Any thoughts on this? nanotech http://www.performanceracingoils.com/
Millers Oil
- Thread starter dennishiip
- Start date
- Status
After looking at their website is the price of their energy efficient oil a secret?
In the UK to give you an idea Castrol Edge is circa $15 per qrt.
Miller Nano is circa $23 a qrt.
So a touch expensive for you poor guys in the US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Miller Nano is circa $23 a qrt.
So a touch expensive for you poor guys in the US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT this "poor (and a little OCD/crazy as well) guy"!!
I already have their excellent CRX 75W-140 NT gear oil in the rear axle, and as soon as the Kreen rinse M1 HM is dumped from my sump, their NanoDrive racing 0W-30 & 5W-40 is going into the crankcase!
I already have their excellent CRX 75W-140 NT gear oil in the rear axle, and as soon as the Kreen rinse M1 HM is dumped from my sump, their NanoDrive racing 0W-30 & 5W-40 is going into the crankcase!
Apparently these Nano oils are very good, but usually used by owners of performance cars rather than daily drivers with suitably short OCI.
I don't know how they would work out over 5/6k miles.
I don't know how they would work out over 5/6k miles.
At 25$, they can be, but I personnaly don't like oil which are sold like cosmetic and anti-aging cream with special Q10 enzymes, nanites or magnetic things whith which your engine is 10 years younger...
It is just blabla from marketing, and I really prefer when amsoil put his oil in a truck for 470 000 miles, or better, to see UOA... More scientific...
For 25$, I can have 5 OCI of 15 000 miles with HDEO = 75 000 miles with I am sure no more wear...
It is just blabla from marketing, and I really prefer when amsoil put his oil in a truck for 470 000 miles, or better, to see UOA... More scientific...
For 25$, I can have 5 OCI of 15 000 miles with HDEO = 75 000 miles with I am sure no more wear...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bigjl
Apparently these Nano oils are very good, but usually used by owners of performance cars rather than daily drivers with suitably short OCI.
I don't know how they would work out over 5/6k miles.
They have a fairly high starting/retaining TBN, along with a high calcium content in the addpacks, so even though they are marketed as "racing" oils, they are capable of doing 10K mile OCIs.
I most certainly plan on pushing mine out to at least that far with a great NAPA Platinum, or Amsoil EaO filter.
Apparently these Nano oils are very good, but usually used by owners of performance cars rather than daily drivers with suitably short OCI.
I don't know how they would work out over 5/6k miles.
They have a fairly high starting/retaining TBN, along with a high calcium content in the addpacks, so even though they are marketed as "racing" oils, they are capable of doing 10K mile OCIs.
I most certainly plan on pushing mine out to at least that far with a great NAPA Platinum, or Amsoil EaO filter.
Originally Posted By: miniac007
At 25$, they can be, but I personnaly don't like oil which are sold like cosmetic and anti-aging cream with special Q10 enzymes, nanites or magnetic things whith which your engine is 10 years younger...
It is just blabla from marketing, and I really prefer when amsoil put his oil in a truck for 470 000 miles, or better, to see UOA... More scientific...
One does NOT win best new technology awards from Race Tech/Race Car Engineering with just "blabla" marketing!
At 25$, they can be, but I personnaly don't like oil which are sold like cosmetic and anti-aging cream with special Q10 enzymes, nanites or magnetic things whith which your engine is 10 years younger...
It is just blabla from marketing, and I really prefer when amsoil put his oil in a truck for 470 000 miles, or better, to see UOA... More scientific...
One does NOT win best new technology awards from Race Tech/Race Car Engineering with just "blabla" marketing!
Awards ARE blabla marketing...
Measure IS scientific blabla
But you are right, it cannot be 25$ of marketing, it shoud be at least 5$ of technology ...
So show me UOAs with Millers oil that are 3 sigma better in wear metals than UOA on same cars with a dino HDEO at 5$, and I will order
The problem is not the oil, the problem is the price, like in the cosmetic industry... You don't pay for cream or oil, you pay to reassure yourself, about age or oil... And this is marketing, not technology, even if the product is technically good.
