Millers 10W-50 Nano Oil - Good for our cars? - Page 5 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK

Hi there Noticed Hartech use/recommend Millers 10W-50 Nano Oil for 996/997's, can anyone explain as to why this is? Should I change to this oil over the Mobil One 0W-40 that Porsche recommend, any dis-advantages like power/fuel economy etc?

Hi mate. I've got a Hartech rebuilt cayman s, which is currently running millers xfs. As I understand it though, this is just for the 'running in' period (2000 miles). Not sure millers is a standard oil that they usually recommend/use.

Mja300 said: Hi mate. I've got a Hartech rebuilt cayman s, which is currently running millers xfs. As I understand it though, this is just for the 'running in' period (2000 miles). Not sure millers is a standard oil that they usually recommend/use. Why did it need a rebuild m8, what happened, how much did it cost please? This is the oil Hartech seem to use and recommend:- http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automo... Be good if Baz or anyone in know how can comment on the positives / negatives of using this over the mobil one 0W-40 Porsche recommend? Edited by Gibbo205 on Sunday 21st April 19:27

I bought it as a Hartech sales car in January of this year. It had a full rebuild including 6 cylinder liners after scoring 3 of its bores with a previous owner. Not sure of the total cost as the work had already been carried out as I purchased the car. Top guys though and I am lucky to live so close and have such a great porsche independent.

Gibbo205 said: Hi there Noticed Hartech use/recommend Millers 10W-50 Nano Oil for 996/997's, can anyone explain as to why this is? Should I change to this oil over the Mobil One 0W-40 that Porsche recommend, any dis-advantages like power/fuel economy etc? Sure there are disadvantages. Ignoring that it is the wrong oil for the engine (no Porsche approved oil is a 10w-xx oil) the higher W number means the oil flows less readily during a cold start. The risk? Bore scoring! If the bearings don't gall up first. Or the zero-lash lifters suffer from lack of oil flow when the engine fires up. Or the VarioCam Plus hardware suffers from improper lubrication or the viscosity differences result in added wear and tear to the VarioCam hardware. Or this oil's splash/sling characteristics are different from that of approved oils and the splash lubed camshaft lobes and lifter bucket faces receive insufficient oil at start up or at other times. The oil is very likely to result in a drop (it may be too small to notice) in fuel economy. A heaver oil results in more friction and this takes power to overcome. Also, more friction means more heat. There is the possibility the thicker/heavier oil could suffer from high temp/high pressure break down as it overheats in the tiny clearances that are the rod/main bearings.

Rockster said: Sure there are disadvantages. Ignoring that it is the wrong oil for the engine (no Porsche approved oil is a 10w-xx oil) the higher W number means the oil flows less readily during a cold start. The risk? Bore scoring! If the bearings don't gall up first. Or the zero-lash lifters suffer from lack of oil flow when the engine fires up. Or the VarioCam Plus hardware suffers from improper lubrication or the viscosity differences result in added wear and tear to the VarioCam hardware. Or this oil's splash/sling characteristics are different from that of approved oils and the splash lubed camshaft lobes and lifter bucket faces receive insufficient oil at start up or at other times. The oil is very likely to result in a drop (it may be too small to notice) in fuel economy. A heaver oil results in more friction and this takes power to overcome. Also, more friction means more heat. There is the possibility the thicker/heavier oil could suffer from high temp/high pressure break down as it overheats in the tiny clearances that are the rod/main bearings. Based on that amazed Hartech recommend this oil to prevent bore scoring???

Doh! If only Baz had known! 40 years buidling engines and an international reputation as the foremost authority on M96/7 cars and a couple of years working with Millers to determine what works best and he gets it all wrong. I know which oil my 996 will be imbibing, and it's not Mobil 1.

ScienceTeacher said: Doh! If only Baz had known! 40 years buidling engines and an international reputation as the foremost authority on M96/7 cars and a couple of years working with Millers to determine what works best and he gets it all wrong. I know which oil my 996 will be imbibing, and it's not Mobil 1. Are you using this Millers oil m8 I've linked too?

I would have thought the retained oil film on the components is more important at start up. Its the reason why many engine builders use assembly grease or coat the components in oil as per the motors rebuild guidance. Its interesting to understand how oil viscosity is measured because this makes it clear what we are talking about: http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/411 Note the bullet points under "A significant reduction in oil viscosity can result in:". So there you have it, the thinner oil has the advantages highlighted by a previous poster but it may also have some very significant disadvantages.

I use Millers nano 5-40...;-)

I believe you will find that the experts think bore scoring occurs at high temperatures when the oil film breaks down and the piston comes into contact with the cylinder. The damage is a result excessive heat and lubrication failure. Porsche do not have a particularly good track record of dealing with this inherent design fault so a wise person might like to take advice from specialists who develop/race/repair/improve these engines for a living.

I could be wrong but the Mobil tie up is simply business between one large company and another, and I believe that the Porsche Cup cars are run on Millers. It isn't just Mobil that have Porsche approval but a number of the oil manufacturers Millers being one of them and simply that Mobil is the oil that the OPCs are told to put in by Porsche hence the business connection. I have just had my oil changed and in went the Millers!

I did not ask what Hartech changed it with last week. I should have done so and will get a bottle of what they recommend.

The OPCs don't all use Mobil at all, they are free to make their own choice of any oil that Porsche approve so will use what works best for them.

Gibbo205 said: Rockster said: Sure there are disadvantages. Ignoring that it is the wrong oil for the engine (no Porsche approved oil is a 10w-xx oil) the higher W number means the oil flows less readily during a cold start. The risk? Bore scoring! If the bearings don't gall up first. Or the zero-lash lifters suffer from lack of oil flow when the engine fires up. Or the VarioCam Plus hardware suffers from improper lubrication or the viscosity differences result in added wear and tear to the VarioCam hardware. Or this oil's splash/sling characteristics are different from that of approved oils and the splash lubed camshaft lobes and lifter bucket faces receive insufficient oil at start up or at other times. The oil is very likely to result in a drop (it may be too small to notice) in fuel economy. A heaver oil results in more friction and this takes power to overcome. Also, more friction means more heat. There is the possibility the thicker/heavier oil could suffer from high temp/high pressure break down as it overheats in the tiny clearances that are the rod/main bearings. ty Based on that amazed Hartech recommend this oil to prevent bore scoring??? Not really. Porsche have approved a huge range of different oils, many 5/40 or 5/50. The change in cold viscosity from 5 to 10 would have less effect than the viscosity change for a 0 grade, compared during summer to winter. I would take Hartech's practical experience at least on a par with Porsche's system of approval, which is likely more akin to the N rated tyre system than any objective, practical assessment. If Rocksters fears were realistic, engines would be failing left right and centre in the winter months. I have always found it interesting that the main oil recommended these days is Mobil 1, when in independent tests it is often found wanting in comparison with others. Why would that be?

