Alexiloki said:

Hello all,

Just a cautionary bit of advice for you. As some of you may have seen me mention, I am a lubricant research engineer. Basically I work for a worldwide corperation, testing both our current and future lubricants against manufacturer's specifications and comparing out products to the competition on paper, but also in lab and real world conditions.

My sister has decided to sell her Panda and asked me to go over the service history, paperwork and invoices with her, in which I found that the dealer group she uses (which I think is the largest in the country) has been filling her car with Shell Helix Ultra each time it has been serviced.

First of all, I'm not slating this product, it is a quality engine oil. However it does not meet 9.55535-S2, nor does it fit ACEA C3, which is the required spec for factory and service fill for the 500, panda and most of the fiat range, regardless of 1.2 or twinair.

I have done a little digging and contacted multiple dealers within the chain who all said that oil is what they use as service fill if your car is taken in. Seems to be a company wide thing. I also contacted Fiat UK who stated very very clearly that if engine damage occurs which is in any way attributable to the oil used, the warranty is invalidated due to the use of oils not fitting the fiat technical standard.

Basically the short and curly of the situation is check your service invoices now and in future. Only one version of Helix Ultra fits this standard which is AT-L, regardless of professional or over the counter versions and none of the dealers I spoke to (11 of them) use this version. Even if they do, it is not a Fiat approved oil, shell just says it meets the standard. I know, I've done testing on the stuff! And If your dealer is filling with these products, question it.

Sorry if this seems a bit OTT but consider the cost if your engine goes bang or suffers a fault and Fiat Technical requests a oil sample - which they often do and then find the oil doesn't satisfy the spec. That bill is now on you and so are any in future. Bye bye warranty!

The only oils to my awareness that fit the specifications and have been tested and certified to do so are Castrol Edge titanium and Petronas Selenia in multiple guises, both have it in black and white on the bottles of the relevant oil that they meet and exceed these specs, and have the technical specifications numbers on the label. If they do not, they are old stock or a different grade. Both are certified as service fill and the Selenia is the factory fill for our vehicles.

It's deeply frustrating to think that lot of us pay a fair chunk of money for our cars to be looked after by the main dealer, and if I found they put my warranty and my engine, EGR, Sensors and cat at risk by using the wrong grade of oil, there is a fair chance I would be down there with a pickaxe handle ?
If we are taking them out of the dealer network and into indepenants or are out of warranty, that's a different story where lack of info or bulletins can come into it. I don't expect it from a franchised dealer who charge a fair wedge for the privilege of using them.

Also: The other Shell Helix oil that 'fits' the required specification is Helix HX7 ECT. However this is not a fully synthetic oil as fiat/alfa states is required, it's is semi synthetic, and while it is stated that this oil attains the requirements of ACEA C3 and 9.55535-S2 it has not been approved or tested by fiat and only fits the spec on paper. Also Castrol Magnatec C3 claims to meet the spec but neither Castrol nor Fiat can confirm that it is certified and tested to do so. Minefield out there!

Click to expand...

Michael Dranfield said:

A lubricant engineer is a good contact to have then !
It seems like I am not mad then to use genuine fiat selina oil and change it and the filter every 3,000 miles, my friends think I am mad and say oil is oil but you have just confirmed what I always thought .

Click to expand...

Herts Hillhopper said:

Strictly speaking the oil change intervals have not changed. Fiat require an annual 'inspection' every 9000 miles but the oil still gets changed at 18k intervals (and for the MJ, oil change happens when the 'change oil now' warning appears - again, no change from previous regime) - you are welcome to change more often, but don't have to to retain the warranty.

Interesting aside: check what oils Fiat recommends for its cars in the USA - this page for teh 500X but similar for others too - no mention of Selena but Shell Helix is on the list: http://www.fiat500usa.com/2015/08/fiat-500x-fluids-and-capacities.html

In the USA, Fiat are not allowed (by local law) to 'dictate' a brand of oil - only a spec. Check the details in the user manuals for teh Fiat 500 you can download here: http://www.fiatusa.com/en/owners/manuals/index.html

Click to expand...

Alexiloki said:

Fiat says within the service bulletins that oil should be changed yearly especially if the vehicle is used for mostly urban driving or doesn't hit the service interval mileage on a annual basis. Also my owners manual says to change the oil and Filter on every service, some appear to have been updated.

Click to expand...

Herts Hillhopper said:

<SNIP>
Back to the USA handbook - note there the recommendation for an oil change every 4500 miles if low use, and 10k miles otherwise. Why so different to the European recommendations? More cautious? Or a 'cultural' thing.

Click to expand...

g8rpi said:

Culture driven by commercial interests. The speedy oil change companies spread FUD about it and profit accordingly. Califoria have run campaigns to change the public attitude on this wasteful practice.

Robert G8RPI.

Click to expand...

Michael Dranfield said:

I have changed oil and oil filter every 3,000 miles on every car I have had for the last 30 years

Click to expand...

panda panda said:

So the main dealer is not responsible for using the "wrong" oil and invalidating the warranty?
How can that be so?

Click to expand...

gar074 said:

Great post - really thought-provoking. It seems crazy that the person who ended up footing the bill was arguably, of all the players, the person least responsible for the problem that arose with his car. The ducking and diving by the dealer network and the manufacturer is shameful. A case for strict liability, perhaps, to avoid the bullsh*t "good faith" arguments?

Click to expand...

aussiepanda said:

The sooner I can get my Morris Minor up to every day standard and get myself shot of these stupid modern vehicles the better.

Click to expand...

Alexiloki said:

Well I'll tell you a little story that happens to be true.

