Millers Oil

[67King]

Originally Posted By: dparm
67King, you actually touched on something we've talked about here before. Unofficially, you can gauge an oil's shear resistance by calculating the following value: (HTHS / Dynamic viscosity @ 150 C)

In theory, a higher number should be better.


Interesting. I hate to admit this, but I'm relatively new to oil. Before this, I did engine development, but most of my focus was on the upper end. So I'm busy trying to educate myself and learn to run a business all at the same time. I know there are smarter folks here than me, but I'm getting there. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find much about viscosity at 150.

That said, if we were to extrapolate out from the KV's at 40 and 100, it would put the KV at 150 in a peculiar spot. It would seem that the lower VI would yield a higher HTHS/KV value, which would show a higher shear resistance. Which I suppose does make sense to a degree since VI improvers will shear somewhat readily. And it also seems to support my theory of why the Mobil 1 has to be changed after so few miles. Of course, extrapolating is a dangerous thing, particularly when dealing with thermally triggered chemistry.

 

[dparm]

67King, we're talking dynamic viscosity, not kinematic viscosity.

Here's a Google Docs spreadsheet I made with some data pre-filled:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?...amp;usp=sharing

 

[67King]

Originally Posted By: dparm
67King, we're talking dynamic viscosity, not kinematic viscosity.

Here's a Google Docs spreadsheet I made with some data pre-filled:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?...amp;usp=sharing


Guess I need to read a little more carefully. Will see if I can get this info to provide. Thanks for sharing, there are cases where lower VI's give higher shear resistances. HTHS for all samples listed is notably lower than ours, which may explain some results we had when working with an OEM looking at fuel economy (saw a marginal improvement, but we did know the HTHS was higher than they wanted).

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
What I don't like about the Miller's NT oils is that they're not high VI oils, not even in the M1 0W-40 area.

I'm 100% in favour of reducing the CoF and oil drag generally of the oil I use which is why I optimize the viscosity, no thicker than necessary and run as high a VI as possible which contributes to that.

RL doesn't use Nanotechnology but does claim to use oils with the lowest CoF available. Is Miller's better than the higher VI RL 0W-40 in that regard?
I'd love to see more independent tests compared to RL, Motul 300V and even Sustina which IIRC also claims to use nanotechnology.


While I tend to agree with you on VI for the most part (MAINLY on cold, WINTER ambient temp startups), I am willing to make an exception to try a summer OCI oil with a lower VI (ESPECIALLY if they did it with NO VIIs at all, despite how 'great' the latest gen of these may be- they still have some volatility problems as a tradeoff, even by your OWN admission), such as this Millers, OR even the MPT product for their supreme, top shelf, add packs/base stocks.

Yes, this despite your claims of the critical importance of sky-high VIs, [even in torrid, summer ambient temp start-ups (which is also when their volatility rates would be at their peak as well).

A higher VI doesn't just allow a lighter oil on start-up but also
means greater high temp' protection for the parts of an engine that need it particularly under high stress conditions.
For example, if you optimize the viscosity of an oil for your application at normal operating temp's with a lower VI oil and then you do the same thing with a higher VI oil you will effectively have to run a higher HTHSV oil to do so which is a good thing.
Put another way, the higher the VI of an oil the higher the HTHSV rating of an oil you can run for any given operational viscosity.
This is one reason why leading edge race oils are high VI oils.
M1R 0W-50 has a 189 VI.

Now as important as VI is there are of course other aspect of an oil that are of secondary importance such as AW additives for boundary lubrication and that's where the advantages of NT come in. The thing is Millers doesn't have an exclusive to the technology (G-Oil's racing also advertises that they use NT) and I'm sure the majors like Mobil and Shell are using it in their leading edge race oils if they have found an advantage to it without mentioning what's in their proprietary formulations.

Anyway I think Millers oil which is PAO/Ester based with NT are good oils but over priced. Their CFS 5W-40 NT is their most interesting grade with a decent 177 VI, I just wished they provided HTHSV spec's.
I'm not impressed with their 0W-20 which only has a 151 VI.

 

[67King]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
A higher VI doesn't just allow a lighter oil on start-up but also
means greater high temp' protection for the parts of an engine that need it particularly under high stress conditions.
For example, if you optimize the viscosity of an oil for your application at normal operating temp's with a lower VI oil and then you do the same thing with a higher VI oil you will effectively have to run a higher HTHSV oil to do so which is a good thing.
Put another way, the higher the VI of an oil the higher the HTHSV rating of an oil you can run for any given operational viscosity.
This is one reason why leading edge race oils are high VI oils.
M1R 0W-50 has a 189 VI.