Rockster said: Gibbo205 said: Hi there Noticed Hartech use/recommend Millers 10W-50 Nano Oil for 996/997's, can anyone explain as to why this is? Should I change to this oil over the Mobil One 0W-40 that Porsche recommend, any dis-advantages like power/fuel economy etc? Sure there are disadvantages. Ignoring that it is the wrong oil for the engine (no Porsche approved oil is a 10w-xx oil) the higher W number means the oil flows less readily during a cold start. The BOLD is incorrect, well for my 2000 Boxster clearly. My manual says:- Engine Oils Approved by Porsche All oils on the Porsche Approved Oils list Ois of viscosity 0W-40, 5W-40. 10W-40 and Higher if they comply with ACEA A3 spec Oils of Viscosity 0W-30, 5W-30 & 10W-30 if the are included in the Porsche Approval list. So basically any of the higher rated oils above are OK, hence mine runs on a A3 oil that is SL spec in fact 10W-40. Tests in the US have shown that one of the reasons for IMS failure MAY be too thin an oil, hence recommendations to run higher grades.

I now use this oil in my 996 C4, which has done 79k. I'm very happy with it, no problems on start up (in fact it sounds better starting now than when I had Mobil 1) and good oil pressure when hot. Edited by General Bilko on Monday 22 April 08:17

OK think I shall go to Millers come next change, I think Hartech know better than Porsche what is best for these engines, shall double confirm with Baz which one I need to get and go with that.

My 70k 993 was main dealer serviced from new and always ran the thinner synthetic oils recommended by the OPC and the manufacturer. However after being very disappointed after another poor main dealer experience I took the car to Hartech for its major service. Hartech used the thicker semi synthetic Millers. The engine sounded smoother, especially from cold. I am more than happy with the oil, and more than happy with Hartech's experience and qualification in the field. Indies always recommend using thicker non or semi synthetic oils. Because they do offer more protection for engines.

It is difficult not to be tempted into being sarcastic in replying - along the lines that "yes we choose to recommend a poor oil in the hope the engines fail again, so we have to repair them FOC under our guarantee and we look forward to damaging our reputations as a result!" Nano oil was not available when these engines were first manufactured so could not be recommended then. There are a lot of different versions of Nano Oil. Nano particles are very small particles suspended in the oil that have various influences depending upon their constituent parts. Some use Mollibdenum, Copper, etc etc. Generally they can be used to fill voids in the micro surface of the metal and suspend a slippery minute substance there to help support the pressure faces. They can also be used in conjunction with other additives that become more slippery at specified temperatures. It is a very complex subject and it is a new technology. If manufacturers recommended different oils retrospectively they could leave themselves open to litigation for the cost of not recommending the right oil first time. Nano oil is not suitable for a new engine that is not yet run in and manufacturers rarely put in their manuals that when their engines start to wear out it would be better to change to "XYZ oil". In fact their whole advice is directed to newer lower mileage engines etc. Rebuilt engines have a combination of old (but not worn out) parts and new parts. As clearances wear (which they all absolutely do) the gap between parts increases and the temperatures often increase as well as the shock loads resulting. To address this a slightly thicker oil or one with additives designed to help makes sense. Going back to older high mileage 944's and 968's owners often found their engines with lower oil pressure and more noisy after discarding a thicker oil and going back to the manufacturers original "as new" specifications and found when they changed for something more suitable for the age and mileage - that their cars improved. It would seem to me that a manufacturer who was trying to help look after his products should recommend different oils as the mileage goes up - and if a new improved oil came on the market - recommended that when and where appropriate - but that don't - they are too busy with their next new product (which is what they are in business to sell). We are in an on going serious and professional development and test programme with Millers Oils (with racing and road cars) and our recommendations are the best we can do for our customers but may change as time reveals something better or newer and test results stack up more and more. I know of no other small independent supplier doing anything remotely similar and I think that forum contributors should think hard about our own circumstances, skills, experience and technical efforts (not the least of which was a 100% racing engine reliability last season) before rubbishing the outcome. Baz

Baz Which one is best for my car, 997.1 C2S with most of the X51 power pack and I do 5-6 track days per year. Which grade is best for my car, for both power and engine protection please?

showed good gains on an early 911: http://www.millersoils.co.uk/news/2012/220212-Pors... "The first test, running with CFS 10w60 showed an normalised power output (DIN 70020) of 268 bhp. After changing the oil for the new CFS 10w60 NT and running the engine fully up to operating temperature the second power test showed a normalised power output (DIN 70020) of 283 bhp Peak torque of 307 Nm showed an increase over 295 Nm as measured at 5340 RPM." Edited by Jevvy on Monday 22 April 11:33

Gibbo - I am not at work today so will reply later in the week with the right specification we recommend - but our recommendations refer to typical road use and for track use it is important to fit a deeper sump and/or acusump if you corner aggressively - or you may lose oil pressure in long corners. Do you have the X51 deeper sump and what oil do you presently use. Baz

hartech said: Gibbo - I am not at work today so will reply later in the week with the right specification we recommend - but our recommendations refer to typical road use and for track use it is important to fit a deeper sump and/or acusump if you corner aggressively - or you may lose oil pressure in long corners. Do you have the X51 deeper sump and what oil do you presently use. Baz Baz Mine is a 997.1 C2S so there was no deeper sump option, it was 996 option only. Currently use Mobil One 0W-40 and change it every 5000 miles or after every track day. I do 5-6 track days per year on road tyres, I don't use slicks! To try and prevent loss of oil pressure I always over-fill the oil by 300-400ml before a track day so all the bars are lit on the in-dash oil readout and ensure it never drops below max during the day. I want to try the Millers NT stuff, just need to know which grade 5W-40, 10W-50 or 10W-60?

Millers 5-40...others are a bit to thick. Regards Stefan

anonymous said: [redacted] You would think so but then they are the people responsible for the clearly flawed engines of the last 15 years or so.

Gibbo - I changed my oil to Millers Nanodrive 5W/40 last week and TBH I don't notice any improvement in power/torque, but these small differences are hard to spot when you have circa 550 anyway! The tickover definitely is quieter and I'm happy with this grade as my 911 doesn't get used in the Winter months anyway.

Some claims for nano oil: - less friction - less wear, therefore longer component life - more power (a tiny % though) - less heat because of less friction - better shock resistance the benefits only become fully active after 1 or 2 hours of running as a slip layer or 'tribofilm' needs to be developed before the benefits materialise. F1 use this technology and I think I am right in saying it was one of the factors that gave Brawn the edge in their winning year. Give Millers a ring and they will advise which grade to run ..... I am guessing that they will suggest one grade thicker than your current oil because it is so slippery !! NB Should give good benefits in a gearbox as well because of all losses due to friction. Edited by legaleagleboy on Monday 22 April 16:46

legaleagleboy said: Some claims for nano oil: - less friction - less wear, therefore longer component life - more power (a tiny % though) - less heat because of less friction - better shock resistance the benefits only become fully active after 1 or 2 hours of running as a slip layer or 'tribofilm' needs to be developed before the benefits materialise. F1 use this technology and I think I am right in saying it was one of the factors that gave Brawn the edge in their winning year. Give Millers a ring and they will advise which grade to run ..... I am guessing that they will suggest one grade thicker than your current oil because it is so slippery !! NB Should give good benefits in a gearbox as well because of all losses due to friction. Edited by legaleagleboy on Monday 22 April 16:46 Shall see what Baz recommends, but based on that seems 10W-50 would be best shout, shall see if Baz chimes in, if not shall give them a call.

http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF/longevity_cas...

