowered compression pressures and the compression ratio - the operating or dynamic ratio. That's all that counts.

You can have a calculated ratio of 11.3 but if you retard the intake cams, you end up with a lower ratio. So you are starting under less pressure - there's less stress when cranking.

And yes, a cam swap can change things up and give you higher pressures when running, and cause detonation. I did just that.

Wet vs. dry compression checks with a gauge - now we're talking intro to power mechanics class LOL Jr. high school stuff. That isn't even in this.

Retarding the intake cam, leaving the intake valves open longer reduces the compression PRESSURE. There's less air in the chamber to compress, less stress when cranking and starting.
Further, because you have not closed off the chamber with the piston at BDC, because you have closed it off with the piston part way up, you are starting with a smaller volume of air and end up with the same chamber size when it's at TDC, so you have lowered the actual compression ratio.

If you start with 1 liter with the piston at BDC, valves CLOSED, and end up with 1/10th of a liter with the piston at TDC, you have a 10 to 1.
If the piston is up a bit before the valves close and you have 9/10 of a liter and end up with 1/10 of a liter, yeah, lower ratio.

The advertised compression ratio is assumed with piston at BDC and all valves closed with the piston at BDC.
The more you retard the timing of the valves, the lower you make the compression in the end.

It's more complicated with it running because the intake air attains speed and actually keeps pushing in even as the piston starts to rise.
I'm talking cranking speeds - the air doesn't have speed and momentum or inertia.

I found where FCA was thinking the same thing I was - lower compression pressures (effective compression lowered) to reduce hot start issues like detonation in a hot start, and make it easier for ESS - Looks like they agree with my logic/experience -

Jeep Gladiator Anyone with over 100k miles on their 3.6 yet ? 1657422509715

Dropping compression during a start helps reduce startup detonation and makes ESS restarts easier (less stress on engine and starter - sort of a compression release like some small engines used years ago)
 
Last edited:

1996XJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Threads
26
Messages
483
Reaction score
617
Location
So Cal
Vehicle(s)
96 Cherokee , 2021 JTMojave (punjabi), 22 gobiator
Occupation
Hot Dog proprietor
Agreed. I know it may be hard to believe but there is a button on the dash to turn it off if so hated.
But you got to remember to push that thing dude.
 

Sponsored

Akgladiator

Banned
Banned
First Name
Ak
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
180
Reaction score
184
Location
Gulf of Mexico
Vehicle(s)
F150 Gladiator Wrangler Camaro Mustang GXP Taurus
Occupation
Bee
I'm at 140k on my 2012 JKR with the OG 3.6 and AA left side head. It still runs perfect, doesn't burn oil, no ticking, UOA's come back showing no signs of wear. It's also ran a K&N air filter it's entire, thoroughly abused off-road life. Though I've been running Redline 5w30 in it since buying it new.

Our 2021 JT has 27k on it. Also switched to Redline 5w30 at the first oil change. Runs like a top. UOA's come back clean. I've disabled the start/stop.

On my third Ram with a Hemi. 2013 1500 had 160k miles when I traded it. 2017 1500 had 67k when I traded it. Ran 5w30 in those as well. Current 2020 2500 6.4 has 28k. Run 5w40 in it. I've ran Redline in all of them since new. None have ever ticked or shown any signs of abnormal wear.

I'm convinced these motors need better oil with high moly content to provide lubrication during cold, dry starts. I'm also convinced that FCA chasing CAFE standards by lowering oil viscosity is another cause of failed lifters and cams. You can just look at the history of the engine, when they made revisions and lowered viscosity and the resulting increase of lifter/cam issues. I'm not rocket surgeon, I just look at the data.
I concurred with all these manufacturers chasing cafe standard in expense of consumers wallets.

I always run thicker oil than factory recommended, no issues whatsoever.

I don't believe in Oil lighter than 5w30
 

MrZappo

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tom
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Threads
13
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,855
Location
Granger, Indiana
Vehicle(s)
Gladiator Mojave
Occupation
Computer Consultant
I concurred with all these manufacturers chasing cafe standard in expense of consumers wallets.

I always run thicker oil than factory recommended, no issues whatsoever.

I don't believe in Oil lighter than 5w30
10 million guys in 1990 - "I don't believe in oil lighter than 10w40"

10 million guys in 1980 - "I dont believe in oil lighter than 20w50."

10 million guys in 1970 - "I don't believe in that synthetic stuff, it ruins engines".

10 million guys in 1960 - "I don't believe in that multi grade stuff, I'll only use straight 30w".

And so on ...