Measure IS scientific blabla
But you are right, it cannot be 25$ of marketing, it shoud be at least 5$ of technology ...
So show me UOAs with Millers oil that are 3 sigma better in wear metals than UOA on same cars with a dino HDEO at 5$, and I will order
The problem is not the oil, the problem is the price, like in the cosmetic industry... You don't pay for cream or oil, you pay to reassure yourself, about age or oil... And this is marketing, not technology, even if the product is technically good.
I'd say try it for an OCI and see what happens. Not much data on it around here.
Sounds like it's like Red Line, Motul 300V, etc -- a streetable race oil.
Sounds like it's like Red Line, Motul 300V, etc -- a streetable race oil.
Originally Posted By: miniac007
Awards ARE blabla marketing...
Measure IS scientific blabla
But you are right, it cannot be 25$ of marketing, it shoud be at least 5$ of technology ...
So show me UOAs with Millers oil that are 3 sigma better in wear metals than UOA on same cars with a dino HDEO at 5$, and I will order
The problem is not the oil, the problem is the price, like in the cosmetic industry... You don't pay for cream or oil, you pay to reassure yourself, about age or oil... And this is marketing, not technology, even if the product is technically good.
It's NOT ONLY/ALL about the wear metals
Also, like dparm says, it is too new to even have very many UOAs on it yet, so I am willing to spring for it and experiment a little, especially for a long OCI.
Like I've said before, I am NOT 'rich', but this is like a hobby, and since I DO NOT; drink, smoke, gamble, buy firearms/ammo, live extravagantly otherwise, or do drugs, I can justify the cost, whereas maybe you cannot.
Awards ARE blabla marketing...
Measure IS scientific blabla
But you are right, it cannot be 25$ of marketing, it shoud be at least 5$ of technology ...
So show me UOAs with Millers oil that are 3 sigma better in wear metals than UOA on same cars with a dino HDEO at 5$, and I will order
The problem is not the oil, the problem is the price, like in the cosmetic industry... You don't pay for cream or oil, you pay to reassure yourself, about age or oil... And this is marketing, not technology, even if the product is technically good.
It's NOT ONLY/ALL about the wear metals
Also, like dparm says, it is too new to even have very many UOAs on it yet, so I am willing to spring for it and experiment a little, especially for a long OCI.
Like I've said before, I am NOT 'rich', but this is like a hobby, and since I DO NOT; drink, smoke, gamble, buy firearms/ammo, live extravagantly otherwise, or do drugs, I can justify the cost, whereas maybe you cannot.
ALL oil stuff is about wear metals as any oil problem immediately translates to an increase in wear metals...
if we talk about mechanics course. If we discuss the psychology of the user, it is different...
Same problem as in cosmetic industry... Women buy 1000$ a cream that cost 5$ just for the psychological effect, not the physical effect.
I never understood that, so I won't either for oils...
I can afford 25$/quart oils and like you, oil is a kind of hobby, but my second hobby, is to pay for what I get, and not more... If I pay something 10$ and obtain the same result as with 5$, I just think I am stupid... So I prefer to spend 25$ in beer, the effect is known
So, as I said, if I would have 5 times less wear with Millers or 5 times longer OCI, I will pay 25$ with pleasure...
If I have a look at UOA with Motul 300V for example, I really don't see any statistically significant effect compared to other synthetic oil in road use... Even with expensive esther and MOS2
Anyway, if I need a strong oil film, I will go (maybe) for a race oil, but if I look for long OCI I will go for HDEO.
When I see how perform HDEO oils on motocycles for example, why spending much ?
if we talk about mechanics course. If we discuss the psychology of the user, it is different...
Same problem as in cosmetic industry... Women buy 1000$ a cream that cost 5$ just for the psychological effect, not the physical effect.
I never understood that, so I won't either for oils...
I can afford 25$/quart oils and like you, oil is a kind of hobby, but my second hobby, is to pay for what I get, and not more... If I pay something 10$ and obtain the same result as with 5$, I just think I am stupid... So I prefer to spend 25$ in beer, the effect is known
So, as I said, if I would have 5 times less wear with Millers or 5 times longer OCI, I will pay 25$ with pleasure...
If I have a look at UOA with Motul 300V for example, I really don't see any statistically significant effect compared to other synthetic oil in road use... Even with expensive esther and MOS2
Anyway, if I need a strong oil film, I will go (maybe) for a race oil, but if I look for long OCI I will go for HDEO.
When I see how perform HDEO oils on motocycles for example, why spending much ?
Sorry for the slow response. I'm with Peroformance Racing Oils. A few tidbits. There are two types of oil with Nanotechnology - the race oil, and the street oil. As for how durable it is relative to other race oils, here's a case study:
http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF/longevity_case_study.pdf
Wear metals aren't specifically shown, but after 5 race weekends, and approximately 1700 race miles, the only wear metal that was even a blip on the screen was aluminum, at 17ppm. Note that 75 is considered excessive.
Here is the PDF of the analysis, which was done in-house at Millers.
http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF/Performance_Racing_Oils-28-9-12-6689.pdf
If you are not familiar with race oils, 1700 miles may sound like a lot. If you are, you know it is a ton. Most race oils will advise you to change it every event, max up to 500 miles. We got a season out of our car, and the oil was still pretty good.
Of course, race guys are interested in power improvement. And it stands to reason that with a reduction in friction, power will be improved, as well. That extra $50 or so you spend on an oil change is a bargain compared to what it costs most highly developed (race) engines to eek out an additional couple of percent in power: http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html (note all of these charts are done out of house - Zytek did the FRenault, Rogue did the GT86 and MR2, EB Motorsports did the Porsche, JB Racing did the Vauxhall and Ford for Fast Car, and the Ducshop did the Ducati).
Ultimately, wear metal content is important, but it isn't the only thing worth monitoring. Your oil may break down/become acidic/oxidize then sludge before you have excessive wear metals. Some oils are chock full of viscosity modifiers, which will break down, and potentially leave you without the protection you expect. Besides, would it not be best to PREVENT wear metals, because you know the condition of your oil? I suppose if you monitor you oil enough, you'd catch it in time.
For whatever reference you want, the head technical guy at Millers runs a 20,000 mile OCI with the Nanodrive race oil in a diesel Jaguar.
Now, there is also a road oil with nanotechnology. It is a more typical Group III, as per almost all OEM specifications. There are C3 and ECO versions that we carry in the states. The C3 meets BMW's LL04 spec with a 15,000 OCI. Here is some interesting info on it that is very much applicable to street cars: http://performanceracingoils.com/energy-efficient-street-oils-c-1.html
Note the drop in friction, particularly at start-up. Here are the charts to show you:
The NT additive will stay on the metal surfaces of the engine, thereby reducing friction and subsequently wear at start up (tests 2 and 3). I had not realized that I need to have my website updated with the info on the oils, so here they are at Millers' site.
http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=987§or=Car
http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=986§or=Car
Also, FWIW, here are some charts showing load bearing capability of oil with and without NT additive. The NT additive shows about a 33% increase in load bearing capability (from 1200 to 1600N):
Now, other things we have seen that aren't "published." We've seen fuel economy improvements from 1% (weighted average) to notably higher in segments on what is called a "sequence 6" test, where basically, a powertrain is subjected to 6 speed/load points (the less loaded the engine, the greater the benefit - so you'll see the most improvement if you idle a lot, the least if you always are towing heavy loads uphill). Is that worth 5 times the cost of the oil? Probably not, but our street oil is priced in line with most other long life synthetics. We've priced it out for some potential fleet applications for when that comes out, and our back of the envelope calculations show an excess of a $1M savings per year in fuel costs for a fleet of 1,000 trucks.
I'll get my web guy working on the street stuff, but costs are:
EE Long Life 5W30 ECO - $13.45/L or $54.95/5L jug
EE Long Life 5W30 C3 - $14.45/L or $59.95/5L jug
So it is 2.5-3X as much as the generic brand conventional oil. Will an OCI improvement of that much be realized? I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't expect a conventional oil to last that long without some loss of performance. And when you factor in the fuel economy improvement, our NT oils can start to show a positive NPV, even before you consider the savings in wear and tear on your engine.