Now as important as VI is there are of course other aspect of an oil that are of secondary importance such as AW additives for boundary lubrication and that's where the advantages of NT come in. The thing is Millers doesn't have an exclusive to the technology (G-Oil's racing also advertises that they use NT) and I'm sure the majors like Mobil and Shell are using it in their leading edge race oils if they have found an advantage to it without mentioning what's in their proprietary formulations.

Anyway I think Millers oil which is PAO/Ester based with NT are good oils but over priced. Their CFS 5W-40 NT is their most interesting grade with a decent 177 VI, I just wished they provided HTHSV spec's.
I'm not impressed with their 0W-20 which only has a 151 VI.


I'm not sure you read my response, I addressed several of the points you made. Maybe my post wasn't clear, I apologize if I was ambiguous in any manner. First of all, HTHS is provided, and like I had said, it exceeds Mobil 1, not by a little, but by a significant amount. (http://performanceracingoils.com/engine-oils-nanodrive-engine-oils-c-3_26_24.html - every one is listed, the 10W50 has an HTHS of at least 5.1, compared to 3.8 for Mobil 1's 0W50) The reason, as I explained, is because the best base stocks have a VI of 160-170. The only way to get a VI near 190 is with gobs of VI improvers. And you just can't extrapolate out that much when it comes to oil with that kind of VI enhancement. VI improvers may improve VI, but it comes with a cost. Millers' philosophy is to use very high quality base stocks, and as few VI improvers as possible. And as a result, the HTHS is superior. As I had said, the 5W40 has a higher HTHS than does the Mobil 1 0W50.

No one can market like Mobil 1. Exxon is one of the biggest companies in the world. They give away more oil in a month in the US than Millers sells in a year. As we are involved in racing, and my business partner races World Challenge, we know several folks that race sports cars. When we talked to several Grand Am teams, they tell us that Mobil 1 drops off a pallet every month, free of charge. And when an OEM recommends a brand of oil, it is because that brand pays them to do so. I've been an engineer with an OEM, and I assure you that marketing gets a bigger vote that we do. All that said, we don't run across too many people that consider Mobil 1 to be one of the leading race oils. They are widely used because they comp the stuff to so many people. I sure wish we could do that, but we can't.

VI for some of the better _W50 weight race oils out there:
Joe Gibbs 15W50 XP8 - 155
Motul 300V 15W50 -164
Valvoline 20W50 - 153

Mobil 1 stands alone with a 0W50, and the resultant VI. Most of the good race oils avoid using VI improvers, as it makes the oil inferior. As for the price, Millers is priced very similarly to a slightly premium to some of the really good race oils out there. If you find it too expensive, and are only concerned with one aspect of the oil, you are not their customer. And I am not sure why the Mobil 1 reference without the price mention. $98 for 6 quarts, ours is $90 for 5 liters. That is dang close. And again, like I had said, the stuff lasts so much longer that operating costs are different. Think about it, 1700 miles, 10L (10.5 quarts). One fill for us at $180. For Mobil 1, it would have taken an initial fill for $171.50, then a change at 500, 1000, and 1500 miles for a grand total of $686. Millers isn't just less costly to run, it is MUCH less costly to run. Gibbs and Valvoline recommend the same interval, but because of the lack of detergents (oil becomes acidic). Motul 300V is a very good, robust oil that I had run before we started using Millers. Its durability is similar to Millers.

The other big oil companies mentioned that "probably" use it do not. This is not speculation. Millers introduced it in gear oils in 2009, and engine oils in 2012. There is a lot more to it than just throwing it in there. They may eventually start adding it, but it takes some time to do it. The most innovative companies are usually smaller, not bigger. Millers has now multiple times been recognized for its innovation.

Again, it isn't for everyone. It has cost me sales. Some folks want as much ZDDP as they can possibly get. Some want as much ester as they can possibly get. And of course, some want as high a VI as they can possibly get. The content of a lot of oils is the result of this. This will never be the way Millers does things. It is a small, data driven, family owned company. It frustrates me that I don't have a big marketing budget, but again, it just isn't with MIllers' philosophy to try to do it with marketing, they do it with chemistry.

 

[avss1]

this is a dispute about a spherical black horse in a vacuum))))

 

[67King]

Originally Posted By: avss1
this is a dispute about a spherical black horse in a vacuum))))

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: 67King
Of course, extrapolating is a dangerous thing, particularly when dealing with thermally triggered chemistry.