Times change, technology moves the needle, oils get better, engine metals improve.


Seriously.

Saying "I don't believe" is not facts.

Can anyone point to a engine running quality 0w20 that has had a lubrication based issue of any consequence? Measurable and documented ?

Other than that, meh I see where your coming from (1980). But ill respectfully disagree.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
23
Messages
939
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JT Rubi, 18 JLU Rubi, 2008 JKU Rubi, 07 Vette
One engineer designed Gen 1?

The current 3.6 is very different and was heavily modified in ways that end up making it better for ESS.
The oil pump will cause less strain during ESS starts because it's dual-stage, the timing chains are lighter and smoother, so there's less inertia to overcome, the VVL will lesson the stresses of starting as the compression will be lower during warm starts, there's a lot about this version will aid warm starts.

In their testing - Did they actually keep cycling the current version of the 3.6 (2016 and later) using the ESS system, or was it a series of cold starts - or non-ESS starts? The PCM handles ESS starts differently than when you crank it to start it.

Oil is going to be one of the biggest factors. It's the oil's film strength that handles the stresses of starting and ESS starts are not cold starts. They are very very different because the PCM knows exactly where each piston has stopped- it modifies injector signals and ignition for fast low stress starts. Listen closely to an ESS start vs a cold start.
The oil film is only minutes old and if a good oil is used, it will handle it. There will be no metal-to-metal contact, no real chance for wear because the oil film will keep the parts apart.

Hybrids as well as others have used similar systems for years and that's why the industry here was pretty well ready.

The new bearing designs have been working for others for a lot of miles, and years - others have logged a lot of miles, and the instances of bearing failures on the 3.6 is really pretty small, isn't it?
How many here have seen a lot of bearing failures in the Penastar?

I would expect that since these engines have been out for over 6 years, and if the average person drove 12,000 miles a year, you'd have hundreds of thousands of the 3.6 over 70,000 miles, you'd be seeing bearing issues by now.
Interesting also that Chrysler used ESS in 2015 models - before the 3.6 was even updated with new
He did design it. So did others. But he was one of a handful of lead engineers. He refers to it as his baby. He is still close friends with folks who designed the PUG. He said they have reported accelerated bearing wear that in some cases has been what he would call excessive. That's why he said it eats the hell out of them.

Go ahead and run it. Hopefully it won't be an issue. I'm using UOA's on my wife's to see if anything shows up. But UOA's are better at spotting an impending disaster than wear trends. But at least if they show little or no difference that might raise the confidence level. Nobody wants it to work more than me. It gains nearly 2mpg with my wife's driving profile. That adds up quickly in savings.

I don't disagree with much of what you said is going on in the engine, but the fact is when it stops, there is metal/metal contact instead of parts riding on a film of oil. Even if only extremely brief, that metal/metal contact is where most wear occurs. The more stops/starts, the more wear.

He said they tested it both in the real world and with multi-million dollar testing equipment.

They took much of what they learned then and improved upon it in the PUG. As I said before, he said they did a hulluva job with the Etorque setup. It is MUCH better than the version in my 2018 JL and the Gladiator. Much smoother, and seemless. But it still produces more bearing wear, according to him.

I'm going to continue to do UOA's and see if they might give me the confidence to turn it on again. But for now, it remains disabled.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
23
Messages
939
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JT Rubi, 18 JLU Rubi, 2008 JKU Rubi, 07 Vette
I concurred with all these manufacturers chasing cafe standard in expense of consumers wallets.

I always run thicker oil than factory recommended, no issues whatsoever.

I don't believe in Oil lighter than 5w30
So you don't believe in the 625k mile Pentastar that did it on 5w20? Or my old F150 5.4 that is closing in on 300k on 5w20?

Ok.
 

JET_83

Banned
Banned
First Name
Eric
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
646
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
2022 Jeep Gladiator Overland
So you don't believe in the 625k mile Pentastar that did it on 5w20? Or my old F150 5.4 that is closing in on 300k on 5w20?

Ok.
I see that number of miles and I think 1 and a billion of it happening again regardless of maintenance, that’s insane, and find me another besides that one with 625,000.
 

Sponsored

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
23
Messages
939
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JT Rubi, 18 JLU Rubi, 2008 JKU Rubi, 07 Vette
I see that number of miles and I think 1 and a billion of it happening again regardless of maintenance, that’s insane, and find me another besides that one with 625,000.
If they made a billion Pentastars, you might be right. But they have made about 12,000,000, so your stat is slightly off. But I very much doubt that's the only one that has made it past 500k. Especially considering it was in a commercial Promaster van, which led a life of hard use. It wasn't driven by Aunt Birtha to and from church.