I'll try to monitor this a bit more, gotta run for now......
http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF/longevity_case_study.pdf
Wear metals aren't specifically shown, but after 5 race weekends, and approximately 1700 race miles, the only wear metal that was even a blip on the screen was aluminum, at 17ppm. Note that 75 is considered excessive.
Here is the PDF of the analysis, which was done in-house at Millers.
http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF/Performance_Racing_Oils-28-9-12-6689.pdf
If you are not familiar with race oils, 1700 miles may sound like a lot. If you are, you know it is a ton. Most race oils will advise you to change it every event, max up to 500 miles. We got a season out of our car, and the oil was still pretty good.
Of course, race guys are interested in power improvement. And it stands to reason that with a reduction in friction, power will be improved, as well. That extra $50 or so you spend on an oil change is a bargain compared to what it costs most highly developed (race) engines to eek out an additional couple of percent in power: http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html (note all of these charts are done out of house - Zytek did the FRenault, Rogue did the GT86 and MR2, EB Motorsports did the Porsche, JB Racing did the Vauxhall and Ford for Fast Car, and the Ducshop did the Ducati).
Ultimately, wear metal content is important, but it isn't the only thing worth monitoring. Your oil may break down/become acidic/oxidize then sludge before you have excessive wear metals. Some oils are chock full of viscosity modifiers, which will break down, and potentially leave you without the protection you expect. Besides, would it not be best to PREVENT wear metals, because you know the condition of your oil? I suppose if you monitor you oil enough, you'd catch it in time.
For whatever reference you want, the head technical guy at Millers runs a 20,000 mile OCI with the Nanodrive race oil in a diesel Jaguar.
Now, there is also a road oil with nanotechnology. It is a more typical Group III, as per almost all OEM specifications. There are C3 and ECO versions that we carry in the states. The C3 meets BMW's LL04 spec with a 15,000 OCI. Here is some interesting info on it that is very much applicable to street cars: http://performanceracingoils.com/energy-efficient-street-oils-c-1.html
Note the drop in friction, particularly at start-up. Here are the charts to show you:
The NT additive will stay on the metal surfaces of the engine, thereby reducing friction and subsequently wear at start up (tests 2 and 3). I had not realized that I need to have my website updated with the info on the oils, so here they are at Millers' site.
http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=987§or=Car
http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=986§or=Car
Also, FWIW, here are some charts showing load bearing capability of oil with and without NT additive. The NT additive shows about a 33% increase in load bearing capability (from 1200 to 1600N):
Now, other things we have seen that aren't "published." We've seen fuel economy improvements from 1% (weighted average) to notably higher in segments on what is called a "sequence 6" test, where basically, a powertrain is subjected to 6 speed/load points (the less loaded the engine, the greater the benefit - so you'll see the most improvement if you idle a lot, the least if you always are towing heavy loads uphill). Is that worth 5 times the cost of the oil? Probably not, but our street oil is priced in line with most other long life synthetics. We've priced it out for some potential fleet applications for when that comes out, and our back of the envelope calculations show an excess of a $1M savings per year in fuel costs for a fleet of 1,000 trucks.
I'll get my web guy working on the street stuff, but costs are:
EE Long Life 5W30 ECO - $13.45/L or $54.95/5L jug
EE Long Life 5W30 C3 - $14.45/L or $59.95/5L jug
So it is 2.5-3X as much as the generic brand conventional oil. Will an OCI improvement of that much be realized? I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't expect a conventional oil to last that long without some loss of performance. And when you factor in the fuel economy improvement, our NT oils can start to show a positive NPV, even before you consider the savings in wear and tear on your engine.
I'll try to monitor this a bit more, gotta run for now......
What I don't like about the Miller's NT oils is that they're not high VI oils, not even in the M1 0W-40 area.
