IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
There is a manual transmission fluid available, but the viscosity is of a typical gear oil (75w90). I've been talking with them about trying to make a case to bring in an ATF type gear oil for T-56 and other similar applications that spec an ATF. Can't put NT in a true ATF because it would be too slick for the bands. But I'm trying!


Are they using any tungsten components in the MTL?

My own research has shown that any MoS2 or titanium or tungstate additives in a MTL tend to interfere with conventional FM additives in MTLs.

Most of these FM additives don't have the correct dynamic coefficient of friction to operate standalone in either MTLs or ATFs.

As with any additive component, once the cost of producing the tungstates decrease, I think we will see them used in more lubricants, assuming they demonstrate a distinct advantage over conventional additives.
 
The 75W90s have a rather high viscosity for MTL's.

Any indication they are actually using the WS2's? They only say they are using a nano additive echnology which could be anything from boron nitride ceramics to zirconium oxides.
 
I believe that everything labeled nano is the same stuff. If you open one of the PDFs for a particular oil, it might have it there.

When they started marketing this line (all the IF WS2) they would not tell anyone what it was. From what they did say I deduced IF WS2. They later changed how they look at things and now specify.

King may chime in. I think he is pretty busy and does not look in here all that often. But he would be the best source of info. He in the US importer of Millers Oils.
 
If you look at their nano engine oils I believe those also tend to be rather high VI. They really were intended for racing initially. I have mixed emotions in putting it in one of my cars for mileage considerations. That is why I am putting additive in the new car with the recommended 0-20 rather than my 5-30 Millers Oils nano.

I have also seen vendors using WS2 or other "nano" materials in fuel additives. I would like to do that but there I have some serious concerns about catalytic converters. It feels right from a direct result point of view. If deposited in the cylinder it should help shed carbon deposits. The oil will get some of the cylinder walls, but not the upper parts. It would probably also benefit fuel injectors and maybe even spark plugs by reducing the tendency for things to stick. But on that one I will wait until I find better system level impact information. I also have a question about the effects of any particles get out of the exhaust system and into the air. WS2 is not listed as toxic, but like Diesel exhaust, particles that small can cause mischief in the lungs.

Even with my rather coarse WS2 powder I take great care in handling it. I got sloppy once, and I think I could feel the effect in my lungs. If I can ever score some IF WS2 powder, I might build a exhaust hood for working with it because I want to apply some of it using burnishing. Even my CBR rated mask filters would most likely be ineffective.
 
Another question to implement my personal lubricant plan.

The reason I am doing an oil change and adding IF WS2 at around 2K miles on the CR-V, is information I saw that the Honda installed oil is high in Mo additives. Let me say, I understand the issues with taking a sample of one, of an unsubstantiated comment. But the available information density on some issues can be rather sparse. I have other things I also need to spend time on.

I had some concerns about Zinc additives as well. I was going to post a request for an good 0-20 oil with little or no Mo content. Then I wandered around some threads, as I am prone to do. It appears that the Zinc additives (e.g., ZDDP), while synergistic with the favored forms of Mo, also form a surface deposit. That is what I thought, but may have underestimated the impact. I really want to get the WS2 into the base metal surface.

The oil my mechanic wants to use (IDEMITSU) seems to have a lot of Mo in it and is probably what Honda re-brands. Mobile one also seems to have high Mo content.

I would appreciate it if anyone could recommend a quality 0W-20W synthetic oil that has neither of these additives. Or at least minimal amounts. My thought is that they will tend to interfere with the formation of the desired IF WS2 surface layer. Probably in the long term, the IF WS2 would "win" because it is probably harder than most, if not all, of the other things. Although one description I saw about the Zinc additive described it as a "glass". I have not looked at relative hardness or bonding forces, but that seem like it might be an issue.

I thought I would ask this here, where I am already know as being somewhat crazy, before asking on the general oil forum. I really don't want to go through talking about IF WS2 all over again.

Any input appreciated. Including opinions that I am simply crazier that you thought.
 
Originally Posted By: alternety
If you look at their nano engine oils I believe those also tend to be rather high VI.


