Millers Oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Still, silly derogatory remarks like "goo based stocks" may work on some of your less informed customers but they have no place here and don't help your credibility.



CATERHAM:

I think in the context of the sentence, that "goo base stocks" was supposed to read "good base stocks". He made a spelling error, and I don't think it was meant to be derogatory. IMHO.


That's also how I read it as "goo based stocks" didn't make any sense to me.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Still, silly derogatory remarks like "goo based stocks" may work on some of your less informed customers but they have no place here and don't help your credibility.





CATERHAM:

I think in the context of the sentence, that "goo base stocks" was supposed to read "good base stocks". He made a spelling error, and I don't think it was meant to be derogatory. IMHO.


Same here, as I do NOT think he would call group 3+/GTLs "goo".
31.gif

By the same token, there ARE those on here who will berate/bash those of us who prefer to use a majority PAO/POE base stocked oil, as "fools who can't wait to part with their money", or some such derogatory comment (but I am NOT referring to YOU, CATERHAM).
So it cuts BOTH ways on this site.
frown.gif
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
No one has ever said HTHSV was not important, in fact it is the single most important viscosity measure at operating temp's. In fact if you know the HTHSV of an oil you can totally ignore the KV100 spec' and therefor what grade it is.

This cannot be forgotten. In more pedestrian grades, as it were, we're well aware that not all 5w-30s are interchangeable with each other, and the same applies to 10w-30s and 0w-30s. Take PP 5w-30 SN/GF-5 and compare it to Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 and see if they're the "same thing" - not even close.

Being within grade does not imply interchangeability. There's a reason why ACEA specifications include HTHS.
 
It's odd that Millers doesn't offer an A3 30wt or a light sub' 4.0cP HTHSV 40wt oil in their CFS NT line. It's quite a viscosity gap beween their CFS 0W-30 NT (HTHSV 2.9cP) and their CFS 5W-40 NT (HTHSV 4.4cP). Most high performance formulators have at least a couple of grades within that range.
Of course one can always blend their 0W-30 and 5W-40 to get whatever viscosity you want as dailydriver has done, but from a marketing perspective, I don't know what they are thinking.

I should add that I do prefer their CFS 0W-20 NT (HTHSV 2.6cP, 163 VI) to Red Line and RLI since Millers at least makes a true light 20wt oil assuming the 2.6cP spec' is accurate.
I also prefer it to Motul 300V since it is likely a bit lighter. I might even give it an edge over FUCHS Titan GT-1 XTL 0W-20 being lighter.
So it's very competitive with what else is out there, the price notwithstanding.
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
I would also venture to guess that it uses NO added VII polymers of ANY kind in it's formulation, save for the required ones in the detergent/dispersant packs, given that VI?

I'd agree with that.
And if I'm not mistaken our Millers salesman has implied than none of the CFS oils contain extra VIIs.
 
Originally Posted By: 67King

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.


67King, REALLY enjoy what you bring to the board. This thread contains so much important info I won't even try to address it: from the technical to the "practical." Your quote above is what I want to point out. As one who USED to be swayed by "associations" (eg Porsche and Mobil 1) I would like to encourage those to whom those still matter to reassess their mindset. It is easy to think,"since Porsche is famous for their engineering and racing success, if they use Mobil 1 for FF and recommend it for continued use, they MUST have determined it to be the best," forgetting that Masterful Marketers Mobil may have made an offer financially that Porsche could not refuse. Porsche is the perfect target because they are a smaller firm for whom financial incentives are important and because of their reputation. So just because a racing team or big name driver endorses an oil IN NO WAY proves the incentive is performance. Forgive me where I have preached to the choir. But there may be some tyros who need to confront this before they get sucked into the "game."
 
Sorry I've been unable to reply. I've got a second, so here goes:

I understand HTHS. I brought it up several pages ago, stressing its importance, and later marveling at its dismissal, when there was lamenting over the lower than desired VI of Millers.

FWIW, the Castrol originally supplied in the M3 has an HTHSV of 5.4cP. The 6.0 is substantially closer to that than the 4.4 of the 5W40 that was recommended here. The 10W50 is closer at 5.1. If one really wanted, he could blend to get to 5.4. THat it may seem higher than expected is probably because it appears to be a motorsports oil, rather than a street oil. So it likely has stronger Groups IV and/or V base stocks to get its viscosity, rather than VII's. Speculation.

