I feel like I'm a game of whack-a-mole. A month ago on page 2, the criticism was a low VI. I explained the philosophy of goo base stocks, which gave a higher HTHS, and the respone was that HTHS wasn't important, it just "is what it is." Now it is being given as the sole reason for recommending against using Millers (in one particular application). I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I feel like the criticisms of Millers are inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory.
The HTHS is due to the use of Groups IV and V in the base stocks. Groups IV and V are superior to III on the track, which is nearly a universally held position. So we'll just have to agree to disagree about recommending staying with the factory fill (Group III) for a track application.
Accusump. I bought one for my race car, given the tendency of the 944 engines to spin the #2 rod bearing. There are a lot of different theories on what all leads to it and what can be done. One of the more common theories is that heavy braking forces the oil into the front of the engine, where the crank whips it up into a nice frothy cappuccino like substance. And dumping 3 more quarts into the front of the sump would only aggrevate the situation. So I ended up not installing it.
Y'all are preaching to the choir about gear oil. At present, the market size isn't sufficient to justify bringing out a new oil - I'm hoping with its growth here in the states that that may change.
But there are two things to consider. First, it is a race oil, not a street oil. This is a MARKETING position, not an engineering one. So don't get excited if you see something you don't like. This truly is what it is, and it is about what customers DO do, not what customers SHOULD do. Gearboxes in race environments get even hotter than engine oils, significantly. So it is not uncommon to run thicker gear oils than the street application (with the presumption that absolutely viscosity at operating temperature on track with 90 is similar to absolute viscosity at operating temperature on the street with 80). I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm just saying what is commonly done. We've had some Porsche guys, not all, but some, run the 140 rather than the 90. My business partner used to run thicker gear oil in his E46 World Challenge car. He is friends with one of the biggest BMW teams running Grand Am. They run a thicker oil. We've seen a couple of Honda guys run 75W90, which is MUCH thicker than the Honda gear oil.
The other thing is that Millers is new to the US. I look at all the Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds, Corvettes, and even the occasional Camero, all running ATF in the gearbox, and it drives me nuts that I can't offer something to them. We've been talking with one of the better Mustang Grand Am teams for a while, as I know them from my time at Ford. We're trying to work out setting them up as a dealer, but not having a suitable gear oil for their transmissions is hurting us, big-time.
So basically, the current gear oils cover the vast majority of the market that Millers has been after. I hope that changes, and there's the whole catch-22 thing. To show a market, I need to have demand, but to have demand, I need to show I can get it. The feedback I get on the gear oil is just phenomenal. One tech at a shop that uses our stuff told me that the gear oil is the most impressive fluid he's ever used.
I really appreciate the feedback. Like I said, I want to see the same stuff y'all do. We do get some good feedback on the engine oils, but people absolutely RAVE about our gear oils. I had a tech for a high end stop (mostly BMW's, but also Ferrari's, Aston Martins, Porsches, etc.) tell me it is the most impressive fluid he has ever used - he was more impressed with it than any engine oil, or even brake fluid, he has ever encountered. I'd like some for mine, too :-(