So show me one that has done it on 5w30. Of course it is rare. But it did it. The guy did it on Mobil 1 and Valvoline Advanced synthetic 5w20 at 7k intervals. Nothing special there except Mobil 1. He did say that some intervals went beyond 7k when he didn't have time to change oil.

The Pentastar's rep for longevity occurred with 5w20 or 0w20 being the recommended oil since day 1 in the US, which was in the 2011 model year, I believe. (The gen 1 Pentastar did recommend 5w30 in some markets, such as Europe, for awhile, where consumers were much more interested in heavier oils. They viewed 5w30 as very thin. It was developed with both 5w30 and 0w20. But the PUG Pentastar was developed entirely with 0w20 and it specs 0w20 all over the world and has never specified anything else.)

What is not rare is Pentastars making it past 300k. In the two Jeep clubs in which I'm a member, there are probably a dozen Wranglers with Pentastars that are at or just over 300k miles. There are some 3.8's, which specified 5w20 that have 300k on them. These guys are showing up to meets and off-road events and their Jeeps run perfectly and reliably. My JK has 174k on it now and runs like new. It has had mostly 5w20 with a few runs of 0w20 more recently, because I have a huge stash of Shell Rotella Gas Truck 0w20 I picked up on clearance.

FCA (before it became Stellantis) used to give out badges for high mileage to customers. I think they started at either 150k or 200k. So if you got one, you were in the "200,000 Mile Club" and so-on. I believe 300k was the top, although it might have gone to 500k or even 1 million, as I suspect someone out there might have nursed one that far. Anyway, there were 2 engines that led them to drop the program because they were making it past 300k in large numbers. The first was the 3.8 (yes, the reliable and long lasting engine everyone loves to hate in the minivans and JK's). As I said before, mine is at 174k and running perfectly. The one that really killed it, though, was the Pentastar. And the vast, vast majority of customers were running exatly the oil weight specified for them, which was 5w20. The 3.8 in its early years was specified for 5w30. According to my friend, they saw no reduction in longevity when they went to 5w20 in that engine.

So was economy the main driver for the move to 20 weight oil? Yep, absolutely. BUT, the company never relaxed its durability standards which I believe were at the time, 98% of engines making it to 150k without a rebuild, (either short or long block). That standard may actually be higher now, as people keep cars longer and the competition has gotten tougher. The Pentastar easily exceeded that standard and still does in its latest 0w20 versions. How'd they do that? Easy. The manufacturers worked with the SAE and oil companies to improve the oils so they could handle it. But engines also required it due to tighter tolerances. There are areas in a tight tolerance engine where a 20 weight will outperform a heavier oil. So while it was the main driver, it wasn't the only one.

Think 0w20 can't perform? Look at the flash point and pour point on Mobil 1 EP 0w20. You will be hard pressed to find an oil with better numbers on either end and even harder pressed to find one that does it on both. Even the 10w30 can't beat it on flash point. Amsoil Signature and Red Line are the only two I've found that are comparable. And Mobil 1 ESP X2 0w20 meets the Porsche C-20 spec, which is one of the toughest tests in the industry. Few oils available in the US meet that spec.

But like I said, run 5w30 if it makes you feel good. It probably won't hurt anything at all. But while under warranty, if you get an engine problem of a mechanical nature, such as a rocker failure, or even an oil leak, I dare you to volunteer that you were running 5w30 when you take it in. Unless your dealership really loves you, there's a good chance you'll wind up paying for it out of pocket as it will be used as grounds to deny coverage.

But if you run the specified 0w20, your engine will be just fine. I've got 3 Jeeps in the garage and dozens upon dozens of used oil analyses that show no issues at all. And the nearly 15 year old JK soldiers on, rapidly approaching 200k.

Btw, that old JK came with a lifetime powertrain warranty for free. They weren't too worried about 5w20 when they did that.
 
Last edited:

JET_83

Banned
Banned
First Name
Eric
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
646
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
2022 Jeep Gladiator Overland
Show me one that has done it on 5w30. Of course it is rare. But it did it. The guy did it on Mobil 1 and Valvoline 5w20 at 7k intervals. Nothing special there except Mobil 1. He did say that some intervals went beyond 7k when he didn't have time to change oil.

