Sorry, I inadvertantly hit the Submit button before I was ready. Here's the full text (is there a way to edit or delete a post?)
Mystic - Millers does indeed use nanotechnology in their engine oils. Will not elaborate on the chemical specifics of it beyond that.
Real quick:
IMEP - Indicated Mean Effective Pressure, which is how much torque the engine makes before mechanical losses (normalized - i.e. not a function of displacement)
FMEP - Fricton Mean Effective Pressure, said mechanical losses
BMEP - Brake Mean Effective Pressure, IMEP - FMEP. Multiplied by displacement, and you get brake torque.
The technology has reduced the coefficient of friction in the neighborhood of 50%, give or take a fair amount (range 30% to upper 60's, off of memory). The benefit it provides is primarily in boundary lubrication. That primarily is near TDS and BDC in the swept area of the rings. If you figure FMEP of an engine is about 15% IMEP, and ring friction is 40% of that, then you are looking at 6%, max. But, it does not take long before you start getting out of boundary, and into viscous, at which point the coefficient of friction doens't do much for you.
So how does this impact fuel economy? To date, we do not have enough direct data. A few Sequence Six tests have been performed, and it is largely dependent on drive cycle (frictional losses are a constant, so at low load, they are a large portion of indicated power). I know the results, but the sample size is too small to publish with any confidence. That said, we are awaiting the impending release of fleet oils with NT. If we can make an improvement of merely 1%, the case for conversion to the NT oils is very, very strong at first glance - this for a financial incentive for only the fuel economy improvement. We are hoping to have some discussions in the near future with some fleet operators to get some level of validity around our assumptions of operating costs. A 5% improvement in fuel economy would be enormous, but it isn't realistic. OEM's would pay BIG time money for that kind of fuel economy improvement (see below for some more info).
Another reason to look at fleets is the rebuild interval. Like racing, rebuilds are a source of expense. On the gear oils, some of the WRC and BTCC guys are seeing as much as four times the life of the gearbox. Our typical wear reductions are 40-50%, with some as high as 80%, and a low of 14%. This again compared to the closest comparator from Millers (i.e. a BMW LL04 spec 5W30, and not just viscosity). This will likely not apply to anyone here, but it is all related. Less friction, less heat, less waste (fuel), and less wear.
Though we don't have a large enough dataset to quantify an expected fuel economy gain, the horsepower improvements that have been measured are pretty darn impressive. And since the same mechanisms apply, we do have confidence that a measurable improvement in fuel economy will be realized. Most testing has shown a 2-3% improvement in power, with a range of about 1% to 5%, but I personally question the assumptions made when that 5% was measured (measured wheel power improvement was 2.3%, which I trust). Basically, they attempt to measure driveline losses by cutting fuel and letting the dyno wind down while taking measurements. Those driveline losses should not have changed, but they did. Still, 2.3% is impressive for a mere oil change. Here are some links if you wish to see some:
http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html
That said, as oils are getting thinner and thinner, boundary conditions are actually showing up in the bottom end, a bit surprisingly to me, but that's what is being seen* (see bottom of post for elaboration).
Having said all of that, we know from testing the oil, primarily the 4 ball wear test, that the NT cuts wear pretty drastically, ceteris paribus. We are hoping over the course of the year to compare the capabilities of a lower weight NT oil with a higher weight non-NT oil, to see if we can provide equivalent protection with a lower weight oil. If we can do that, we know that we can reduce total FMEP by an even greater amount, as we'll be reducing viscous friction, as well.
Alternety, I don't have the pricing finalized. I got the pricing from Millers just yesterday, and am sorting through it. It looks to be about 7% more expensive than the non-NT version of the oil. It is still not cheap, but this is the extended drain stuff we are talking about, rather than a regular oil. Right now, looks like somewhere between $13-15 per liter, depending on which version. 5L jugs will be notably less on a per liter basis.
I need to verify the base stocks of the road oils. I thought that they were Group III, per OEM specifications, but I just reviewed my notes, and I do not know if that applies to this line (it does our Trident line, which to this point has been the only road oil line we've carried - but these are modified XF oils, which are more expensive). The race oils are mostly Group IV with a fair amout of V (tri-ester), and the balance III to enhance lubricity that is lost with the PAO.
* - I used to do engine development with Ford. I did engine systems, which was the whole thing, including budget and timing, as well as the engineering. My primary focus on the engineering end was performance, which was more upper end/breathing. But, one of my good friends and most trusted resources is still one of the experts at Ford in bottom end lubrication. He was where I heard that boundary conditions are being seen on the bottom end. Also along those lines, fuel economy was even more important than horsepower during my later years, and the amount of money paid for a small fuel economy gain at the OEM level was insane. I saw an increase of 30% of the cost of an engine to achieve about a 3% fuel economy improvement. When I left, I was one of the few big proponents of direct injection, which is one of the few things that can get a couple percentage poitns - everthing else short of full blown powertrain changes was in the tenths of a percent.
I'll see if I can get some pricing information together in the coming week or so.