Gibbo205 said: Baz ... I want to try the Millers NT stuff, just need to know which grade 5W-40, 10W-50 or 10W-60? I would like to hear from you Baz too. Currently CFS 5W-40 NT in the sump. Has been for last ~300km. Street use, no track time. Many thanks in advance, Luxter

Thread running here if it's of any use!? http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

As said manufacturers make recommendation based on new components / fresh engine and the biggest concern is what oil will perform well in all climates and even when a car has been stood for a long period and for that reason they generally go with a 'thin' oil or 0 rated as on a cold start it will get to the top end components quicker than a 'thick' oil preventing dry parts going metal to metal and they factor in for nutters who rev up from cold ! The problem is age / miles a thin oil in an engine with wear struggles to fill the gaps / tolerances 0 is like water when at hot operating temps A thicker oil 10 rating etc has the ability to coat components more protectivley / comfortably more lambswool sweater vs Lycra 0 I know of people who have bought the latest greatest most expensive thin fully synth oil for there 10 year old car thinking they are doing the right thing only to end up with a noisy smoker with leaks that was previously sound on good old thicker semi synth.

Gibbo, could you advise on what guidance you were given by Hartech please? Keen to know if its 5w40 or 10w50 etc... Many thanks

We use it to protect our race engines from bore scoring. Expensive but seems to work and now tangible drop in power.

I've just had a service completed by my indy last week and had Millers Nanotech 5w-40 put in. Edited by Trev450 on Monday 29th July 17:07

Having regrettably got into quite an argument on another forum about this subject it seems that "which oil you use", "how you bring up your children", "politics" and "religion" are subjects people have such different views on - you can never win and should keep out of it if possible. However I don't understand the logic of believing that the company that designed the engines we repair all day long know better than us when ours then do not fail after the modifications we have to carry out and the rebuilds nor that Porsche would not have commercial reasons for recommending certain product suppliers. Their recommended oils didn't stop bore scoring or IMS failures - and neither did they fix the problems by design improvements - but eventually had to rely on a whole new design to get out of trouble. But guys and galls - I don't really care too much which oil you choose to use - I only know that we have a vested interest in using and recommending the very best available to our customers (for reputation and reliability) and that we could never have survived the consequences of the kind of problems that Porsche were big and remote enough to live through - so it is much more important for us to give the very best advice we can or all our livelihoods are at risk. Baz p.s. many thanks for all the supportive comments!!!!

Having always used mobil 1, what used to be called their motorsport grade 15W 50 that is no longer available. What would you recomend Baz. It is a 3.2 Carrera. Whilst picking your brain. Gearbox oil. G50 gearbox with a ZF LSD so I know I need a different grade to the norm because of the diff. The gear change is notchy until the gearbox oil has warmed up. In fact I would go as far to say it is crap for a G50 and the gearbox has been stripped and it is not worn out. Your recomendations would be gratefully received.

hartech said: Gibbo - I am not at work today so will reply later in the week with the right specification we recommend - but our recommendations refer to typical road use and for track use it is important to fit a deeper sump and/or acusump if you corner aggressively - or you may lose oil pressure in long corners. Baz Hi Baz, For a 100k miles 996 3.4, would you put in Millers 10W-50 or Millers 5w-40? Thanks.

I use CFS 10W-50 because Hartech recommend it (and use it themselves in their service plan). Mobil 1 hasn't exactly served 911s well in the last 15 years, has it? My experience is the car definitely starts more quickly and revs a little more freely (plus I get some comfort in knowing it's what Hartech protect their own liability with). Opie Oils sometimes have 20%-off sales of the stuff and that's when I stock up, every year.

Making the switch from Mobil X1 Super 3000 to Millers CFS NT 5W40 at the next service on the 7.2 GT3 and will report back any findings! Not disatisfied with the former, just wanted to try the Millers and see if I can discern any difference!

I've been using Millers Nanotech 5W/40 in my CS for about 3 years now. I don't know if it's any better, but if we are to believe the experts then it has to be doing some good.

monthefish said: hartech said: Gibbo - I am not at work today so will reply later in the week with the right specification we recommend - but our recommendations refer to typical road use and for track use it is important to fit a deeper sump and/or acusump if you corner aggressively - or you may lose oil pressure in long corners. Baz Hi Baz, For a 100k miles 996 3.4, would you put in Millers 10W-50 or Millers 5w-40? Thanks. Just found this on another forum bazhart said: Because the M96/97 model range have open deck cylinders - they gradually migrate oval until they will eventually crack. During this time the piston clearance gradually increases. Furthermore the coolant flow is unbalanced one side of the engine to the other - so this gives rise to different expansion rates and temperatures in different parts of the engine. The piston coating and Cylinder bore material is also unique to this model range. Due to this (and various other factors) Millers recommended the 10/50 oil as the most suitable to cover all potential eventualities. http://www.911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=85575&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20 I know and trust Baz/Hartech and I'm happy to follow this advice.

ScienceTeacher said: Doh! If only Baz had known! 40 years buidling engines and an international reputation as the foremost authority on M96/7 cars and a couple of years working with Millers to determine what works best and he gets it all wrong. I know which oil my 996 will be imbibing, and it's not Mobil 1. Baz is not the foremost authority on M96/7 cars, even he'd admit that. Porsche are the foremost authority, they just don't want to admit/discuss their obvious (financially implicated) flaws. For what it's worth, the team certainly made an engine that's wonderful to use! I've owned a G1 987 3.4, and currently own a G1 997 3.8, both have been utterly wonderful cars whilst in my guardianship. Both 'imbibed/imbibe' respectively, Mobil 1 0W 40, and neither have ever given me any trouble.

hartech said: Having regrettably got into quite an argument on another forum about this subject it seems that "which oil you use", "how you bring up your children", "politics" and "religion" are subjects people have such different views on - you can never win and should keep out of it if possible. However I don't understand the logic of believing that the company that designed the engines we repair all day long know better than us when ours then do not fail after the modifications we have to carry out and the rebuilds nor that Porsche would not have commercial reasons for recommending certain product suppliers. Their recommended oils didn't stop bore scoring or IMS failures - and neither did they fix the problems by design improvements - but eventually had to rely on a whole new design to get out of trouble. But guys and galls - I don't really care too much which oil you choose to use - I only know that we have a vested interest in using and recommending the very best available to our customers (for reputation and reliability) and that we could never have survived the consequences of the kind of problems that Porsche were big and remote enough to live through - so it is much more important for us to give the very best advice we can or all our livelihoods are at risk. Baz p.s. many thanks for all the supportive comments!!!! Baz, did Porsche commission Hartech to design & manufacture the V4 in the 919 Hybrid? As you guys know better than them, added to fact that the 919H won the torturous 24h of Le Mans for two consecutive years, I thought Hartech might have been involved. There's no way idiotic Porsche could've built a car capable of winning LM24 two years in a row. Amazingly, Le Mans was won 7 times in a row back in the 80's! Can't remember the name of the company that achieved this amazing feat of endurance & reliabilty.