The Pentastar's rep for longevity occurred with 5w20 or 0w20 being the recommended oil since day 1 in the US, which was in the 2011 model year, I believe. (The gen 1 Pentastar did recommend 5w30 in some markets, such as Europe, for awhile, where consumers were much more interested in heavier oils. They viewed 5w30 as very thin. It was developed with both 5w30 and 0w20. But the PUG Pentastar was developed entirely with 0w20 and it specs 0w20 all over the world and has never specified anything else.)

What is not rare is Pentastars making it past 300k. In the two Jeep clubs in which I'm a member, there are probably a dozen Wranglers with Pentastars that are at or just over 300k miles. There are some 3.8's, which specified 5w20 that have 300k on them. These guys are showing up to meets and off-road events and their Jeeps run perfectly and reliably. My JK has 174k on it now and runs like new. It has had mostly 5w20 with a few runs of 0w20 more recently, because I have a huge stash of Shell Rotella Gas Truck 0w20 I picked up on clearance.

FCA (before it became Stellantis) used to give out badges for high mileage to customers. I think they started at either 150k or 200k. So if you got one, you were in the "200,000 Mile Club" and so-on. I believe 300k was the top, although it might have gone to 500k or even 1 million, as I suspect someone out there might have nursed one that far. Anyway, there were 2 engines that led them to drop the program because they were making it past 300k in large numbers. The first was the 3.8 (yes, the reliable and long lasting engine everyone loves to hate in the minivans and JK's). As I said before, mine is at 174k and running perfectly. The one that really killed it, though, was the Pentastar. And the vast, vast majority of customers were running exatly the oil weight specified for them, which was 5w20. The 3.8 in its early years was specified for 5w30. According to my friend, they saw no reduction in longevity when they went to 5w20 in that engine.

So was economy the main driver for the move to 20 weight oil? Yep, absolutely. BUT, the company never relaxed its durability standards which I believe were at the time, 98% of engines making it to 150k without a rebuild, (either short or long block). The Pentastar easily exceeded that standard and still does in its latest 0w20 versions. How'd they do that? Easy. The manufacturers worked with the SAE and oil companies to improve the oils.

Think 0w20 can't perform? Look at the flash point and pour point on Mobil 1 EP 0w20. You will be hard pressed to find an oil with better numbers on either end and even harder pressed to find one that does it on both. Even the 10w30 can't beat it on flash point. Amsoil Signature and Red Line are the only two I've found that are comparable. And Mobil 1 ESP X2 0w20 meets the Porsche C-20 spec, which is one of the toughest tests in the industry. Few oils available in the US meet that spec.

But like I said, run 5w30 if it makes you feel good. It probably won't hurt anything at all. But while under warranty, if you get an engine problem of a mechanical nature, such as a rocker failure, or even an oil leak, I dare you to volunteer that you were running 5w30 when you take it in. Unless your dealership really loves you, there's a good chance you'll wind up paying for it out of pocket as it will be used as grounds to deny coverage.

But if you run the specified 0w20, your engine will be just fine. I've got 3 Jeeps in the garage and dozens upon dozens of used oil analyses that show no issues at all. And the nearly 15 year old JK soldiers on, rapidly approaching 200k.

Btw, that old JK came with a lifetime powertrain warranty for free. They weren't too worried about 5w20 when they did that.
I think it’s really cool at least one made it to the 625,000 mark regardless. I really like the Pentastar and know it’s a reliable engine, I guess I only wish it was a little more peppy in the gladiators, that would be my only complaint about it.
 

JET_83

Banned
Banned
First Name
Eric
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
646
Location
US
Vehicle(s)
2022 Jeep Gladiator Overland
My only thing is I wonder if Pennzoil platinum would’ve held up just as well if that’s what he would’ve been able to have used all that time and had it been around then.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
23
Messages
939
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JT Rubi, 18 JLU Rubi, 2008 JKU Rubi, 07 Vette
My only thing is I wonder if Pennzoil platinum would’ve held up just as well if that’s what he would’ve been able to have used all that time and had it been around then.
I would bet that it would. Pennzoil Platinum is a very good oil. It is certainly at least as good as Valvoline full syn. I think maybe slightly better due to GTL base stock. But Valvoline may use GTL, too. (Gas to Liquid, which in some ways outperforms the typical Group III synthetic base stocks, which are also still very good, btw.)

I'm a Mobil 1 EP fan, but Pennzoil/Shell products are outstanding and I would run them with confidence. I've had them in my Jeeps and am currently running through a big stash of Shell Rotella Gas Truck 0w20 in my JK and daughter's Renegade. I picked it up for literally nothing, with some bottles, thanks to Autozone clearance and rebates.

The top brand oils are all very competitive in performance.
Sponsored

 
 



Top