Originally Posted By: 67King
Originally Posted By: skyship
Long term engine friction is also effected by corrosion factors, so a long term study is needed to see how a new oil additive works. Increasing the Moly content in a race oil can improve power or mpg figures slightly, but it does have side effects. The big question is about the longer term pro's and con's.
I see the 4 point ball test got used again, which is a very popular snake oil test, even though it was designed for gearbox oil comparison.
Long term life of most Porsche blocks is heavily influenced by detergent content and high temp shearing and I would be surprised if a new oil could beat products from the big players in longer term test. I think neat bleach can provide better one off results in the 4 balls machine.
Well, we understand that any new technology will have skeptics. The oil is clearly not for everyone, any more than smart phones were not for everyone a couple of years ago. Our focus is on early adopters who are interested in newer technology and a better product. If you have an aversion to new technology, this product is not for you.
That said, I will be more than happy to address as many questions as are brought up. For questions about the oil becoming corrosive, please see this link, for a long term test on a Porsche. Yes it is a race car, and yes it is 1700 miles - but that is 1700 race miles, which is a good 3-fold increase over a more typical drain interval:
http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF/longevity_case_study.pdf Note robust TBN. Nanotechnology is not like MoS2, it does not shear and contribute to a building up of acid. FWIW, my business partner and I own a total of 6 Porsches, so we are pretty familiar with them (air and water cooled, flat 6’s and I4’s).
Additionally, the gear oils, which have been out for a few years, are being specified by an increasing number of gearbox manufacturers, due in large part to observed increases in lifespan of the gearboxes. Both Samsonas and KAPS now specify Millers in their gearboxes. You can read some comments attesting to the drastic durability improvement here:
http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF/BTCC_comments.pdf The gear oil has been under evaluation by a VERY successful F1 team over the past couple of years. It was slated to go in this year, but due to the tight constructor's championship race, it was not. Will be in next year. The testing to date has given a couple of valuable pieces of information. First – as mentioned previously – the NT does not shear down like your more common EP additives, meaning less heat is put into the oil. The powertrain dyno used by this F1 team has an external water bath to maintain gearbox oil temperature. On the dyno, the water is heated. There was an approximate 500 Watt difference in the power required to heat the current technology gear oil and the NT gear oil. 500 Watts less heat is being put into the oil, because it is MUCH more robust to breakdown than MoS2. Second, the gearboxes are required to last for 5 Grand Prix’s. As you can imagine, they are engineered to be as light as possible, meaning after 5 Grand Prix’s, they are worn out. When the NT oil was used, wear was greatly reduced. As a result, this team decided to keep running the gearbox to determine the lifespan of it with the NT oil. After 7 (again, dyno simulated), there was a non oil related failure (input shaft bearing), which caused an end to the test. The gears still showed very little wear.
Bryan Herta Autosports, which fielded the 2011 Indy 500 winning car, has a 3 year exclusive deal with Millers on the gear oil, it will be in IndyCar this year. The engine oil may be in some cars, as well, that is to be determined. Again, early adopters looking for the latest and greatest, or anything to give them an edge.
I believe you may be confusing the ASTM D4172 4 ball wear test, which is an industry standard test with the, um “cross-axis friction test” that is used by purveyors of chlorinated paraffin or similar products that lack the engineering pedigree of a 130 year old company like Millers. My personal experience with both one of the largest companies in the world, and a few high tech startups is that the level of innovation found in smaller companies is much, much more common than gigantic companies with bureaucratic processes that rival the old Soviet Union government. Besides, at this point in time, Millers is too small to even produce enough oil to threaten the large companies – why would they invest millions upon millions of dollars to improve their product?
Sorry for being long winded. Trying to avoid any ambiguity while addressing any legitimate concerns that may be brought up.
I always look at new oil products, but all I see is results, no independent lab tests or comparisons with other oils. Big oil companies move very fast with new additives, it is only the manufacturers approvals that slow them down in paperwork terms. Testing is expensive but I would have thought sponsoring a well know lab like Blackstones to run a few sports cars around with different oils and then publishing the data would be far more effective than bouncing around 4 balls results. The best proof of the pudding is in real world results in a full blind trial against an existing major brand race oil.
