Anyone read this yet?

Can't remember exact figures but from just changing they got huge gains in torque

Anyone else tried it?

Just seems ott to me as its just an oil change

If its that good i will be changing oil pronto

 

Seems like more fuel/oil additive BS to me, Seen an advert that claims nano engine oil gives more traction
really ? lol

 

Im sure it was something like 20bhp more.

 

yeah it was a chunk

its just oil tho can it make THAT much difference

 

It can't do, overfilling with oil, for example can cause drag and loose you, say, a few HP (at the most I would expect) but nothing to that extent.

If they were true, then we have all had our pants pulled down by tuner's etc, when all along all we needed to do was use different oil lol.

Martin

 

They did the tests on a focus st and ff sister mag totaly shit vauchall did a test on a astra and they both had similar results.

 

Are the oil company a paying advertiser in the mag?

Just wondering lol.

 

It clings to the surface to smooth out any rough edges. Which gives loads of power and torque. Apparently.
The read up sounds convincing though.

 

I personally did the test and I went there properly expecting it to make no difference whatsoever. To be completely honest I was pissed about having to 'waste my day' for a test I thought pointless.

I was utterly amazed to see how it performed. We ran both a Focus ST and an Astra VXR on the day and both saw significant gains.

Yes, Millers paid for the test as it was sold as an 'Advertorial' but we drew up a contract where we stated that we would print the results even if they demonstrated the oil made no difference at all. Millers were happy with that as they were confident in their product. The test was conducted honestly and fairly, and the fact that it was paid for made no difference to the results whatsoever.

If I had to find fault with the test it's that I'd ideally have liked to have run the cars again, but on some other 'performance oil', as we tested it against Halfords Oil as a control, and a different brand of oil 'may' have also performed well.

 

Dan which month mag was this feature in?

 

Was the rr a millers dealer?

 

Its this months, still on sale (I think)

 

Found the article, very interesting indeed!

Ive got to say, for the gains achieved, Im surprised it wasnt made more clear in the magazine.

 

44ft/lb's and 23bhp wasen't it?

Been too busy reading the caliper guide and convincing myself I need to buy some MK3 Mondie calipers just to have ago at refurbishing them

 

Having a read about it seems Millers are happy for pretty much any tuner who owns a dyno to have a crack at it. Seems they confidence in the product!

 

Nope, they were specifically chosen for that reason. But after the test they wanted to be one!!!!

I knew when the results came through that people would claim it was faked - but hand on heart it was done completely fairly and the results on those cars, on that day were genuine.

 

What about protection?

Just as important as performance as I don't want my turbo and engine to turn to swarf after a few years.

 

So can i claim 702ft-lb if i stick that stuff in . Its not that you say it Dan you have to sell mags, but to believe it COME ON!!!

 

It was a one page feature! Do you not think that if we wanted to sell mags off the back of a wonder oil we'd have made a song and dance about it?

It's not going to give every car the same increase obviously, and just because you don't believe it it doesn't mean it's not true.

Look at their website at other independant tests before accusing me of being a liar.

 

The only real way it can work is to reduce the friction of the engine, compared to the first oil. I've done extensive testing on this and FC benefits for different oils. I can assure you if this is correct Millers would not have any left!

 

they tested it on 2 cars and got resluts

what you need to do is arrange a day at the rollers with everyone changing the oil in all their cars to see how it affects a whole load of different cars across the range

from my understanding of the test, it's a bit like the next level of magnatec or water wetter or those sorts of things

the water wetter worked on my car but seeing as it had such a small publicity budget it was never going to take off like castrols stuff

on the other hand, could this be the next 10k boost?

 

If the oil wasnt so dear i would buy some of it.

 

It clearly did reduce the friction compared to the first oil.

We're not the only people who have seen gains... http://www.millersoils.co.uk/nanodrive.asp

I knew it would be viewed with sceptical eyes, which is why I made sure the test was as fair as possible. Fresh oil, fresh filters, impartial dyno. As I said I I wish we'd have been able to test it against other oils, and maybe with hindsight we should have tested it against Millers normal oil, so we would be testing the actual 'Nanodrive' bit.

Millers asked us to perform the test, I said I would as long as they paid for it. I assumed it was just 'snake oil' and didn't want to waste time and money testing it. So they paid for the dyno, and the photographer, and some money on top to get 'reprints' of the test if the product worked.