That said, what I was trying to point out was that oil serves not one, but three functions in cars. Lubrication is but one, and lubrication of the cranktrain (where HTHSV is most important) is a portion of that one. Oil also serves to cool the internals. So obviously there, the thinner the oil, the more flow and therefore more cooling is possible - which is why an oil pressure gauge does not tell you all you need to know. The other function oil serves is as a hydraulic fluid. The easiest example is hydraulic lash adjusters. But that isn't the only example, and as I said, CTA VCT systems use reserve oil, and not oil pressure, to move the actuators. Oil is not under shear there, it is not under high stress. It is also much closer to sump temperatures than journal/rod bearing temperatures. I have been trying to explain, with limited success, that the viscosity of the working fluid will change the flow characteristics within the system. The PCM can handle a degree of variation, but I do not know how much. Perhaps I chose a poor analogy with dampers, as not as many people who don't race cars and play with them know exactly how they work. Sorry I am having trouble fully explaining how the system works.

The CFS line of oils are race oils, not street oils. The thinner ones are billed as short duration or qualifying oils. So that may explain why there is a large gap in HTHS viscosity between the 0W30 and the 5W40. The thicker oils are billed as longer duration oils. The oils will take several laps to get up to an equalized temperature, so it may be that the effective viscosity in a short duration environment is greater than one would expect if benchmarking steady state conditions.

Millers uses minimal VI improvers. They aim to get their properties as much from their base stocks as possible. The thinner oils have almost none, the 5W40 has a little more, and they heavier ones have a bit more, still. Overall philosophy remains the best oils are made with the best base stocks, and as base stocks don't shear down the way VI improvers do, I happen to have consumed that particular flavor of Kool-Aid. YMMV.

Will try to not leave points and questions unanswered for so long next time.
 
Some on here do claim though that the 'latest and greatest' VIIs (Asteric for instance), simply do not shear down at all, even in high stress/heat/shear racing engine environs.
21.gif


I DO find this hard to believe myself, but some on here (and elsewhere) still shout it to the rafters.
confused2.gif
 
watching knowledgeable oil guys slug it out on technical grounds is FUN

and to think that being a BiTOG viewer is even free!

nothing like free entertainment, it's like NFL Football except even more intellectual and with no annoying commercials!
35.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Already linked by others, but might be worthy of reading by some

http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF/Race_engine_tech_Reassuringly_Expensive.pdf


This is a very good article from an outside source (i.e. Race Engine Technology), but note it dates to 2006. This was before Millers had introduced NT into its oils. As such, some of the information is either incomplete or outdated. For example, there is no mention of NT in the additive pack, and the example of a 15W60 grade oil is a bit outdated (though the non-NT CFS oils are still available, we do not carry them - they do have slightly different viscosities in some cases).
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Some on here do claim though that the 'latest and greatest' VIIs (Asteric for instance), simply do not shear down at all, even in high stress/heat/shear racing engine environs.
21.gif


I DO find this hard to believe myself, but some on here (and elsewhere) still shout it to the rafters.
confused2.gif


The proof as they say is in the pudding.
The current crop of light ultra high VI oils use the very high VI multi-branched polymer technology you have alluded to. It is the only way to formulate a light 200+ VI finished oil. One of the reasons these oils have proven to be so shear stable in service is because less actual polymer is used.
 
Originally Posted By: 67King

I understand HTHS. I brought it up several pages ago, stressing its importance, and later marveling at its dismissal, when there was lamenting over the lower than desired VI of Millers.

What you stated was that a higher HTHSV rated oil was better which is not true it is simply a heavier oil at all normal operating temp's. A lower VI for a given HTHSV is a heavier oil at all temp's below 150C, most notably so at cold start-up temp's.

Originally Posted By: 67King

FWIW, the Castrol originally supplied in the M3 has an HTHSV of 5.4cP. The 6.0 is substantially closer to that than the 4.4 of the 5W40 that was recommended here. The 10W50 is closer at 5.1. If one really wanted, he could blend to get to 5.4. THat it may seem higher than expected is probably because it appears to be a motorsports oil, rather than a street oil. So it likely has stronger Groups IV and/or V base stocks to get its viscosity, rather than VII's. Speculation.

Again your speculation reflects a lack of understanding of the relationship between KV100 and HTHSV. Their is no confusion here.
Different oil chemistries have different pressure-viscosity coefficients. The bottom line is, if you know the HTHSV you can ignore the KV100 spec'.


Originally Posted By: 67King



That said, what I was trying to point out was that oil serves not one, but three functions in cars. Lubrication is but one, and lubrication of the cranktrain (where HTHSV is most important) is a portion of that one. Oil also serves to cool the internals. So obviously there, the thinner the oil, the more flow and therefore more cooling is possible - which is why an oil pressure gauge does not tell you all you need to know. The other function oil serves is as a hydraulic fluid. The easiest example is hydraulic lash adjusters. But that isn't the only example, and as I said, CTA VCT systems use reserve oil, and not oil pressure, to move the actuators. Oil is not under shear there, it is not under high stress. It is also much closer to sump temperatures than journal/rod bearing temperatures. I have been trying to explain, with limited success, that the viscosity of the working fluid will change the flow characteristics within the system. The PCM can handle a degree of variation, but I do not know how much.