They are in the better Mobil 1 lineup ranges, but they are NOT in the 'CATERHAM faves', 0W-20; Sustina/TGMO/Mazda High Moly VI ranges.
frown.gif


But, this was done on purpose, since they are still considered 'racing oils' first and foremost, and their tribologists STILL believe in not dumping a lot of even the 'super duper, shear stable, latest and greatest, high tech' asteric polymer VIIs into a racing oil.
wink.gif
 
Sorry I have been out of town with my daughters at a swim meet. Just pulled in. Saw the thread notifications on my phone, but wasn't able to log in and clear up some misconceptions that are obviously there. Will try to spend some time answering things tomorrow, and posting up some ASTM test results. Didn't want y'all to think I wasn't keeping up with this.
 
Originally Posted By: alternety
I would appreciate it if anyone could recommend a quality 0W-20W synthetic oil that has neither of these additives. Or at least minimal amounts.

That's a very good question. Without looking at a bunch of VOAs, I'd surmise that most 0w-20s would have very robust AW and AF packages in the first place, due to limited HTHS and the drive for fuel economy.
 
Alright, hope I have some time to put together a reply to answer all questions.

On the actual NT additive Millers uses - it is proprietary. Do I know what it is? Yes. However, I am not an employee of Millers, so while I can give them feedback from my customer base, I have no ability to influence whether or not they'll tell folks what it is. That said, I have to agree with them that keeping it proprietary is advisable, even though it has taken years to determine the right amount with other additives.

As for the interaction of various additives to one another - this is apples and oranges. Or more appropriately, cake to cornbread. The NT isn't just dumped in. It largely replaces conventional friction modifiers. It does so because it doesn't shear down over time, and while others may protect on the "microscopic" level, the NT would be more appropriately described as on the molecular (no pun intended) level.

So how well does it work? Since gear oil is one of the things in question here, here is what it does for coefficient of friction versus load - basic gear oil, gear oil + conventional moly EP additive, and basic gear oil with NT instead:
load_moly_nano.png


Okay, so it reduces coefficient of friction. What about load bearing capability? Here are a couple of SRV Oscillation tests (I believe it is ASTM D5706):
Baseline w/ conventional additive:
SRV_oscillating_baseline.png


With NT additive ILO conventional:
SRV_oscillating_nano.png


As you can see from the above, the non-NT version with conventional EP additive fails shorty before the load increase from 1100N to 1200N. That is the green line. This compares to a failure slightly after the load increased to 1600N on the NT version. The red line is the CF, so even before the failure, you can see the (qualitatively) better performance of the NT version.

Another benefit on the gear oils is heat rejection. Millers has been working with some F1 teams wiht the technology, which ones are confidential (though there is a formal technical partnership with Bryan Herta Autosports). Measured heat rejection difference for the first generation was on the order of 500 Watts. It is now larger. Measurement taken from a water bath used to heat gearbox oil on powertrain dyno testing sessions. It takes 500W more power to get the right temperatures with the NT oil. Typical race cars without large external coolers (which confound the system) see 10-15C drops in operating temperatures. Race Tech Magazine had a good article about it that goes into some of the mechanics: This is a PDF of the article Race Tech: Tiny Technology, Big Breakthrough FWIW, the gear oil also beat out McLaren and Williams for Most Innovative New Product in Motorsports in 2009.

To get to the "transmission" versus "gear" oil difference, Millers does have a transmission oil with the technology, http://performanceracingoils.com/ee-transmission-75w90-oil-p-87.html. It is the street version of the race oil. There is a philosophy that Millers has pertaining to viscometrics that likely leads to the high kinematic viscosity at 40C that I believe is the cause of concern. Since VII's break down, Millers avoids them in their race oils as much as they can. That helps the race oils last much, much longer than many of our competitors who have higher VI's. I know this is the case for the engine oils, and I assume it is the case for gear oils, as well. Since the cold viscosity for a race oil isn't nearly as important as the performance at operating temperatures, sacrifices are made to ensure robustness at the higher temps. For a street oil, obviously things will be different. This may be what is being sought.

I thought I had read somewhere that someone had not been able to find a credible source for the performance of the oil. What I've posted was done internally, but I can provide more links to technical articles, SAE International, Race Tech Magazine, Race Engine Technology, Lube Magazine...... I can actually give a Fast Ford article, as well, but I don't put those kinds of publications up there wth the more engineering ones. There is also one from Cup Race Technology from earlier this year, but they will not give me permission to publish it.