Gmund said: ScienceTeacher said: Doh! If only Baz had known! 40 years buidling engines and an international reputation as the foremost authority on M96/7 cars and a couple of years working with Millers to determine what works best and he gets it all wrong. I know which oil my 996 will be imbibing, and it's not Mobil 1. Baz is not the foremost authority on M96/7 cars, even he'd admit that. Porsche are the foremost authority, they just don't want to admit/discuss their obvious (financially implicated) flaws. For what it's worth, the team certainly made an engine that's wonderful to use! I've owned a G1 987 3.4, and currently own a G1 997 3.8, both have been utterly wonderful cars whilst in my guardianship. Both 'imbibed/imbibe' respectively, Mobil 1 0W 40, and neither have ever given me any trouble. That is a very naive post. It's people like you that ruin these types of discussions of the rest of us. It can't be disputed that Baz has a lot of experience with these engines and his posts are helpful to the wider community, but I can see why he gets upset when he posts and then gets this type of response. Porsche designed the M96/7 engines not Baz. The engines have their issues which Porsche weren't clever enough to predict during the design. Porsche will not spend a lot of time 'looking back' because, as an OEM, they are in business to make future cars and it won't be economically viable to commit a lot of resource to looking back at product lines that are no longer in production and, more importantly, no longer within any warranty period. So I would wager Baz would know at least as much as Porsche, and probably more, about the root cause(s) of the engine failures.

Just realised this old chestnut has reared its head again. Despite the sarcasm we do not of course remotely suggest we know more than Porsche nor could have designed or run cars to win the Championships that they did (for which some rather obvious financial differences impact), however manufacturers design and build to a price and a market and try new technology where they believe it will make the product better or their own margins larger. Porsche knew how to make closed deck engines with Nikasil alloy liners (GT3 and Turbo's) - but charged much more for them and tried Lokasil in the less expensive N/A Boxster, Cayman, 996 and 997 examples. They almost got away with it (as most are still reliable and especially with the smaller capacity variants) but suffered greater failure rates than the public (or them I suspect) would have anticipated - so reverted to another previously successful technology for the Gen 2 engines (almost certainly costing them a little more and reducing margins). We simply recognised the weaknesses early on and invested in making our repair system efficient and applied the same technology as Porsche already used in the GT3 and turbo's of a Nikasil alloy liner in a closed deck assembly. Not exactly rocket science just providing a higher quality proven solution and doing it in a flow production system and with new specialised machinery and highly experienced and trained staff. After initially manufacturing our own liners - as quantities increased to over a thousand/year - we also sub-contracted that manufacture to a highly respected F1 supplier with the greatest reputation. But for the money and reorganisation we put into our top quality repairs - our solution may have become too expensive (compared to inferior alternatives) but that early effort has enabled us to supply this to the market at about the same price others charge for discredited and out of date technology resulting in us still expanding and supplying to Worldwide markets (now including North America). So - we do not inflate our own ego's by imagining we are superior to Porsche at all - perhaps we just built the engines to the specification they could have done first time with obvious benefits. Having said that - by way of answering sarcasm - would you over critical posters allow me to be a bit cheeky and big headed and counter that criticism by simply stating a few facts that many years ago now (1) I designed, manufactured and built a three cylinder 350 motorcycle that first time it was ever on a track - Barry Sheene tested at Brands Hatch (breaking the lap record), The 500cc Sparton engine that first time in a race was the fastest at the IOM TT and amongst numerous International wins was 1st and second in the North West 200 (Britains fastest road race) and The 750cc Phoenix 4 engine that won several TT races (and powered David Essex's Silver Dream Racer (and the whole bike) - all achieved without use of a dyno at that time. Then with a dyno to develop the engines - the 350 cc in line twin with the World's first fully carbon fibre chassis that ridden by Nial McKenzie won the British Championship twice and finished 3rd in the World Championship French GP, was responsible for the 250cc Armstrong that won a GP and designed and manufactured various upgrades for Susuki works racers, Nortons, Ducatis, Kawasakis and Hondas. Before you are too sick of me - I also revolutionised the production of the Rolls Royce RB211 fan blade blanks and turned around a number of local aerospace and automotive businesses before starting up Hartech. It will therefore not come as a surprise that despite having no previous motor racing experience - when we entered motor racing in the Porsche Club Championship we didn't buy success by sourcing a winning car but built our own from scratch and had a win at our first ever meeting and despite pulling out two years ago our cars still hold the lap records at all the circuits. Furthermore - to counter suspicion that our engines were illegal I arranged for them to be sealed and at the end of the season - stripped - thoroughly inspected and declared totally standard. All this achieved with a team of 3 or 4 people while earning a living doing something else and with limited funding that in comparison to the likes of those who we beat (most of the Japanese motorcycle industry) and up against motor racing teams with years of experience - is something to be proud of. So - yes not claiming to be anything like as capable or experienced as Porsche - but also not a bunch of amateurs and deserving of more respect than that trotted out above! (Short video @ www.hartech.org demonstrates much of the above). Baz (embarrassed and self conscious at posting this but annoyed at the disrespect posted) - sorry! please forgive this lapse of modesty.

I have been running Millers Nanodrive CFS for 60k (in a diesel Scirocco but it's abused nevertheless). OEM spec oil is 5w30. I changed to 5w40 for better hot wear protection I now run 10w50 and it's fine and oil temps are reduced. As Mr Hartech says the nano particles in the oil basically stop wear and it is a very good oil. If you are concerned about wear when cold just allow the engine 1 or 2 minutes to idle before driving.

I use Motul sport ester 5w 50 in all of my engines and Millers for tramsmission.

xjay1337 said: I have been running Millers Nanodrive CFS for 60k (in a diesel Scirocco but it's abused nevertheless). OEM spec oil is 5w30. I changed to 5w40 for better hot wear protection I now run 10w50 and it's fine and oil temps are reduced. As Mr Hartech says the nano particles in the oil basically stop wear and it is a very good oil. If you are concerned about wear when cold just allow the engine 1 or 2 minutes to idle before driving. How much temp/reduction in viscosity do you think 1-2 mins will make?! Check out the viscosity indices of some of the popular oils and even for the same SAE grade, they can be very different

My German engine builder used to religiously use Mobil 1 as specified by Porsche but now uses Motul 300V in tuned/race engines. In my GT2 built engine I use Motul 300V 15/50, it seems a very sophisticated oil, pours like a 0-40 but has high resistance to dilution and can take high power. Having said the above I put in Millers CFS 10-50 for the winter because I fancied the 10 bit for our arctic winter conditions and the blurb on it seems convincing. I had analysis done on each type at about 4000 miles and you can see they look pretty much the same, the only bit I thought interesting was the kinematic viscosity at 100 deg C Motul quote 17.8 and measured after 4000 miles was 18.68 Millers quote 19.8 and measured after 4000 miles was 16.55 Does this mean that the Motul will stay more stable at high load high temp after 4000 miles than the Millers ? I have no idea and the numbers are pretty close.

fergus said: How much temp/reduction in viscosity do you think 1-2 mins will make?! Check out the viscosity indices of some of the popular oils and even for the same SAE grade, they can be very different Well I have oil temperature gauge and it will happily climb 8-10 degrees at idle in 2 minutes. The main part would be lubricating the engine parts if they are slow to receive oil due to increased weight. Regarding the kinematic viscosity, I can't answer factually but I understand that Millers tries to reduce friction as it gets hotter.