+1

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: 67King
Why might it only be good for 500 miles? What are the failure modes? Primarily, it will either lose viscosity, or it will become acidic. We know that there are some race oils out there that become acidic. Ca content in those is around 650ppm. But for Mobil 1, it is 2500. That's a pretty robust additive amount to prevent the onset of acidity. So in all likelihood, its failure mode is that the viscosity improvers break down. If you read the link I provided for the Millers, after 1700 race miles, the viscosity was still very robust. Oh, and again, that HTHS thing - the 5W40 is 4.4, which exceeds the HTHS of the Mobil 1 0W50, which is 3.8. Lower weight oil, higher HTHS.

That said, I'm not trying to pick on Mobil 1. It was just an example of the tradeoffs you get when you look only at VI. That may be a worthwhile tradeoff to some people, but in a race application, it is NOT a worthwhile tradeoff to me.


^^^THIS makes sense to me, regardless of the type/quality/greatness of the VIIs EOM/Infineum is using.
Shear, and /or volatility seems to be the ONLY rationale for Mobil sugesting such a low OCI for their racing products with that high of a calcium content.

It also makes me wonder just what kind of/how many deposits are a result of said VIIs (again, NO MATTER HOW "LATEST AND GREATEST") shearing and volatizing.

I really do wish that those on here who have forgotten more than the rest of us will ever know about tribology/formulations/chemical synergy/VIIs/etc. (Molacule, etc.) would come on here and clarify/give their theories and reasons for choosing one tradeoff over the other.

 

[CATERHAM]

67King, first a belated welcome to BITOG!

I must apologize, no I didn't read you remarks that closely.

A couple of comments, HTHSV is just a measure of viscosity consequent a higher value is not better than a lower value it just is what it is. HTHSV in conjunction with am oil's VI directly correlates to the operational viscosity in an engine at all oil temp's.
The higher an oil's viscosity index the better as long as it can be retained in service; i.e., the oil doesn't shear too much so that it loses it's virgin VI. It is true that the GP III based 5W-50 oils are prone to excessive oil shear but these high NOACK oils are not leading edge high performance oils.

High VI finished oils are achievable without the "gobs of inferior polymer VIs" that you mentioned.

Red Line oils are very shear stable including their 0W-40 grade with it's 197 VI (the latest SN version has a 190 VI).

Renewable Lubricants (RLI) formulate bio-ester/syn blends and their 0W-30 has a 193 VI that has proven to be retained in service. A member runs this oil in his Enzo Ferrari with good results.

Nippon Oils flagship brand Sustina, formulate a very light 0W-20 (HTHSV 2.6cP) with a 229 VI. It is formulated with a GTL equivalent GP III+ base oil that has a higher natural VI than any PAO of the same viscosity.
It also used the latest PMA polymer technology which is the only way to achieve it's very high finished VI.
This oil after a small amount of initial stabilizing has proven to be very shear stable.

I see you have mentioned the HTHSV for the CFS 5W-40NT is 4.4cP. That's make it a very heavy 40wt oil, heavier than most if not all street applications will ever need.
Do you have the HTHSV values for the 0W-30 and 0W-20 grades?

 

[67King]

Sorry for the delayed response, been out of town.

HTHS values for all of our oils are up on the site I previously linked. I am, frankly, miffed at the dismissal of its importance - given the discussion is about race oils. The point seems to contract the position that VI improvers don't readily break down. Well, HTHS measures resistance to the shearing of the oil (and VI improvers). It is much more important to a race engine than VI. It is the ASTM defined standard for measuring an oil's performance under high temperature, high stress conditions.

I'm interested to read alternative theories on why the 500 mile OCI for the high VI oil, when it has such a robust additive pack, if it is not the breakdown of the VI improvers. I don't know everything, but onset of acidity and loss of viscosity are what we see - although some environments will create a loss of viscosity due to fuel dilution (very richly tuned turbo applications). It has 4 times the Ca content of the oils we typically see suffer from loss of TBN. Perhaps there is another method of breakdown that is driving the OCI, I don't know, but I'm all ears.

dparm, I wasn't able to directly get the data you mentioned, but it is easy to figure out. Millers response that there are too many confounding issues once you put oil in the crankcase. But that the best method is to use good shear-stable VI pack or high VI esters.