Do y'all want me to provide any similar info on the engine oils?
 
Last edited:
Quote:
To get to the "transmission" versus "gear" oil difference, Millers does have a transmission oil with the technology, http://performanceracingoils.com/ee-transmission-75w90-oil-p-87.html. It is the street version of the race oil. There is a philosophy that Millers has pertaining to viscometrics that likely leads to the high kinematic viscosity at 40C that I believe is the cause of concern. Since VII's break down, Millers avoids them in their race oils as much as they can. That helps the race oils last much, much longer than many of our competitors who have higher VI's. I know this is the case for the engine oils, and I assume it is the case for gear oils, as well. Since the cold viscosity for a race oil isn't nearly as important as the performance at operating temperatures, sacrifices are made to ensure robustness at the higher temps. For a street oil, obviously things will be different. This may be what is being sought.


Thanks King. I have no disagreement about the efficacy of specialized EP additives in differential oils.

My concerns were with the high viscosity of the MTL (I did previously go to the site after searching the Internet), and the friction modification wrt to the surficial interactions in the synchronizer assemblies.

Since they want to keep the additive mix IP (and I can't fault them for that, so do I), then we really can't compare conventional MTL FM chemistry with what they have in their MTL.

I was simply relating some of my formulation experiences when testing new FM's verses the interaction with conventional FM additives in MTLs.

The correct dynamic coefficient of friction in both MTLs and ATF's many times precludes the use of other suspended FM type solids because the dynamic COF is critical to the proper operation of these transmissions.
 
Isn't a 75W-90 generally considered way too heavy a weight oil for what is called an 'MTL' in this country??

I know the Ford MTX boxes call for it, as do all of the racing sequentials and dog boxes, as well as some older foreign (Teuton and Nippon) manuals.

This is why I am wanting Millers to produce a LIGHT, Red Line MTL-like fluid, but with their NT add pack, IF it would allow the synchros/blocker rings in modern manual gearboxes to engage properly.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Isn't a 75W-90 generally considered way too heavy a weight oil for what is called an 'MTL' in this country??

I know the Ford MTX boxes call for it, as do all of the racing sequentials and dog boxes, as well as some older foreign (Teuton and Nippon) manuals.

This is why I am wanting Millers to produce a LIGHT, Red Line MTL-like fluid, but with their NT add pack, IF it would allow the synchros/blocker rings in modern manual gearboxes to engage properly.
wink.gif



My experience is that the majority of manuals here call for either a 75w90, or an ATF. Most of the sequentials actually spec a 75w140. I just looked up what Red Line offers, which includes a 75w90 (as well as 75w80 and 75w85). Until then, I was only familiar with BMW and Honda specifying thinner oils. Take your T-56 for example. Its precursor, the T-5, specified a 75w90 until they revised it to the "World Class" version - which I guess was some time ago, though. I know the STi's and Evo's call out 75w90, and I believe one specs a 75w140 in the transfer case? I've never even seen anything offered "off the shelf" in the parts stores for thinner than 75w90. We are starting to sell a ton of 80w90 for classic cars, though that isn't a fair comparison. We've actually got a few BMW's running the 75w90, they all love it. All the Porsches spec a 75w90, though they are transaxles.

At any rate, we've been having some discussions with Millers to try to get a thinner gear oil out. I'm hoping for an ATF-like viscosity, say a 75w80. Interestingly, the stuff the F1 and IndyCar uses isn't really oil in the conventional sense. It is more a carrier for the additives. I've seen some of the Lucas L-11, it completely separates, the liquid on top is clear! It is incredibly thin.
 
FWIW, I currently have Millers NT 75w90 in the 020 gearbox in my 1982 Scirocco - it made a noticeable difference straight away and the more I drive it the smoother and slicker the gearchange becomes. I changed all of the gear linkage bushes and rods to try and tighten up the change - dint make much difference. I drained whatever was in there previously and put the Millers NT in, it made the world of difference! Their NT motor oil is good stuff too, I get more MPG and less NVH with Millers NT in the sump..

But the reason I'm posting here is this;
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Archoil-AR9200-Nano-WS2-Friction-Modifier-125ml-Bottle-/370916271810
Have any of you guys seen this before? Ever used it? Good or bad experiences? I'm thinking I could buy a cheap mineral oil, and throw this in, and save a lot of money of buying more Millers!