I found that an Interesting post. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post it Baz

hartech said: Just realised this old chestnut has reared its head again. Despite the sarcasm we do not of course remotely suggest we know more than Porsche nor could have designed or run cars to win the Championships that they did (for which some rather obvious financial differences impact), however manufacturers design and build to a price and a market and try new technology where they believe it will make the product better or their own margins larger. Porsche knew how to make closed deck engines with Nikasil alloy liners (GT3 and Turbo's) - but charged much more for them and tried Lokasil in the less expensive N/A Boxster, Cayman, 996 and 997 examples. They almost got away with it (as most are still reliable and especially with the smaller capacity variants) but suffered greater failure rates than the public (or them I suspect) would have anticipated - so reverted to another previously successful technology for the Gen 2 engines (almost certainly costing them a little more and reducing margins). We simply recognised the weaknesses early on and invested in making our repair system efficient and applied the same technology as Porsche already used in the GT3 and turbo's of a Nikasil alloy liner in a closed deck assembly. Not exactly rocket science just providing a higher quality proven solution and doing it in a flow production system and with new specialised machinery and highly experienced and trained staff. After initially manufacturing our own liners - as quantities increased to over a thousand/year - we also sub-contracted that manufacture to a highly respected F1 supplier with the greatest reputation. But for the money and reorganisation we put into our top quality repairs - our solution may have become too expensive (compared to inferior alternatives) but that early effort has enabled us to supply this to the market at about the same price others charge for discredited and out of date technology resulting in us still expanding and supplying to Worldwide markets (now including North America). So - we do not inflate our own ego's by imagining we are superior to Porsche at all - perhaps we just built the engines to the specification they could have done first time with obvious benefits. Having said that - by way of answering sarcasm - would you over critical posters allow me to be a bit cheeky and big headed and counter that criticism by simply stating a few facts that many years ago now (1) I designed, manufactured and built a three cylinder 350 motorcycle that first time it was ever on a track - Barry Sheene tested at Brands Hatch (breaking the lap record), The 500cc Sparton engine that first time in a race was the fastest at the IOM TT and amongst numerous International wins was 1st and second in the North West 200 (Britains fastest road race) and The 750cc Phoenix 4 engine that won several TT races (and powered David Essex's Silver Dream Racer (and the whole bike) - all achieved without use of a dyno at that time. Then with a dyno to develop the engines - the 350 cc in line twin with the World's first fully carbon fibre chassis that ridden by Nial McKenzie won the British Championship twice and finished 3rd in the World Championship French GP, was responsible for the 250cc Armstrong that won a GP and designed and manufactured various upgrades for Susuki works racers, Nortons, Ducatis, Kawasakis and Hondas. Before you are too sick of me - I also revolutionised the production of the Rolls Royce RB211 fan blade blanks and turned around a number of local aerospace and automotive businesses before starting up Hartech. It will therefore not come as a surprise that despite having no previous motor racing experience - when we entered motor racing in the Porsche Club Championship we didn't buy success by sourcing a winning car but built our own from scratch and had a win at our first ever meeting and despite pulling out two years ago our cars still hold the lap records at all the circuits. Furthermore - to counter suspicion that our engines were illegal I arranged for them to be sealed and at the end of the season - stripped - thoroughly inspected and declared totally standard. All this achieved with a team of 3 or 4 people while earning a living doing something else and with limited funding that in comparison to the likes of those who we beat (most of the Japanese motorcycle industry) and up against motor racing teams with years of experience - is something to be proud of. So - yes not claiming to be anything like as capable or experienced as Porsche - but also not a bunch of amateurs and deserving of more respect than that trotted out above! (Short video @ www.hartech.org demonstrates much of the above). Baz (embarrassed and self conscious at posting this but annoyed at the disrespect posted) - sorry! please forgive this lapse of modesty. BOOM!

I admit to not understanding as much about oils as many contributors do. From my limited knowledge - there are two basic types of viscosity measurement taken at different temperatures - dynamic (measuring the resistance to squashing the oil film thickness under pressure) and Kinematic (the speed of flow or sheer resistance) the latter being how we did it at University by measuring the flow rate through an orifice at different temperatures - and I understand this is the most commonly used in comparisons. The Kinematic viscosity of Millers CFS 10W60 racing oil is 24.3 cSt @ 100 deg C and 170.8 cSt @ 40 deg. The Kinematic viscosity of Millers CFS 10W50 racing oil is 19.8 cSt @ 100 deg C and 131.5 cSt @ 40 deg. This clearly shows how the viscosity increases the resistance to flow as the rating is higher. I have found it very difficult to obtain comparative figures for Mobil 1 but if I understand it correctly (which I may not) - you would have to go to a grade of oil viscosity for Mobil 1 of between 150 and 220 to obtain similar performance (I would welcome some confirmation of this or an alternative source of information to get a true comparison). However - all this is in my opinion of little bearing on the problem of bore scoring because it seems to assume that the coolant temperature is the same thing as the temperature of the oil film between the piston and the cylinder bore - which it is not. Piston Crowns run generally at anything up to 300 degrees C and the heat is dissipated down the piston skirts and through the oil film to the cylinder wall and through that to the coolant. At every "interchange" the transferred temperature is less than the source temperature and so the skirt of the piston in contact with the oil film is very much hotter. That temperature is affected by how much power the engine is producing (or if you like throttle opening) and the temperature of the coolant inside the cylinder block next to the outside of the cylinder wall - the cooler that is - the cooler the internal oil film temperature and film strength. Unlike most other traditional Porsche liquid cooled engines (and Gen 2 engines) only about 15% of the coolant passes through the cylinder block and 85% through the cylinder heads - after which it mixes together again. So - even if the temperature gauge read true this would not be the cylinder block coolant temperature because it is reading the mixture of all the coolant after it has been directed through the cylinders (which are hotter and only around 15% of the total) and is mixed back with the coolant from the cylinder heads (85%) and it would be the mixed result of the two different temperatures that the gauge would read and not the temperature of the upper cylinder that we are concerned about. Indeed with such a small proportion of the cylinder block coolant being in the mix any changes in cylinder block temperature would be largely masked by and dominated by the more constant cylinder head coolant temperature. For example if 15% of the coolant (in the block) was at 80 degrees and 85% (in the head) was at 85 degrees the resulting mixed temperature read by the gauge would be 84.25 degrees – but if 15% of the coolant in the cylinder block went up to 110 degrees and the cylinder heads remained at 85 degrees the resultant mix would only be at 88.75 degrees and the temperature gauge would still read the same for both circumstances because it is buffered. So a 30 degree rise in cylinder block temperature would only increase the temperature of the mixed coolant going to the radiators by 4.5 degrees, not be noticed on the temperature gauge and result in a thermostat reacting slowly to the small rise in temperature. As I interpret this it means that if after a spirited run the car has to stop somewhere ticking over (say at traffic lights) the heat soak into the engine would go up but the coolant flow would almost stop (because the coolant pump is running slowly) the air flow through the radiator would stop (because it is stationary), the oil splash into the cylinders (from the crankshaft rotating) and the oil pressure is lower (reducing the oil spray through the oil spray jets into the under side of the piston that cool the piston) - so there would be a very high temperature rise in the area of the piston and cylinder wall increasing the temperature of the oil film there dramatically and reducing the oil viscosity just there by a large margin. The most critical area for good film strength between the piston and the cylinder wall is on the "thrust face" and this is on the underneath of the piston on bank 1 and the top of the piston on bank 2. Now the most efficient cooling is with "contra-flow" (where the coolest coolant hits the hottest components first and heats up as it passes towards the less hot areas). We have this on bank 1 because the coolant enters at the bottom of the cylinder where the thrust face is but the opposite is true on bank 2 where the coolant also enters at the bottom and is therefore hotter when it reaches the thrust side of the piston - on the top. The affect of this is exacerbated when the coolant flow is low (as in a stationary stop). All this means that the temperature of the oil film at the top of the piston on bank 2 will be much hotter than that on bank 1 - the oil will therefore be very much thinner and the film strength and thickness will be much less. Now any particle degradation that releases a particle of silicon from the cylinder wall allows it to sit stuck in between the cylinder wall and the piston and the thickness of the oil film is the only thing that can help prevent it digging into the piston coating and/or cylinder wall. It is also a recorded fact that the size of those particles can be as large as the piston clearance (or more especially in any Lokasil 2 engines which are likely to be the later more powerful engines). A harder piston coating will of course help the piston survive (as was applied to early Boxsters and most 996 3.4 engines except the last ones), whereas engines with softer plastic coated pistons will suffer sooner (as fitted to later Boxster, Cayman, 996 3.6 and 997 Gen 1 engines). The higher the power the greater the squeeze thinning the oil film and the quicker it thins in one power stroke - so bigger engines should suffer more (and they do the 3.8 being the most common to score bores) The pressure forcing the oil film between the piston and the cylinder wall to squeeze thinner still is proportional to the torque (or perhaps throttle opening) - so in this particular engine - we have a scenario in which - if we drive the car too hard immediately after a hot stop (and before the coolant and oil temperatures have had an opportunity to reduce through the increased revs and air flow through the radiators) we will increase the risk of those silicon particles impinging on the piston coating or cylinder wall and instigating bore scoring (hence our advice to avoid it and run without high throttle openings until the system has had a chance to cool down again and increase that oil film thickness through reduced temperatures). Now this is of course true of all engines except this one is almost unique in the fact that the coolant proportions into the cylinder block are so small and the flow allows bank 2 to run hotter on the thrust side than bank 1. We carried out a lot of tests with temperature sensors inside different parts of the cylinder block that substantiated all of these findings but it would have been nice if we could have fitted some sophisticated temperature sensitive measuring device right up against the cylinder wall during our tests that measured by how much those localised temperatures increased in different scenarios (unfortunately beyond our resources). Never the less - if this analysis was true then we would expect engines to fail on bank 2 first and perhaps bank 1 many years an thousands of miles later - and this is exactly what we have found where one or two of those customers who only had one scored cylinder replaced (or perhaps just all three on bank 2) say 5 or 6 years ago - are now experiencing bore scoring on bank 1 (as we predicted they would). Fortunately the vast majority of customers have all 6 replaced now (for which we discount the cost through efficiency benefits in set-up times etc) and so experience no further cylinder problems. Ok you may ask - what has this got to do with oil types makes and viscosities? Well it seems to me that this unusual system that runs the thrust face of one bank so much hotter than the other (or most other engines) in this stop/start scenario would require a thicker (or higher viscosity) oil to be fed to the cylinder wall areas to protect it better. The crankshaft shell bearings are also quite thin in comparison to many other engines of similar power output and show signs of early wear when engines have been used more aggressively than other less aggressive customers (because the rate that oil is squeezed out of the gap between the shells and the crankshaft has a proportionality to load or force) and once again a thicker oil would help to protect them longer. It would therefore be good if it were theoretically possible to send a thicker oil to the crankshaft and cylinders than the rest of the engine - but we cannot. So what is the down side of a compromise of using a thicker oil? Minutely higher fuel consumption? slightly longer to reach operating temperatures before driving fast? slightly more friction drag? and the question is - which is more important - that minute down side or protecting the engine to last longer before it needs a rebuild? Because of this - oils that have a higher viscosity rating seem to me to be a more sensible to use and those with added technical benefits as the temperatures rise (like Millers - although there may well be others) must be a good idea. Thinner oils will reduce that oil film thickness and strength much more under those sudden temperature increases (that we cannot measure or see on the temperature gauge but absolutely do occur inside the engine under stop/start conditions). That's my take on the situation but I would be interested in the contribution of those that specialise in oils and related subjects and how they see my analysis working with different products and in the light of experience and particularly when there is a critical part of an engine that runs much hotter than the rest of it or most other engine types. Baz Edited by hartech on Friday 5th August 12:12

Why quote an entire post to add nothing useful to it? Just adds to the amount of scrolling needed.

I've got a 964 turbo and the engine is very clean and dry, it doesn't burn oil and it has had leakage (all 6-8%) and compression tests (all 135psi). Last few years taken it to OPC where they feed it 0w-40 Mobil 1. Would it be better to use Millers Nano to keep it in good shape?

Lots of praise for Millers, anyone know where they source their additives and base stock. Guess they don't refine or manufacture themselves, so would assume they source from the big boys? Would be interested to know from whom.

Where does Miller EE nanodrive fit in? it has this nanodrive stuff and looks to be Porsche A40 approved but would it be advisable (as seems from the prior hartech post) to use a thicker quality ester based oil (motul sport or non nano Miller CFS) instead over that? Or just go the whole hog and use the nano Miller CFS...?

Love this topic always gets a few strong opinions. Anyway I have a 997 g1 and have asked a fair few people. The question of whether to use millers seems to be more about whether you belive in nanotechnology oil, seems to make sense to me being an x aircraft engineer but each to their own assessment. However there is no question that mobile 1 is still good stuff, it's a very expensive well developed oil, but it's not nanotechnology. I buy into Baz's explanation of bore scoring and thus believe this nanotechnology oil would help, if you don't then don't buy it, if you do then it makes sense. Which nanotechnology oil, if it's millers then which one fully synthetic 5-40, semi 10-40, or 10-50 fully synthetic.... and here I think the general indy advice is handy, they usually put 10-40 semi synthetic in cars with 70+k miles as they say the thinner oils would burn a bit more due to engine wear, I personally use 5-40w fully synthetic but if I had experienced excessive oil use then I would have used 10-40w semi-synthetic. Not really sure where 10-50w synthetic come in but I guess it's just thicker synthetic stuff. Do I notice a difference with millers oil? Well I think it would be very very difficult to notice so I'm it sure but makes me feel happier and it's not that expensive on eBay.

Interesting pic from another thread: anonymous said: [redacted]

Assuming annual servicing, what sort of mileage intervals would you likely have with this oil? 12k? My car had a hartech rebuild in 2013 and I'm looking to use this oil again but it is bloody expensive. Currently has Castrol 5W-40 in it.

How big is your tank or where do you get your oil? The Miller's oil alone is over £100 from everywhere I've been able to find it.