Again you are unnecessarily confusing different functions of an oil and are applying significance to the difference in kinematic viscosity and HTHS viscosity which in practice is insignificant.
For a given HTHSV you can have a narrow range of possible KV100 values of 2-3cSt. That is insignificant for hydraulic functions
where an engine has to tolerate KV differences in the 1,000s cSt.
Using the BMW M3 example that's spec'd for the 10W-60 grade (KV100 24cSt), the car comes from the factory with a KV100 11cSt 30wt oil in the sump and runs absolutely fine on this light oil in terms of hydraulic functions.

The bottom line is this, heed the HTHSV rating of an oil and ignore the KV100 spec', and since a viscometer (OP gauge) correlates with HTHSV, that's the tool to use to optimize the final oil viscosity (HTHSV rating) for the way you operate your vehicle. If one chooses to run a more shear stable oil than the OEM spec' oil you likely can benefit from running a lighter (lower HTHSV rated) oil.

It is a common newbie mistake to choose an oil with a much higher HTHSV rating and then wonder why your oil temp's are soaring at the track when they didn't on the lower HTHSV rated OEM oil.
The reason often is that your oil pump is still in by-pass mode thereby reducing oil flow through the engine.
One should always make sure that the you are no longer in by-pass mode when the oil is at normal operating temp's. If it still is, then you are clearly running an oil that's too heavy (too high a HTHSV).
 
This is getting ridiculous. Telling people I am confused does not make it so. And again we have more errors with which I have to deal.

As I said before, beware of extrapolation, particularly with thermally triggered chemistry. Just one example I'll give is the Mobil 1 0W50 with a VI of 189 and HTHSV of 3.8 compared to Millers CFS 5W40 with a VI of 177 and an HTHSV of 4.4. Mobil1 has the higher VI, lower HTHSV, is heavier at 100C, but thinner at 40C.

For a given HTHSV would make it even moreso. For simplicity, I'll just use the lever rule. A 60/40 combination of 5W40 and 0W30 will give an HTHSV equal to the M1's 3.8. Now my lower VI, which results in 175.4 oil should be even thicker at all temperatures below 150. But it isn't. kV at 100 is 12.84 (M1's is 17.2).

Let me repeat what you said that is proven wrong by the above example: "A lower VI for a given HTHSV is a heavier oil at all temp's below 150C,"

Again, NOT TRUE.

Why? Because VI is quantified based on KV at 40 and 100 degrees. Extrapolating with thermally triggered chemistry is foolish. Disagree? Take a look at this chart - oil film T and CF versus temperature of a competitor:
Competitor1.jpg


Take a look at the oil film at 40C and 100C and then again at 150. You can NOT extrapolate. But the absolute statement made previously about the relationships between VI, HTHSV, and KV can only be made by an assumption that extrapolation is safe.

At this point I AM confused. But not about oil.

If my speculation of the content of the Castrol's base stocks and VM's reflects a lack of understanding, then show me how you do it.

Millers 10W60. HTHSV is 6.0cP, and KV at 100 is 24.4cSt. Without speculating, please tell me what the base stock and VM composition of the oil is. "There is no confusion here. Different oil chemistries have different oil-viscosity coefficients."

Tell you what, if you can lay it all out, I'll go away.

I won't even ask for you to explain how HTHSV is the only important number to a hydraulic system operating at approximately 100C using unpressurized oil, but whose flow is controlled via reed valves and torque oscillations.

I also won't ask you to explain to me why the calibrators who control the system need to know the oil temperature, but not the pressure.

If you can't meet the challenge, the answer to the hydraulic system is not "you are confused, you can ignore kv at 100C." The term "Reynolds Number (Re)" may help shed some light on it.

I will agree that HLA's are not nearly so sensitive to viscosity changes.

Oh, and BMW specifies Castrol TWS 10W60. I do not know what the factory fill is, but it is considered a break-in oil that must be changed at 1200 miles. I do not know how that (PCM) system works. It may not have a CTA VCT system. It may be a conventional one, which makes the whole discussion moot. The PCM may have multiple tables that are changed when the car goes in for service the first time. I don't know (and yes, I will freely admit when I do not know things).
 
