Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Chrylser 300C Oil

hemiedhemied Member Posts: 2
edited April 2014 in Chrysler
Any ideas of a good oil to use in the 5.7L Hemi?
Regular or Synthetic and a good brand name?
Tagged:

Comments

  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    It is my understanding that the MDS Hemi was designed for 0W-20. Period, full stop, the end. Apparently if any other weight of oil is used the valve scheme that causes the MDS operation will simply not work. Disclaimer: I don't have a car with a Hemi (yet) but I have read the above enough times to suspect that it is true.

    So, operating upon the above factoid, I would only go with a full synthetic oil as there is no way I would trust a conventional (or even semi-synthetic for that matter) 0W-20 oil. Specific to the brand, I've been using Mobil 1 (which can be had as a 0W-20) for over twenty years and been impressed with the longevity of my engines (and turbochargers when I've had engines with forced induction) as well as the incredible internal engine cleanliness that Mobil 1 seems to foster. Granted I've never used 0W-20 and that my experience is anecdotal, however, if you check around you will find volumes of data that support what I've said.

    Let us know what you decide. ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • hemiedhemied Member Posts: 2
    Shipo,
    Thanks for the immediate response. I have been doing some research on synthetics. I have a 92 Vette that calls for Mobil 1 in the user manual. I have had no problems with it. I am leaning towards the Mobil 1 5W-20W that is what the manual calls for. It takes 7 quarts. I never heard of that in a passenger car. A little costly but I do my own oil changes and so it won't be too bad Thanks again.
    Hemied
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "I am leaning towards the Mobil 1 5W-20W that is what the manual calls for. It takes 7 quarts. I never heard of that in a passenger car. A little costly but I do my own oil changes and so it won't be too bad."

    Both of my six cylinder BMWs called for 7 quarts, I believe there are a few Mercedes-Benz cars that need more as do some (all?) Porsches. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more cars adopt a larger oil sump as folks want longer and longer maintenance intervals on their new cars.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • vic10vic10 Member Posts: 188
    Have no idea what kind of oil the dealer has in the car, but have been thinking of switching to a synthetic. I noticed in the maintenance schedule that somewhere around 40K (mine has 26K) there is an "oil flush", not just an oil change, scheduled. Would probably be a good time to change. But, why the flush in the first place. Those MDS passages get gummed up??
  • coolrunningcoolrunning Member Posts: 117
    I switched to synthetic on my first oil change. I made sure it was a full synthetic (not a blend), and yes it does take a full seven quarts to fill my 5.7 HEMI. I have experienced no problems at all, and if anything, I believe the engine is quieter at cold idle than it was with the hydrocarbon based lubricant. I never fret much about what it costs because I believe it is the best insurance policy you can buy for your engine. Just for the sake of curiosity, I asked the parts guys at the dealership what it would cost to replace my engine if it blew up someday. They said it would be around $12,000 in the crate. Installation not included. I'll gladly pay the $70 every six months for the best lubricant I can get for my engine. ;)
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    You've got to kidding me, $12,000 for a crate engine? I think your parts guy was exaggerating a tad. FWIW, I just checked http://www.dodgeparts.com and found that a new short block 5.7 liter Hemi can be had for $1,365, a new set of heads run $440, and a gasket set to slap it all together is $170. The grand total for those parts is less than $2,000, and I'm sure that the labor to mount the heads, manifolds, oil pan, valve covers, fuel injection and electronics cannot possibly be another $10,000.

    Hmmm, I've been toying with the idea of buying an old 1967 Cuda and dropping in one of the new Hemis, and your comments got me to thinking. I just looked up what the Mopar Direct Connection folks are getting for crate Hemis for use in vintage cars, and their complete fuel-injected "Plug and Play" crate motor (meaning that all of the engine management electronics and wiring harnesses are included as well) ,part number P4510593, can be had for only $7,500. Not too shabby. ;)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • coolrunningcoolrunning Member Posts: 117
    I'll bet the new HEMI would be an incredible upgrade for your Cuda. I wonder what you would need to get the MDS system to work. The 5.7L MDS engine has computers for the fuel manahement system, MDS, and the transmission. There are additional computers for the emissions sytems, traction control, antilock brakes, etc.. I would consider the 6.1L HEMI (non-MDS) for your Cuda and mate the Mercedes 5 speed tranny to it. The new HEMI engines are all aluminum and extremely efficient compared to the old originals. I would rather have a new stock HEMI that runs on all available fuel, than one of those performance "race" engine builder specials that you can't find high octane fuel to feed. Plan "B" would be, break the piggy bank and buy a new Dodge Challenger!
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I don't believe that the 5.7 liter Direct Connection Hemi does the MDS thing, although I could be wrong. The way I understand it, the D-C engine comes with all of the electronics that are needed to retrofit it to an older Mopar vehicle and get the engine running, however, no heavy emmissions controls and no MDC. Personally I'm thinking that the 5.7 will be more than enough engine for a car that should weigh in at less than 3,000 pounds, so I won't bother with the 6.1.