I'm 100% in favour of reducing the CoF and oil drag generally of the oil I use which is why I optimize the viscosity, no thicker than necessary and run as high a VI as possible which contributes to that.
RL doesn't use Nanotechnology but does claim to use oils with the lowest CoF available. Is Miller's better than the higher VI RL 0W-40 in that regard?
I'd love to see more independent tests compared to RL, Motul 300V and even Sustina which IIRC also claims to use nanotechnology.
I'm 100% in favour of reducing the CoF and oil drag generally of the oil I use which is why I optimize the viscosity, no thicker than necessary and run as high a VI as possible which contributes to that.
RL doesn't use Nanotechnology but does claim to use oils with the lowest CoF available. Is Miller's better than the higher VI RL 0W-40 in that regard?
I'd love to see more independent tests compared to RL, Motul 300V and even Sustina which IIRC also claims to use nanotechnology.
Yes well we've seen that ENEOS Sustina isn't very reliable on their claims. Subscribing for more info.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
What I don't like about the Miller's NT oils is that they're not high VI oils, not even in the M1 0W-40 area.
I'm 100% in favour of reducing the CoF and oil drag generally of the oil I use which is why I optimize the viscosity, no thicker than necessary and run as high a VI as possible which contributes to that.
RL doesn't use Nanotechnology but does claim to use oils with the lowest CoF available. Is Miller's better than the higher VI RL 0W-40 in that regard?
I'd love to see more independent tests compared to RL, Motul 300V and even Sustina which IIRC also claims to use nanotechnology.
While I tend to agree with you on VI for the most part (MAINLY on cold, WINTER ambient temp startups), I am willing to make an exception to try a summer OCI oil with a lower VI (ESPECIALLY if they did it with NO VIIs at all, despite how 'great' the latest gen of these may be- they still have some volatility problems as a tradeoff, even by your OWN admission), such as this Millers, OR even the MPT product for their supreme, top shelf, add packs/base stocks.
Yes, this despite your claims of the critical importance of sky-high VIs, [even in torrid, summer ambient temp start-ups (which is also when their volatility rates would be at their peak as well).
What I don't like about the Miller's NT oils is that they're not high VI oils, not even in the M1 0W-40 area.
I'm 100% in favour of reducing the CoF and oil drag generally of the oil I use which is why I optimize the viscosity, no thicker than necessary and run as high a VI as possible which contributes to that.
RL doesn't use Nanotechnology but does claim to use oils with the lowest CoF available. Is Miller's better than the higher VI RL 0W-40 in that regard?
I'd love to see more independent tests compared to RL, Motul 300V and even Sustina which IIRC also claims to use nanotechnology.
While I tend to agree with you on VI for the most part (MAINLY on cold, WINTER ambient temp startups), I am willing to make an exception to try a summer OCI oil with a lower VI (ESPECIALLY if they did it with NO VIIs at all, despite how 'great' the latest gen of these may be- they still have some volatility problems as a tradeoff, even by your OWN admission), such as this Millers, OR even the MPT product for their supreme, top shelf, add packs/base stocks.
Yes, this despite your claims of the critical importance of sky-high VIs, [even in torrid, summer ambient temp start-ups (which is also when their volatility rates would be at their peak as well).
I'll be honest, I think a high VI is WAY overstated. I know some people look at that as the single criterion for whether or not they use an oil. When the term was created, it was on a scale of 0-100. Now we have companies claiming VI's of 200?
Why do I not like that as a single criterion? I don't like the trade-offs.
I know Red Line was mentioned, and I'll get back to that. But I've got Mobil 1 0W50 info, as well. And obviously, a 0W50 will have a higher VI than a 0W40, since is it just the KV at 40C versus KV at 100C. The resultant VI is 186.
So, how do they get it so high? Base stocks? Nope. Ester and PAO base stocks peak in the 160's. So to get such a high VI, you absolutely MUST use viscometrics. So what is the big issue with that? Two things. What is the HTHS of 0W50? 3.8. Now let's compare that with the Millers' 10W50. Its VI is "only" 173. But, its HTHS is a minimum 5.1.