There's just no substitute for fresh oil. Makes huge difference to engine life and durability. Is it just me, or are there times when you can notice the difference from an oil change n a car?

Never have done.

Patrick Bateman said: Never have done. Placebo effect? (More when the experts have done the change than when I've done a DIY 'interim' change.)

I'd expect so for the most part. Willing themselves to notice a change because they've spent money. If there was a difference I doubt it would be large enough for someone to notice.

Patrick Bateman said: I'd expect so for the most part. Willing themselves to notice a change because they've spent money. If there was a difference I doubt it would be large enough for someone to notice. I brought the mower out of winter hibernation yesterday. Cleaned the spark plug, changed the oil - swear that started and revved better after the oil change too!

We appear to be awash with technical information, for which most people in reality, will go right over the top of their heads! I have been fascinated by the discussions concerning oils in this country. My local engineer says to use an oil that is the best for this country and that the first figure should not start with 0. He says 0 is designed for minus 25 and that history suggests that hasn't happened recently in Cambridge for quite a long time. I should stress at this point, that this is his words and not mine. I also have a ww2 jeep, and suggested that perhaps I should move forward to a more complete oil than a mineral oil???? Knowing that I have a porsche, he asked if I had any bore scoring issues, with the jeep, Which I said, no not any problems at all. After some terrible language concerning porsche engines, he retired back into the garage. So, after considering his other comments on Mobil 1 and a great deal that Porsche must have achieved to supply all there customers, I decided to go with Baz and use an 5-40 oil for my 981 till it has reached 70k and then move to a 10-40 for the rest of its life.......?????? The car has just crept passed 17k miles and with annual oil changes I am hoping not to have to contact Baz ever. Thanks Baz.........please let me know if I have to change anything else. Gadgit.

Why the 10W 40 and not the 10W 50?

I assume that 50 would be for extreme sahara desert conditions and so the 40 would be enough????? For this country....... I do have another 50k miles to make the choice Gadgit.

gadgit said: I assume that 50 would be for extreme sahara desert conditions and so the 40 would be enough????? For this country....... I do have another 50k miles to make the choice Gadgit. Was it Hartech you spoke to directly about it? I was coming from the point of view of Hartech requiring 10W50 for their warranty after a rebuild so just curious about the difference.

gadgit said: So, after considering his other comments on Mobil 1 and a great deal that Porsche must have achieved to supply all there customers, I decided to go with Baz and use an 5-40 oil for my 981 till it has reached 70k and then move to a 10-40 for the rest of its life.......?????? Wouldn't you rather increase the high temperature viscosity as you get more mileage than change the low temp viscosity as presumably you really want the higher viscosity oil when the engine is hot?

FWIW I put 5W30 in the mower, I chose this on the basis that I'd ended up with a spare 5l (I guess from a service on my van of Mrs Digga's car).

After reading the Hartech posts there are a few ways to go concerning this oil situation. And remember, no one has the engine thing licked yet! One of the main reasons considered by Hartech was that mobil 1 grade was not the best strart for an engine due to its lack of early lubrication on engine start up. What seemed the ideal way of pumping something so thin through the engine could have been its downfall. I don't remember engines in the 70s and 80s falling apart with 20-50 oil which everybody used to use then it seemed..... So I suppose once my car cracks 70k miles with a modern engine, is 10-50 or 10-40 better for the engine. Is it possible in a mordern engine 2014 flat six cayman, that at high revs, the 50 may just stress the engine a bit to much......, who knows the answer at this stage. Not Porsche...... But probably Baz will no, but possibly not yet.....see what I mean. Gadgit

I ran Comma Motorsport 5W/50 in my Boxster, always drove well & was quiet on startup. This was from around 80K to 95K. Having sold it a while ago & just bought a V8 Cayenne which seem to suffer the same bore issues then it looks like that'll be introduced to the 5W/50 diet as well.

FYI 15% discount for this at Opie Oils just now. Just ordered some and got the car booked in with SP Autobahn in a month.

Happy thread resurrection. I don't suppose Baz is still following this, but based on my own background in this I have the following comments and suggestions; If areas of the engine are getting too hot during critical stages of driving due to not enough cooling throughput through the engine, then surely an oil which works at a higher temperature is surely a very good idea, and I'm frankly surprised people have criticised that. I'm sure Porsche didn't plan on bore score mitigation on brand new cars while approving their list of oils, and surely a 997 only driven in the summer time in a U.K. Climate would benefit from 10w50. The only argument against using a thicker oil could also be lower propagation / flow through the internal oil emitters inside the engine. But this would have resulted in engine failures for all sorts of reasons on Hartech rebuilt cars, and they'd have quietly gone back to recommending 0w40, which clearly hasn't happened. I'd only worry about using that thicker oil if I used a 911 in the winter. The best way for a engine building specialist to gather data would be to send off oil samples - simply sell a complete oil change kit for the 997 complete with a pre paid postage tube of oil sample and you'll be able to even test each used oil sample for grade/viscosity and lokasil/metal content can gather even more data to silence the critics. The aircraft industry has done this for years. With regard to the lack of cooling water flow - wouldn't an additional way to combat the issue be to also not only fit a low temperature thermostat (as is already recommended)but also drill it to allow a bit of extra flow - yes the engine will take perhaps a minute longer to get up to temperature but overall this would perhaps be of benefit. Although expensive, waterless coolant would also help as it would reduce hotspots and make the thermostat open wider due to its lower specific heat capacity compared to water. You'd get higher coolant flow to achieve the same amount of cooling, which is a good thing based on the hartech theory. Also, what about installing an ELectric booster pump such as this one either into the ignition circuit or the circuit for the cooling fan - or indeed, its own thermostat pasted into contact with the most susceptible cylinder with a reasonable action temperature threshold. The pump itself would be very easy indeed to install on the 911. I have seen these used on track cars (albeit not porsches but cars running no engine water pump at all due to retrofitted dry sumps to very good effect) https://www.merlinmotorsport.co.uk/p/davies-craig-...

Was this warmed over because of my recent post? https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17... (I was also wondering about xxw50 oils in winter - but i'll quite happily defer to baz on this one as i've no experience at all in this area whereas his reputation speaks for itself) Edited by MrJingles705 on Sunday 15th October 21:45

Just stuck the latest Millers 10w50NT+ in my 1996 996 with 89K on it this morning - west coast of Scotland, never gets that cold here anyway. You only live once, thought I'd take Hartech's lead! Car usually runs on 5-40W Edge and uses quite a lot of oil when used hard, so I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out. I have no oil leaks, as I've had them all fixed.

Where do you get a lower temp stat from,and what temp does it open at,the porsche gt3 one seems to get very hot before opening.

One immediate thing I've noticed is that I have a much higher oil pressure at low revs.... Edited by nebpor on Wednesday 22 November 17:56

Bumping this up, just had my lowest oil consumption ever - used about a litre in the last 3000 miles! Changing the oil next week (10/50NT again) as it's been a long cold winter and my oil will be half petrol/water by this point ....

nebpor said: One immediate thing I've noticed is that I have a much higher oil pressure at low revs.... Edited by nebpor on Wednesday 22 November 17:56 Yes, I noticed this too. (from memory) When fully warmed, the oil pressure was just below 1 with the old oil but was closer to 2 with the thicker Miller oil. The car also definitely felt better with the new oil. Very subtle, and only something you'd notice if you know your car inside out. Hard to say exactly what it was, but it was more than the placebo effect.