    Regarding the transmissions; I've never learned how to drive an automatic, so I'll have to stick with the New Process 4-Speed. :shades:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    If you choose a standard tranny,there is no MDS.The new Challengers with standards have no MDS.Automatics,the MDS is standard equipment.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Like I said before, my understanding is that the Direct Connection "Crate" motors DO NOT have MDS, regardless of which transmission they're hooked to.

    I do like the specs though, 360 HP and 360 lb-ft of torque out of the box. Not too shabby. ;)

    http://www.mopar.com/muscle/whatshot1002.htm

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    The '09 Hemi will be 375 horse better yet.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Nice. I wonder if that extra power will find its way into the crate motors.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • jloiaconojloiacono Member Posts: 12
    I HAVE AN 06 CHRY HEMI 5.7. I ONLY USE ROYAL PURPLE 5 W 20. SMOOTHER IDLE WHEN COLD---STARTS EASIER--GREAT STUFF
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Please stop posting in all caps, IT IS CONSIDERED YELLING, IT'S HARD TO READ, AND IT'S RUDE!
  • batistabatista Member Posts: 159
    The new HEMI engines are all aluminum and extremely efficient compared to the old originals

    No, they aren't. It's an iron block with aluminum heads.

    Moderator: It's Chrysler not "Chrylser".
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "No, they aren't. It's an iron block with aluminum heads."

    What does the metallurgy of the block and the heads have to do with engine efficiency?

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • batistabatista Member Posts: 159
    Engines made of iron are cheaper to make and by using aluminum you save weight so it would result in a more fuel efficient car.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    In a car the size of a 300? Nah, not buying.

    FWIW, I'm thinking that you'd be hard pressed to find another car the size of a 300, and with as much power as the Hemi that is capable of getting fuel economy as good as the 300C.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • smithedsmithed Member Posts: 444
    No, they aren't. It's an iron block with aluminum heads."

    What does the metallurgy of the block and the heads have to do with engine efficiency?

    Iron atomic mass= 55.85, Aluminum=26.98. Therefore an iron engine of the same volume weighs more than twice that of aluminum. ;) Aluminum is more expensive.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Agreed, however, I feel the need to make a few points:

    1) I've been turning a wrench for lots of years, and I've yet to see any aluminum heads that have roughly the same volume of metal as a comparable iron head. Said another way, while I absolutely agree that an aluminum head capable of doing the same job as an iron head will weigh less, it will weigh in at well over half of the weight. Why? I suspect that you know this already, but I'll answer it anyway: Aluminum doesn't have the same structural integrity as does iron, and so more of it needs to be used to match the capabilities of the "smaller" iron head.

    2) Implied in original post about the aluminum construction was that an aluminum engine would be more efficient than a comparable iron engine. I'm having a problem accepting that.

    3) Given that aluminum can conduct more heat, aluminum engines have a tendency to draw considerably more heat out of the combustion chamber on every power stoke, and as such, engine efficiency has a tendency to drop. I remember first reading about this phenomena in a study prepared by GM back in the 1960s when they were developing their all-aluminum 427 for racing Corvettes. They performed the study because they were surprised when their new aluminum engine put out rather less power than the identical (from a bore, stroke, timing and cam profile) iron engine.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • smithedsmithed Member Posts: 444
    Thanks for the technical information :shades:

    I wonder if, in a vehicle that is lighter because of an aluminum engine of the same size, that might be more efficient, even if the engine is not as efficient taken by itself. Not arguing, just wondering. ;)
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Hmmm, well, if we lose the word "efficient" and replace it with "better power to weight ratio" and "better weight distribution", then yes, the car will have better performance in most areas. In fact, the case study that I referred to earlier is a good example of that. Two identical 1967 Corvettes, both with 427 cubic inch engines hooked to the rear end via the good old Muncie Rock Crusher 4-Speed manual transmission. The only difference was that one car had a conventional iron engine, and the other had an aluminum one. The lower powered ligher car was significantly faster on a tight race track (better braking, better/more neutral handling at the limit, quicker steering response), however, the heaver and higher powered car was faster in straight ahead acceleration (but not by much).

    At least, that's how I recall the summation. :blush:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • brit5brit5 Member Posts: 12
    Chrysler specifically recommends 5W20 not 0W20 -- period -- full stop -- the end
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles