Duke

As long as the temperature of the oil going in the engine is not too high and the oil pressure is good I see only drawbacks with excessive weight.

67King

Especially since it is a new engine, and there is no wear, so you'll have tighter tolerances. But yes, you will get more volume flow with the thinner oil, which will cool the bearings better, and you'll have less parasitic losses from the oil pump, which will of course free up some more power. We know that the NT results in less wear than a non-NT oil, which bodes well for the ability to run thinner oil. At some point this year, we should have some info comparing a thinner NT oil with a thicker non-NT oil, which will giv eus more definitive info on doing what you are doing. Until then, though, I would recommend taking more samples and watching for excessive wear.

Oh yeah, on edit. Temperature depends on the oil. A good, high quality synthetic should be able to handle a lot of heat. Millers can handle 125C continuously, and up to 150C peak temperatures (260/300F). Interestingly, the coefficient of friction of many oils is better at higher temperatures, though I'd personally be nervous about running most oils up there. Good oil ain't cheap.

pfons

Hello to everyone!

I am not Porsche owner , but this thread is very interesting, so I would like to ask you for advice. I use Millers Oils with NT since 2011, and they are definetly great! But now I bought new car (bmw 125i turbo petrol 240hp) and I do not know, after how many miles it is optimal to swap to Millers engine oil CFS 5W-40NT according fact, that this high slippery oil would prolong or probably stop runing in engine if using too soon, am I right? Piston rings take +- 6000miles to finally sit so may be this is the right mile mark? Initilal BMW factory engine oil filling is full synt Castrol 5w-30.

Thank You very much for Your opinion or advice.

67King

Could you please shoot me an e-mail to hking@performanceracingoils.com and I'll get you in touch with the right person? I know the Czech distributor, Petr, from some time in England at at the Wales Rally as a guest of the Jipocar WRC team. He's a great resource.

This question is not that typical, to be honest. On rebuilds, the ideal way to do it is on a dyno, and taking leakdown measurements, which will improve as the peaks on the cylinders are worn down. Which isn't reasonable for most people, so we would otherwise suggest about 500 miles. However, this is one of those things where the engine builder or manufacturer would be better suited to answer. If it were MY car, I'd probably follow the OEM's recommended oil change interval for the initial change, and change at the point where they recommend it, but then once I switched to the Millers, follow the OCI which works best for me (my 535i specifies 15,000 intervals, but I still change more frequently), either for added security or from what a UOA indicates.

Also, there are now some nanotechnology based road oil options that meet the BMW LL04 spec in a 5w30 (and also one that meets the Porsche A40 spec in a 5w40).

99chrysler

67King, I had been thinking about trying Millers NT engine oil in my non-Porsche collectible car, until I read the following paper from 2013:

http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4442/1/4/95/pdf (Nanomaterials in Lubricants: An Industrial Perspective on Current Research)

The text below from page 97 is alarming, in particular if the conclusion also applies to Millers NT motor oils (containing IF-WS2):

"IF-WS2 is marketed as the EP/AW additive for engine oils, gear lubricants and greases [4], yet its applications so far are very limited. Among the chief limiting factors is the uncertainty about the health safety and environmental (HSE) profile of fullerenes. IF-WS2 also has issues with copper corrosion and poor oxidation stability. As a result, IF-WS2 fortified engine oils are likely to fail the International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) GF-2 Sequence L38 and GF-3 Sequence VIII tests.

Changes in various performance characteristics of a motor oil due to deployment of IF-WS2 in formulation are shown in Figure 2. Modest improvements (outward arrows) in wear protection (for direct-acting valve trains) and fuel economy are outweighed by degradation (inward arrows) in such pivotal properties as corrosion protection, with a specific risk for main bearing corrosion, oxidative thickening, and emission system durability. IF-WS2 doped oils may cause severe damage to engines with Nikasil cylinder bore coatings, and offer no advantage whatsoever for engines with Alusil bores and roller-follower valve trains."

And this:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a536171.pdf

"The lack of improvement in fuel consumption, and flash point being driven out of specification, and significantly increased corrosion, indicate that the nano-additive is not appropriate for use in military vehicles."