There was no funny business, no lying, no tricks. Choose to believe it or not I don't really care - what I do care about is people thinking that a) I'm a liar, and b) that we'd make up test results for financial gain.

 

I use the gear oil in mine and have done for a while, its very good.

 

 

My only criticisms / things I have done differently would be:

1) not run it on a dyno paid for by millers
2) not had millers pay me to run the advertorial / feature

Like it or not, fact is people will construe the above could potentially skew the validity of the test / results. Not saying it has, but to eradicate the risk of the above and ensure the credibility of the mag I would have foregone the payment from millers and conducted tests on my own terms. Would the results have been different? Who knows, but it would have exonerated the mag from any perception of skulduggery by its readership.

Ben

 

Technically they didn't pay for the dyno, they exchanged their time in return for coverage so that's point 1 taken care of.

Point 2 - they paid for the advertorial, but not for the results.

There have been a number of instances where non-advertisers have come out better in tests than advertisers. It doesn't matter to me who wins, as long as I can stand by the results and conduct them in a fair and honest manner.

There's been several instances where existing advertisers have been pissed off with test results and even an instance where a long term advertiser (worth a LOT of money to Future) threatened to pull ALL their advertising from every Future magazine if we went ahead and printed the results of our test. We did, and they pulled their advertising.

It may have been the done thing at Unity, but the day i'm asked to fake test results for commercial gain is the day i walk out of the door.

No, the results would have been exactly the same.

 

Actually reeeeaaaaad and take in the below Dan - you have missed my (unarguably valid) point:

"Like it or not, fact is people will construe the above could potentially skew the validity of the test / results...
...it would have exonerated the mag from any perception of skulduggery by its readership."

Glad to see that you stick by your morals when testing, makes this part of my post even more relevant (ie. you should have stuck to your moral guns rather than accepting the money):

"I would have foregone the payment from millers and conducted tests on my own terms."

Do I think that FF has sold out? No... do I think this advertorial and testing was approached with naievity? Yes!

Ben

PS - You initially said that Millers paid for the dyno time, now you say they didn't... which is it?

 

but that's why people are having a pop dan, because they believe that the financial gain by printing those resluts is the same as the politicians were doing, for money in your pocket

and you can type till your fingers bleed and those who will want to believe that won't be swayed

perhaps if there was another test from another mag that wasn't in the future branded arena we could have at least 2 sets of totally independent resluts for everyone to see?

 

Edited a big reply to Ben due to it being pointless.

 

Jesus. This has gone a bit wonky

It was not intended as a whitch hunt

Just generally interested in any other info on as it just seems weird you get all that from just an oil change

 

But there ARE other tests Dojj.

http://www.millersoils.co.uk/nanodrive.asp

 

Never saw your post as a witch hunt mate!

 

I wasn't having a dig at all Dan, sorry if it came across that way. I am just very sceptical of it!

 

No worries mate, I didn't take it as a dig. I was as sceptical as anyone - ive seen more than my fair share of bogus claims over the years. In some way it would have been better if it had made less. People would have happily believed a 5 or even 10 bhp increase!

 

i spotted the link dan, and the link shows that you can see up to a 5% increase, which is fairly outstanding when you think about it, but the ff test has blown that increase out of the water, which is where the story gets a little bit beyond the realms of what is easily acceptable

i don't think i am in any way qualified to make proper factual comments on why the power has gone up so much, but perhaps it's simply a case that the engines aren't built to the same tolerances as the race engines in the link, hence the huge increase in power...?

 

Many will believe the university tests, but some maybe sceptical about results from the other two (one a porsche privateer racer - these guys always need sponsorship / partners) and have just noticed the Porsche test was by eb Motorsport a millers main distributor!! , and the other (an mr2 tuner - millers sponsoring the mr2 championship)... For avoidance of doubt "some" does not read "me"... I'm on the fence. Just maybe the example tests given to back up your findings may not be construed by some as the most unbiased tests / conclusive proof!

Ben

 

Give me some of the oil and i will test it in my saff.

 

I belive the results.
What I don't understand is if it reduced friction that much why isn't it being advertised as an ECO oil, surley it would make a significant reduction in fuel economy too!

 

http://performanceracingoils.com/PDF...w_Friction.pdf

I posted about this subject on MLR, seems a few people are going to be trying it out privately so I await the results which I shall copy and paste to here