Why is that? Because Millers' philosophy is to obtain VI as much as possible through base stocks.
What is another effect? Someone was talking OCI. For Mobil 1 0W50, Mobil 1 claims you may be able to get 500 miles or more out of the oil (http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Racing_Oil_FAQs.aspx#FAQs3)
"What is the drain interval with Mobil 1 Racing 0W-50?
Oil drain intervals in racing conditions can vary widely. Depending on specific racing applications and conditions, intervals of 500 miles or more are attainable."
Why might it only be good for 500 miles? What are the failure modes? Primarily, it will either lose viscosity, or it will become acidic. We know that there are some race oils out there that become acidic. Ca content in those is around 650ppm. But for Mobil 1, it is 2500. That's a pretty robust additive amount to prevent the onset of acidity. So in all likelihood, its failure mode is that the viscosity improvers break down. If you read the link I provided for the Millers, after 1700 race miles, the viscosity was still very robust. Oh, and again, that HTHS thing - the 5W40 is 4.4, which exceeds the HTHS of the Mobil 1 0W50, which is 3.8. Lower weight oil, higher HTHS.
That said, I'm not trying to pick on Mobil 1. It was just an example of the tradeoffs you get when you look only at VI. That may be a worthwhile tradeoff to some people, but in a race application, it is NOT a worthwhile tradeoff to me.
So where does the MObil 1 0W50 outperform the Millers 10W50? Pour point. Cold crank viscosity. But in places where it gets really, really cold, won't you be running a thinner oil, anyway? So there, I'd be wondering again why VI is as important as the pour points, coldcrank viscosity, etc. But as for protection at startup, which is why you are after a low cold viscosity, I'd refer to the above charts. The NT offers a level and type of protection that is unattainable with typical oils. It serves almost as a solid lubricant.
Another thing that comes into play is how well the oil sticks around. A question was asked about CF for Red Line (presumably that is what RL meant). We've measured a few, not all, of our competitors. Red Line is one we've measured. Its CF is about 70% higher than Millers at operating temperature. But what is really scary is how poor the oil film is. You can go here and look at several competitors. Red Line is one of the ones there, I'm not going to label which one. A few competitors fared much better than Red Line. http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html
A quick note about these measurements. They were taken on a HFRR machine. THe reason is because the CF referenced here is only for boundary conditions, which the HFRR measures. When you've got an oil film established, the only friction is viscous, meaning that viscosity is really the dominant factor. The oil film measurement is done resistively, from 0 conductance (100% oil film) to 100% conductance (0% oil film).
So where does this come into play with cold start? Again, protection. I do not know for certain why the oil film is so poor. Generally, ester is polar, so it should help. Red Line has tons of ester, too much by some considerations, yet its performance was on par with another colorful competitor who uses zero ester (these are race oils, so it uses a lot of PAO). I believe, though I can't say for certain, that it is because of the ZDDP in Red Line. The ZDDP content in Red Line is about 2200ppm, which is almost twice as high as most race engine builders we've talk to think is ideal. Ester is polar, zinc is polar. They fight each other for surface area. So what I think happens is that the high levels of zinc impede the ester from getting surface area, which is why the film strength is so poor.
So what does this have to do with start up protection? Well, again, I'm stating my theory here, but a healthy film will be indicative of the oil sticking to the metal, and if it sticks better, it will hang around longer, giving you better protection while waiting for the oil to flow through the engine.
Why do I not like that as a single criterion? I don't like the trade-offs.
I know Red Line was mentioned, and I'll get back to that. But I've got Mobil 1 0W50 info, as well. And obviously, a 0W50 will have a higher VI than a 0W40, since is it just the KV at 40C versus KV at 100C. The resultant VI is 186.
So, how do they get it so high? Base stocks? Nope. Ester and PAO base stocks peak in the 160's. So to get such a high VI, you absolutely MUST use viscometrics. So what is the big issue with that? Two things. What is the HTHS of 0W50? 3.8. Now let's compare that with the Millers' 10W50. Its VI is "only" 173. But, its HTHS is a minimum 5.1.