Last edited:
Clearly you're not talking from experience.
Here are the facts:

Regardless of the kinematic viscosity, the higher the HTHSV of an oil the heavier the oil.
If two oils have the same HTHSV @ 150C spec' the oil with the higher VI will be lighter at all temp's below 150C.
There are plenty of examples of this, but probabily the best example is with 0W/5W-20 oils that can have a huge VI difference although nominally the same HTHSV of 2.6cP.
Based on actual OP readings Sustina 0W-20 (229 VI, KV100 7.94cSt) is lighter at normal operating temp's than TGMO 0W-20 (214 VI, KV100 8.8cSt) which is lighter than Idemitsu 0W-20 (200 VI, KV100 8.5cSt) which is lighter than M1 0W-20 (173 VI, KV100 8.7cSt)) which is lighter than a 5W-20 (VI 150, KV100 8.4cSt).

Not surprisingly, the OEMs are fully aware of this which is why the 0W-20 grade has not replaced the heavier 5W-20 grade in all applications even though both grades have the much the same KV100 and HTHSV spec's.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Some on here do claim though that the 'latest and greatest' VIIs (Asteric for instance), simply do not shear down at all, even in high stress/heat/shear racing engine environs.
21.gif


I DO find this hard to believe myself, but some on here (and elsewhere) still shout it to the rafters.
confused2.gif


The proof as they say is in the pudding.
The current crop of light ultra high VI oils use the very high VI multi-branched polymer technology you have alluded to. It is the only way to formulate a light 200+ VI finished oil. One of the reasons these oils have proven to be so shear stable in service is because less actual polymer is used.


For STREET use, but what about the high stress/shear, crazy heat, long duration (NOT talking about the occasional open track session, or VERY short NASA road race use), endurance race, or 3 day WRC rally use.

I tend to doubt that they are using ultra high VI oils regardless of how great and shear stable the VIIs are for street use.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver

I tend to doubt that they are using ultra high VI oils regardless of how great and shear stable the VIIs are for street use.
wink.gif



Different companies, different philosophies. Mobil 1 has a really high VI race oil. But as we saw a couple of months ago, it shears down. And they mandate that it is changed every 500 miles. Joe Gibbs has begun marketing what they call an mPAO, which gives a VI of 200. They claim it is base stock, I don't know. I suspect it is because VI has become the latest buzz word with oil - two years ago, it was ZDDP, and we saw ZDDP levels twice as high as they needed to be. Interestingly, Gibbs is also selling a non ultra-high VI oil, the LS30, which is a lower VI 5W30, and they market it as 8X more shear stable than typical synthetic 5SW30's (though frankly, I don't think that is tough, as it is likely comparing it to Group III's).

I've sung Motul 300V's praises before. Their 50W is a 15W50, so it is a lower VI oil. One big difference, though, is that both Millers and Motul have a much longer service life than the Mobil 1 (presumably due to viscosity loss) and Gibbs (very lower additive pack).

So from a MARKETING perspective, I would speculate that M1 is going ultra high VI due to its popularity, but telling people to change it frequently because it shears down. I just don't see the likes of Motul or Millers letting marketing dictate the engineering content of its product. I'm also jaded in that manner, though, as I used to do engine development for an OEM where the marketing guys had tons of sway over us. Most ridiculous example was the Boss 302 - we couldn't call the engine that, because that was a reference to the CAR (despite its name coming from the engine). Grrr.......
 
Originally Posted By: 67King
Originally Posted By: dailydriver



Joe Gibbs has begun marketing what they call an mPAO, which gives a VI of 200. They claim it is base stock, I don't know. I suspect it is because VI has become the latest buzz word with oil

Yes I've chatted with Lake Speed Jr about it and and it's not a base oil since it's way too heavy with a KV100 of 65cSt plus (I don't remember exactly) so it's used as a VM in place of some polymer VIs. The thing is you're obviously limited in the how much you can use.
The final VI of their DT 40 5W-40 (a light 3.82cP 40wt) is 172.

Any comment on the following UOA of CFS 5W-40 NT from a WRX which had 20% viscosity loss? Doesn't appear to be caused by fuel dilution:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/uoa-millers-nanodrive-cfs-5w40-high-iron-ej207.193670/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
Idemitsu motor oil
Replies
11
Views
590
BornSlippy
S
MB Spec 229.71 comparibility with 229.52?
Replies
13
Views
1K
weasley
G
Mercedes M274.910 1.6 Engine oil choice - advice and chat welcome
Replies
6
Views
334
Marcozi
Z
1.5l Skyactiv G Miata 2018 2.5% Fuel Dilution?
Replies
10
Views
543
Lilliston
chriscpmtmp
Best Practices for Track/Street use - Lotus Emira
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
CarlB
Back
Top Bottom