Any input?
 
Originally Posted By: 67King
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Isn't a 75W-90 generally considered way too heavy a weight oil for what is called an 'MTL' in this country??

I know the Ford MTX boxes call for it, as do all of the racing sequentials and dog boxes, as well as some older foreign (Teuton and Nippon) manuals.

This is why I am wanting Millers to produce a LIGHT, Red Line MTL-like fluid, but with their NT add pack, IF it would allow the synchros/blocker rings in modern manual gearboxes to engage properly.
wink.gif



My experience is that the majority of manuals here call for either a 75w90, or an ATF. Most of the sequentials actually spec a 75w140. I just looked up what Red Line offers, which includes a 75w90 (as well as 75w80 and 75w85). Until then, I was only familiar with BMW and Honda specifying thinner oils. Take your T-56 for example. Its precursor, the T-5, specified a 75w90 until they revised it to the "World Class" version - which I guess was some time ago, though. I know the STi's and Evo's call out 75w90, and I believe one specs a 75w140 in the transfer case? I've never even seen anything offered "off the shelf" in the parts stores for thinner than 75w90. We are starting to sell a ton of 80w90 for classic cars, though that isn't a fair comparison. We've actually got a few BMW's running the 75w90, they all love it. All the Porsches spec a 75w90, though they are transaxles.

At any rate, we've been having some discussions with Millers to try to get a thinner gear oil out. I'm hoping for an ATF-like viscosity, say a 75w80. Interestingly, the stuff the F1 and IndyCar uses isn't really oil in the conventional sense. It is more a carrier for the additives. I've seen some of the Lucas L-11, it completely separates, the liquid on top is clear! It is incredibly thin.


75W-90 is WAY TOO THICK for the synchros/blockers in a T56 to function properly.
Straight Red Line 75W-85 is probably too thick as well, although in the summer, I might drain one quart of the MTL (75W-80) in there now, and add one quart of this to the mix.
wink.gif


I will be the FIRST IN LINE to try a Millers 75W-80 weight gearbox GL-4 oil with their NT add pack, IF they can make it work.
thumbsup2.gif
smile.gif
 
But the reason I'm posting here is this;
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Archoil-AR9200-Nano-WS2-Friction-Modifier-125ml-Bottle-/370916271810
Have any of you guys seen this before? Ever used it? Good or bad experiences? I'm thinking I could buy a cheap mineral oil, and throw this in, and save a lot of money of buying more Millers!

Here is their manufacturers/distributers links:

http://www.evergreenamerica.com/index.cfm/products/engine-treatment/

http://www.archoil.com/index.cfm/product...anti-corrosion/

These were both old bookmarks of mine. It is hard to remember details at this point, but I "think" the second link was making it and selling it in South America and Asia, but not the US. I don't know what form of WS2 they use. Mostly

Oddly, I can't find ar9200. I did find this http://0378e50.netsolstores.com/ar2400-clp-gun-cleaner-lubrication-and-protection-4oz.aspx from Archoil.

I just don't remember. I looked at so many sites over a year or so.

I am also not sure how much difference there is between the practical results of WS2 or the IF version if the regular stuff is small enough.
 
Originally Posted By: 67King
I just looked up what Red Line offers, which includes a 75w90 (as well as 75w80 and 75w85). Until then, I was only familiar with BMW and Honda specifying thinner oils.

Along the same lines we also have:

GM/Pennzoil Synchromesh
Amsoil MTF
Pentosin MTF2
Ford XT-M5-QS
Valvoline Synchromesh
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dailydriver

I will be the FIRST IN LINE to try a Millers 75W-80 weight gearbox GL-4 oil with their NT add pack, IF they can make it work.
thumbsup2.gif
smile.gif



Trust me, you are NOT ALONE in your desire for a 75w80-ish (ATF like viscosity) gear oil. I'm desperately trying to get it going, but I'm just one distributor. We actually had some discussions at PRI about it. I have some friends (former fellow Ford engineers) who run a race outfit in SE Michigan who would be a vendor of all of our oils if we could supply them transmission oil for their Mustangs. I'm working on it, trust me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top