That said, we know density at 15C, and we know that after CTE is factored in, oils are almost universally 90% as dense at 150. So to help you fill in your chart:

Grade VI KV@40 KV@100 KV@150 Den@15 HTHS
10W60 175 170.8 24.4 9.24 0.870 6.0
10W50 173 131.5 19.8 7.02 0.868 5.1
5W40 177 81.7 14 6.01 0.86 4.4
0W30 173 62.2 11.1 4.7 0.853 2.9
0W20 163 43.3 8.1 3.61 0.855 2.6

I understand and defer to what Martyn has told me, but I also appreciate your desire to collect a wide range of data. If you run the calculations, you will see that the Millers has the highest shear resistance of any of your 50 weight oils (0.930), as well as any of your 40 weight oils (0.946). I'm not surprised given the preference of high quality base stocks over VI improvers. The 0W30 is a bit disappointing to me, the lowest at 0.804, but the 0W20 is very high again, at 0.936.

All that said, I'd be interested to see something that indicates how high these base stock VI's can get. I just haven't found anything that indicates VI's much over 160 are possible without VI improvers, and obviously, the higher you get, the more you'd need. And again, one would expect that HTHS numbers would correlate with an oil's ability to resist shearing (which is what dparm's shreadsheet is attempting to gather). There appears to be a correlation between high VI and low shear resistance. Which makes perfect sense - high VI's are obtained through high levels of VI improvers, which are prone to shearing down.

 

[simple_simon]

Are the HTHS numbers for Millers the minimum numbers or are they really that low? The 0w20 and 0w30 are some of the lowest that I've ever seen for a "performance" oil.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: 67King
The 0W30 is a bit disappointing to me, the lowest at 0.804, but the 0W20 is very high again, at 0.936.


Does this mean that Millers has to add more VIIs to their 0W-30 than their 5W-40??

Also I guessing that they will NOT tell you (propriatary??) which type of VIIs they are using in their race formulations, correct?

I am now wondering if I should have gone with a 50/50 (or so) mix of the 0W-20 and 5W-40, instead of the 0W-30 with one quart of 5W-40 added in?

 

[67King]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: 67King
The 0W30 is a bit disappointing to me, the lowest at 0.804, but the 0W20 is very high again, at 0.936.


Does this mean that Millers has to add more VIIs to their 0W-30 than their 5W-40??

Also I guessing that they will NOT tell you (propriatary??) which type of VIIs they are using in their race formulations, correct?

I am now wondering if I should have gone with a 50/50 (or so) mix of the 0W-20 and 5W-40, instead of the 0W-30 with one quart of 5W-40 added in?


Well, you know they are a bit protective of a lot of info from another thread. That said, I've discussed the VI improvers several times, and they use as few as they can get away with, but they have to use some in some of the blends. The 0W30 has almost no VII in it, but they do have to use some with the thicker stuff (10W50 and 10W60). They use three ester-based Group V's to give them different properties, and the amount of ester varies by viscosity (not much, variance is about 3% lowest to highest). I know that PMA is used, but I don't know if it is in conjunction with butadiene, or if it is pure PMA, or what.

At the end of the day, you've got as pure base stock oil as you can for what you are doing. Had you gone with a blend with more 5W40, you would be adding more VI improvers to your blend that what you've got now.

 

[dailydriver]

^^^OK, THANKS!

 

[simple_simon]

Again, are the HTHS numbers for Millers the minimum numbers or are they really that low? The 0w20 and 0w30 are some of the lowest that I've ever seen for a "performance" oil.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Are the HTHS numbers for Millers the minimum numbers or are they really that low? The 0w20 and 0w30 are some of the lowest that I've ever seen for a "performance" oil.



They probably are the actual values.

For a 0w20 performance oil, they want a lower HTHS to generate every last horsepower they can.

 

[simple_simon]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: simple_simon
Are the HTHS numbers for Millers the minimum numbers or are they really that low? The 0w20 and 0w30 are some of the lowest that I've ever seen for a "performance" oil.



They probably are the actual values.

For a 0w20 performance oil, they want a lower HTHS to generate every last horsepower they can.


And for a 0w30 oil? I'm having a hard time figuring out why anyone would run that oil. It doesn't seem to do anything well (if all of the numbers quoted are accurate.)

 

[dparm]

It's on the thin side for a 0w30, but these are not exactly targeting average consumers walking into AutoZone.

 

[simple_simon]

Originally Posted By: dparm
It's on the thin side for a 0w30, but these are not exactly targeting average consumers walking into AutoZone.


Remember when you posted this?

Originally Posted By: dparm
Mobil 1 Racing 0w30 supposedly has HTHS of only 3.3. That seems wrong to me. I would have expected it to be much better. Even [German] Castrol Syntec 0w30, a non-race oil, has a HTHS of 3.5. Motul 300V 5w30 is 3.61, and that's a race oil marketed at street use.

Thoughts?


Given 67King's love of HTHS in his prior posts, I'm surprised that Millers oils have such low HTHS numbers.