Why is that? Because Millers' philosophy is to obtain VI as much as possible through base stocks.
What is another effect? Someone was talking OCI. For Mobil 1 0W50, Mobil 1 claims you may be able to get 500 miles or more out of the oil (http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Racing_Oil_FAQs.aspx#FAQs3)
"What is the drain interval with Mobil 1 Racing 0W-50?
Oil drain intervals in racing conditions can vary widely. Depending on specific racing applications and conditions, intervals of 500 miles or more are attainable."
Why might it only be good for 500 miles? What are the failure modes? Primarily, it will either lose viscosity, or it will become acidic. We know that there are some race oils out there that become acidic. Ca content in those is around 650ppm. But for Mobil 1, it is 2500. That's a pretty robust additive amount to prevent the onset of acidity. So in all likelihood, its failure mode is that the viscosity improvers break down. If you read the link I provided for the Millers, after 1700 race miles, the viscosity was still very robust. Oh, and again, that HTHS thing - the 5W40 is 4.4, which exceeds the HTHS of the Mobil 1 0W50, which is 3.8. Lower weight oil, higher HTHS.
That said, I'm not trying to pick on Mobil 1. It was just an example of the tradeoffs you get when you look only at VI. That may be a worthwhile tradeoff to some people, but in a race application, it is NOT a worthwhile tradeoff to me.
So where does the MObil 1 0W50 outperform the Millers 10W50? Pour point. Cold crank viscosity. But in places where it gets really, really cold, won't you be running a thinner oil, anyway? So there, I'd be wondering again why VI is as important as the pour points, coldcrank viscosity, etc. But as for protection at startup, which is why you are after a low cold viscosity, I'd refer to the above charts. The NT offers a level and type of protection that is unattainable with typical oils. It serves almost as a solid lubricant.
Another thing that comes into play is how well the oil sticks around. A question was asked about CF for Red Line (presumably that is what RL meant). We've measured a few, not all, of our competitors. Red Line is one we've measured. Its CF is about 70% higher than Millers at operating temperature. But what is really scary is how poor the oil film is. You can go here and look at several competitors. Red Line is one of the ones there, I'm not going to label which one. A few competitors fared much better than Red Line. http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html
A quick note about these measurements. They were taken on a HFRR machine. THe reason is because the CF referenced here is only for boundary conditions, which the HFRR measures. When you've got an oil film established, the only friction is viscous, meaning that viscosity is really the dominant factor. The oil film measurement is done resistively, from 0 conductance (100% oil film) to 100% conductance (0% oil film).
So where does this come into play with cold start? Again, protection. I do not know for certain why the oil film is so poor. Generally, ester is polar, so it should help. Red Line has tons of ester, too much by some considerations, yet its performance was on par with another colorful competitor who uses zero ester (these are race oils, so it uses a lot of PAO). I believe, though I can't say for certain, that it is because of the ZDDP in Red Line. The ZDDP content in Red Line is about 2200ppm, which is almost twice as high as most race engine builders we've talk to think is ideal. Ester is polar, zinc is polar. They fight each other for surface area. So what I think happens is that the high levels of zinc impede the ester from getting surface area, which is why the film strength is so poor.
So what does this have to do with start up protection? Well, again, I'm stating my theory here, but a healthy film will be indicative of the oil sticking to the metal, and if it sticks better, it will hang around longer, giving you better protection while waiting for the oil to flow through the engine.
67King, you actually touched on something we've talked about here before. Unofficially, you can gauge an oil's shear resistance by calculating the following value: (HTHS / Dynamic viscosity @ 150 C)
In theory, a higher number should be better.
In theory, a higher number should be better.
Shoot, I hate when I get pulled away when posting. Anyway, was trying to edit to apologize for using so many references to race oils, but I felt it was best for a few reasons. First, the NT is in different grades of race oils, but only one street oil. Second, questions were asked comparing to another race oil. Third, the highest VI oils are race oils rather than street oils, and since the VI was brought up as a concern, I felt it most appropriate to show the tradeoffs from a high VI oil
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