The papers concern the nanoadditive itself and not Millers engine oils, but could you comment on the potential issues mentioned nevertheless.

PAOLOP

ShakeNBake

I wonder if it will help with transmission temp issues?

67King

Yes, several very large issues with this publication. To set the stage straight, though, I am a distributor, and not directly affiliated with Millers, so I am not responding as a representative.

Apologies for the delayed response. I've been away for the weekend without internet access. Rather enjoyed myself, to be honest.

As a published researcher (albeit from nearly 20 years ago), I frankly find this report to be long on assertions, and short on support. They make several claims about problems with the technology. Yet, the only citation they make is how they are marketed. SAE has published a couple of papers on it.:
http://articles.sae.org/11201/
and
http://articles.sae.org/12798/

Here's another industry publication, http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF...April_2013.pdf

Interestingly, the lone paper they cite as evidence for "marketing" is actually chock full of test results that refute their claims.

Second, the standards they are saying the oil will not meet are GF2 and GF3. Those are older standards, with less robust additive packs, and levels of ZDDP that are too high for today's GF4 oils. Noting the GF4 is ILSAC's specification that is equivalent to SL. That has nothing to do with the NT additive, and in fact the road oils that use the NT meet that standard. GF2 is the old SJ I believe. Very old oil specifications, and obsolete for a decade BEFORE this paper was published. It is very perplexing that they'd do this. Furthermore, they are SPECULATING. They claim "they may fail......." when they, in fact, meet newer, more stringent standards.

This is not the language of a researcher. And as we've seen, they have cited a paper that contradicts theirs.

Third, health concerns. Small particles are a concern when airborn, not when in suspension. CDC calls out unknowns about migrating from the lungs - which again is about airborn matter. It is procured by Millers in suspension, and certainly that way when it reaches the end user.

Next up, the results they show. They show a table where I can only assume they mixed up some stuff and tested it. It doesn't resemble a DoE. A DoE would have had parameters. Most notably the amount they used. A simple DoE would have had more than just 5%, it would have had some large differences.

5% of any EP additive is many, many factors different than what is used. They compare it to MoS2, yet use ten times as much of the NT as the other EP additive.

To put this in perspective, Millers launched the gear oil in 2009, and the engine oil in 2012. That is three years worth of research to get the formulation right. Not a single point where they can say "this is the answer!"

They show a little cartoon that they drew. Qualitative. Not quantitative. What data provided this? We have no idea, because they did not discuss their testing methods beyond the 4 ball wear test as per typical research procedures. And the only thing the 4 ball test showed was improvement. I have no idea how they decided it "may" result in this or that. Oxidation makes sense if they tested the Millers CFS stuff.......because it uses ester base stocks which register as elevated oxidation values.

We have many users at the amateur and professional level who have seen their wear decrease, in many cases drastically. I have information on my website, including some UOA.....the most appropriate from a 996 Cup owner who had the oil with 10 hours tested, to which Blackstone replied "we typically see change intervals at 4 hours, yet you have 10 and wear metals are generally better."

Most of the professional stuff is confidential. F1 has seen improvements, can't share who, though. IndyCar (BHA and Millers had a tech partnership, NOT a sponsorship) has seen life of R&P, the primary wear item, nearly double. Same with WRC (Jipocar, who IS sponsored). And we are in being used and tested by some professional teams who are sponsored by competitors. In one case, the team had not completed a race prior to switching. In others, they are not sharing much info with us.

The military link is intersting, and is a bit more credible. But we've also had fuel economy testing done in a lab in San Antonio (potentially same lab as this), and we've seen improvements. Maybe it speaks to the time it takes to get it right, rather than just adding stuff to the oil. Took Millers 3 years to get teh engine oil out there after the gear oil was launched.

67King

Typically see a 20-25 degree reduction, but it has been as large as 32 degrees in a 996 World Challenge car.

txhokie4life

Want to sponsor a Porsche Chumpcar Team?

We have a 37 hour race coming up.