I live in Scotland, that was a cold winter, and the 10/50W was fine. It's not like normal 10/50

I started using Motul 300V 15/50 and Millers 10/50NT in my built 3.9 Mezger motor due to its high power and on advice from my engine builder but we had problems a couple of times with camshaft actuator throwing codes and some misfiring, the actuator was replaced once but in the end we reverted back to Mobil 0-40.the thinking being the the heavier oil is somehow blocking/fouling the actuator. The Motul is a racing oil and those motors (which my engine man builds) do not use the variocam system. That was 6000 miles ago and no problems since..... worth thinking about for variocam owners ?

anonymous said: [redacted] I didn't, Hartech did. TB993 - you're in a whole different kettle of boiling fish

Anyone know if the Millers Nanotech is good for a Cayman Gen.2 3.4 DFI engine ? I do a few track days per year and would like to use the best oil available, any advice or experience welcome.

Just a bump for this thread, need an oil change in my 996 3.4 soon and was thinking 10w50 NT Millers. Still all good reports from everyone using it thus far?

Not heard of any problems at all. High in molybdenum, which I think is a major help.

EGTE said: Not heard of any problems at all. High in molybdenum, which I think is a major help. Good to know, think I will go this route

Yep, I'm still using it - no problems, albeit I'm not sure how wrong oil problems would manifest, except maybe using too much if it's too thin!

Just to contribute to this a bit as I was triple checking which Millers Nanodrive to use just now; It's the one with the yellow stripe down the side of the bottle, not the red, presumably due to some kind of science, it's also the dearer one. Going in my 997.1S 2004 'melt edition' Beers, HH

bumping an old thread sorry... I've always used 10w50 NT+ CFS in my Previous Porsches - 996 3.4 and 987 3.4 Now I've got a DFI car (981 3.4) I'm looking to see what I should be using now. Car has just over 60,000 miles I've seen that the Driven DI4 5w40 seems highly recommended, as it has specific additives to protect against the fuel dilution that these cars can suffer from. I've also seen that Motul 8100 x-cess 5w40 is well regarded..... but doing a google found this thread and others that say continuing to use 10w50 NT+ CFS is Hartech recommended also.... ! Any insight hugely appreciated.

conanius said: bumping an old thread sorry... I've always used 10w50 NT+ CFS in my Previous Porsches - 996 3.4 and 987 3.4 Now I've got a DFI car (981 3.4) I'm looking to see what I should be using now. Car has just over 60,000 miles I've seen that the Driven DI4 5w40 seems highly recommended, as it has specific additives to protect against the fuel dilution that these cars can suffer from. I've also seen that Motul 8100 x-cess 5w40 is well regarded..... but doing a google found this thread and others that say continuing to use 10w50 NT+ CFS is Hartech recommended also.... ! Any insight hugely appreciated. I'd be tempted to give Baz H a quick call and ask if there are any common failure modes on your engine that can be mitigated by lubricant selection. I'm interested to know what his recommended oil (brand /viscosity) is for you application, along with recommended drain interval. I've no direct experience with Driven DI 5W40, I only know of it from a few posts on here, RL and BITOG. They state on their website that it will not meet current API or OEM oil specifications because of high ZDDP, superior base oils, high performance viscosity index improvers (VII). A high quality base oil should not preclude OEM oil approvals and what they omitted to say is that it is very light on detergents. That is often the case with racing oils because high levels of detergent inhibit ultimate wear protection which is of utmost importance in race engines. This is confirmed by a virgin OA posted last year on BITOG - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/driven-d... Lower detergent level is not necessarily an issue, and just means that the oil is not suitable for extended drain intervals - another reason for the lack of OEM approvals. So, if you're a low mileage user and happy to change every 5-6,000 miles guesstimate, then the Driven could work for you, but it's an American boutique oil and expensive to buy here. I don't doubt it's a good oil, but I have seen some marketing spin and inaccurate statements on some of the presentations. I would have thought Millers would have something compatible and more readily available. The Motul 8100 xx... range is generally regarded as high quality, comes with multiple manufacturer approvals, including Porsche A40, and will not have the mileage restrictions of a racing oil, although most indys will recommend shorter drain intervals that OEM permitted. I have been impressed by the response to technical queries from Rock Oil and have run their oils in my (now sold) R8. They have a Carbon range, I believe similar in concept to the Millers CFS, and comes in a range of viscosities, including 0W-40 and 10W-50. The focus of the carbon range is on wear prevention and low friction, at the expense of lower detergent levels and shorter drain intervals. https://rockoil.co.uk/products/?_product_type_filt...

I believe Porsche Classic now recommends 5w50. Rockster said: Sure there are disadvantages. Ignoring that it is the wrong oil for the engine (no Porsche approved oil is a 10w-xx oil) the higher W number means the oil flows less readily during a cold start. The risk? Bore scoring! If the bearings don't gall up first. Or the zero-lash lifters suffer from lack of oil flow when the engine fires up. Or the VarioCam Plus hardware suffers from improper lubrication or the viscosity differences result in added wear and tear to the VarioCam hardware. Or this oil's splash/sling characteristics are different from that of approved oils and the splash lubed camshaft lobes and lifter bucket faces receive insufficient oil at start up or at other times. The oil is very likely to result in a drop (it may be too small to notice) in fuel economy. A heaver oil results in more friction and this takes power to overcome. Also, more friction means more heat. There is the possibility the thicker/heavier oil could suffer from high temp/high pressure break down as it overheats in the tiny clearances that are the rod/main bearings.

Nuttcase said: Brilliant post Thanks, that is super helpful. I assume Baz H = Hartech Chap? I'm very happy to do 6 or 12 month oil changes. A few hundred quid on oil is nothing compared to a rebuild cost.

conanius said: Thanks, that is super helpful. I assume Baz H = Hartech Chap? I'm very happy to do 6 or 12 month oil changes. A few hundred quid on oil is nothing compared to a rebuild cost. yes Baz Hart, I think he's up Bolton way

Nuttcase said: yes Baz Hart, I think he's up Bolton way Perfect, have emailed them, will share the response.

I use Miller CFS 10W50 NT+ in my 997.2 Carrera DFI engine and Hartech were supportive of this choice Speaking to Millers and some of the information available on oils does show that the reason a race oil is a race oil is more about improving the high stress high shear situations and less about how to manage containing carbon within the oil, dealing with condensation, petrol dilution and repeated use cycles. So changing every 12m or 3-4k miles means you are not usually trading very much of the necessary real world challenges of high mileage oil changes but ensuring the more important shear protection is favoured. My car runs better on Millers 10/50 than Mobil 1 0/40. it's quieter on ticker when hot, seems sweeter when revved and actually cleaner and more eager to rev when driving.

Response recieved from Hartech ======== I’m a fan of the Millers you mention but haven’t done comparative testing. Regards. Grant ======= That’ll do me along with the other helpful replies here.