A dealer fills a cars gearbox with the oil that his workshop manual informs him is correct, 2 months later the gearbox fails and the car is back, poor lubrication caused a synchromesh failure and caused a ton of swarf and crap in the box.

Workshop manual informs the correct oil was used so the gearbox is to be replaced under warranty, the car manufacturer requests return of the box back to them for inspection due to the unusual failure.

Manufacturer comes back and says the wrong oil has been used and as such is no longer covered under warranty due to improper maintenance. Service department argues correct oil has been used.

Turns out the manual used by the dealer has been created using the dealer groups approved suppliers products for reference. These oils and lubricants claim to meet the manufacturer requirements but are not individually certified to do so. As the manufacturer didn't certify the oil used they are under no obligation to do anything about it.

The service manager then contacts the oil company and to try and work out what happened. They oil company says that while they class the oil as meeting this standard, the manufacturer of the car hasn't given the spec the official approval. They say it is the dealers responsibility to check the suitability of products.

The service manager then calls the dealer group technical department and demands answers. They say that as a whole, the dealer network is supplied by the oil manufacturer, due to contracts and supply agreements. So far as they are concerned as the lubricants meet or exceed the original specifications as stated by the lubricant manufacturers then they agree to buy in bulk, and by bulk we mean the whole company buying every fluid they need from this company. As such they do not see it to be a issue.

The manager then rings the legal department as now the customer is rightfully annoyed that his 12 month old car has lunched it's gearbox and has been told the manufacturer is arguing against fixing it, the legal department says that as they were told in writing that the oils used meet the specifications that the group is not liable, the oil company is. The dealer group as such refuses to pay for the replacement of the gearbox.

The customer after 3 months of having the mick taken, decides to involve a solicitor and sues the dealer group for basically knackering his car and leaving him with a 4k bill to fix it. It goes like this:

1) the dealer says they acted in good faith and used a product that to their awareness met the required standard and as such were not liable

2) the lubricant manufacturer says that that the oil supplied is stated to meet manufacturer spec, however since the manufacturer has not approved the oil, it is the users responsibility to check it's suitability. They were not dishonest as the product never claimed to be approved by the manufacturer.

3) The vehicle manufacturer says that the product has never been tested by them and does not fit type approval. As such the product should not be used in the vehicle as it may cause harm and invalidate the warranty. While the manufacturer states it does have a approval with only 2 lubricants manufacturers, the approval process is open to any company that wants to submit a application and product for certification. None have done so. It says that product approval is commonly used in the industry to confirm product suitability and all of the major vehicle manufacturers use this process. As such they are not at fault.

4) The dealer group head office says that to their awareness the oils used met the required standard. They were informed by the supplier that it met the standards and as such has no way of knowing that the product could cause damage. However they confirmed that the oil used was not type approved for that vehicle but as they were operating in good faith using information provided, they were not liable for the fault.

5) the type approved oil manufacturer for the vehicle was asked to give evidence, they explained that the product the supply is used as factory fill and is certified to fit all requirements for the vehicle. This oil was tested extensively and was fit all specs needed. When asked why most dealerships do not use this oil, they say

"this is nothing more than economics. Our oils are supplied to manufacturer who build x cars per year and as such we are able to offer them a preferential rate of cost. Dealerships, aftermarket suppliers and workshops however will purchase whichever product is at a price advantage".

"If we supply this motor group with the same amount of product they they buy from the supplier in question, we would not be able to meet the same price point, due to their massive buying power and ownership of sister company's that use the same R&D budgets. As a result most do not use our product and use alternatives that while at a lower cost cannot be relied upon to perform in the same way".

"The car model in question, with our lubricants used, was tested for over 2 million kilometers during development with no failures or issues arising from the use of our products, other type approved products in the correct applications will go through similarly difficult testing to fit these criteria"

When asked why most oil companies do not submit for type approval for this vehicle manufacturer they responded:

"In the case of Daimler Benz, Ford Automobile, Volkswagen Auto Group, BMW and General Motors, over 85% of available lubrication products have been type approved. This is due to market share considerations. When vehicles have a high market saturation, the oil manufacturers know that they can recoup the costs incurred in approval, they will also massively increase sales and make vast profit when selling their products from everyone from the vehicle builder to the independent workshop. As the vehicle manufacturer in question, while very healthy has a much lower market share, the level of profit and value in getting that approval is much lower. So many do not do so".

In the end the case was not settled in court due to the ambiguity and difficulty in assigning blame due to the multiple errors and layers of incorrect information supplied to all parties and also by them. The owner had to pay for the repairs to the vehicle themselves. They swore never to buy a car from that manufacturer nor from that dealer a group again. Its a very unusual circumstance and there a one in a million chance it could happen to you. But this is the point. Yes the maker of the car may have the a company they market with and promote, but that product has been tested and proved to work.

As a rough example, if say a panda twin air had a emissions fault due to the incorrect oil, the cost to repair could be up to £3000, this includes egr valve, catalyst system, multiple sensors, reservicing and electronic reprogramming plus labour, all from using a oil that has a excessive ash content. This has happened with many cars from plenty of brands but the fact is, if the stuff in the car is wrong, there's no way of knowing how it can work out.

Click to expand...

PandaMTB said:

So I just sorted out the oil in my Panda, used pretty much 2.8l of Castrol edge titanium stuff. Oil filter was a bit of a bitch but gave eventually, same with the sump plug actually.

The filter I fitted was said to be a fiat one from shop4parts and came in a Fiat etc box but wasn't exactly the same looking, and I'm hoping this won't be a problem!

First ever oil change, along with first time doing discs and pads on a Citroen C5 recently, it's all fun and learning.

Click to expand...