Mike

67King

99Chrysler, this is a more scientifically sound paper that was linked on BITOG by the same person you copied and pasted (maybe you are the same ChiaroBlue?). https://online.stle.org/STAFFLIVE/CM...1-00bdc649ce72

Seems to be a much more scientifically sound paper, and again refutes the link provided earlier.

99chrysler

Thanks for responding! Yes, I use ChiaroBlue on BITOG. I am aware that you do not represent Millers Oils directly, but was hoping that you may have access to the right persons at Millers if needed.

The link you provided is broken... at least for the moment and for me ("iMIS error has occurred"). Could you provide another link?

Now, my intention was not to spread disinformation about the Millers products (and I do hope the claims turn out to be incorrect, I actually have been using the NT LS gear oil in the rear and front diffs of my car for the last year), but when there is talk about severe damage to nikasil coatings I think it is in everybodies interest to get some clarity.

67King

That was a link that you provided? https://online.stle.org/STAFFLIVE/CMDownload.aspx?ContentKey=21afcf90-05c4-435f-9180-d8f8192a0717&ContentItemKey=31ff47de-434d-456f-93e1-00bdc649ce72

I've seen no claims from any other sources that indicate corrosion. There is one NT material not used by Millers that can become abrasive when exposed to moisture. But honestly, corrosive doesn't even really make sense. It is much more effective (requires less) and more thermally stable than the conventional EP additive it replaces (MoS2). So I am having a hard time grasping the chemistry that would take place. And again, we'd expect to see issues by now, whereas the opposite is occurring. And it would be showing up in UOA given how that analysis is done.

99chrysler

Ok, yes now I see that this was a short paper that I dug up and posted on BITOG. I found it interesting as it explains the mechanisms behind how the nano addtive is thought to work (although e.g. corrosion or absence thereof was not mentioned).


I am no chemist or tribologist, so I cannot really comment on this (nor do I have access to scientific papers behind paywalls, if any exist). The military paper nevertheless has some hard data on corrosion; in an ideal world it would be nice to have some assurance from Millers that this is not a problem with their formulation. And as I happen to own a car with nikasil coated cylinders it would be nice to have some assurance that e.g. Millers 5w-40 NT can be used with confidence.

67King

I have a couple of degrees in materials engineering (both from Georgia Tech, FWIW), so I have a lot of background in chemistry. So now that I have delved into the paper a bit, I may have found the mechanism. "Due to the high concentration of the additive" is stated, though not quantified. I would expect that the corrosion comes from breakdown and the sulfur eventually forming H2SO4 (sulfuric acid). If the same amount MoS2 were used instead of the NT, I would imagine the problem would be even worse, as WS2 is more thermally stable (if temperature is increased 200 degrees, it will become as reactive as MoS2 is at operating temperatures). MoS2 concentration is typically under 1000ppm (600-800 is pretty common).

Given the other links, do you think they put in 5%? The resultant sulfur content suggests less, but the increase in sulfur content indicates orders of magnitude difference. It went up nearly 3000ppm. That is four times as much as it should have if it were used in the concentration levels of MoS2. And given how superior it is to MoS2, much, much less should be used, not much more.

So that is my opinion on why it showed an increase when out in the field, the exact opposite is happening, i.e. wear metals are being greatly reduced. The majority of our customers, which includes ourselves, have nikasil cylinders. Furthermore, the primary metal that was subject to corrosion is copper. Nikasil is Ni-SiC, both of which are very robust to corrosion. The junk paper brought up that concern, with neither a reference or data to support. Again, it took Millers 3 years to get the formulation right for engine oil after it was introduced in the gear oil.

Millers will not respond directly on forums, and to be blunt, they have become agitated when asked to. There is unfortunately a history, most notably with one Polish distributor of a competitor, of rather nefarious activities in forums. I've actually had an e-mail forwarded to me from our Polish distributor of the fellow taunting him (not that I could read Polish, but Google translate is a pretty useful tool) for his ability to get information out of me.

I've supplied my e-mail address above, but it is hking@performanceracingoils.com. I think it would be most appropriate to take further discussions off-line. Or even better, I would suggest you contact your distributor, since I only cover North America.