+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: Nanopro MT oil stabilizer

  1. #1
    http://www.trackhq.com/Banners/yellowsitesponsor.gif emilio700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,577
    Liked
    2329 times

    Default Nanopro MT oil stabilizer

    I just learned about this stuff from pro driver Billy Johnson. Mentioned in this thread: Ford GT350R thread
    Based on the info on their website, I bought a case. To my, non-scientist brain, the tech appears legit. It is essentially an engine oil treatment like most others, coating engine surface to reduce friction. The key, and significant difference, is that it works on a nano scale. Smaller than the grains of metal it is interacting with so
    so it forms a finer surface than typical engine coatings. This difference should, in theory, allow the two mating surfaces to transfer heat better.

    Nanopro also offers the tech in axle grease, spray lube and a few other forms. I could only find it locally at Autozone so I swung by this morning.

    In the coming months, I'll be able to collect some data and share.

    NanoProMT - Advanced, Nanotechnology Lubricants

    bawareca, joshee, deng and 1 others like this.
    WWW.949RACING.COM
    SuperMiata

    Aside from their cost I never understood why people race them.
    But obviously I just dont get it. -fatbillybob

  2. #2
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,763
    Liked
    515 times

    Default

    Most products out there are snake oils. Especially "Nano" Products.

    I've known the owner of the company since he started the technology 8 years ago. The tech originated in the Argonne National Labs and was refined and developed and then used in my racecars as a test bed for years. I've won a lot of races using it and over the years, Nascar Cup teams used it then it took years more for it to be tested and used in $50 million army aircraft. It's the real deal. No other company has successfully suspended nano particles in oil or water for it to actually do it's job and work. Reduced friction is only half they key, more importantly is the greatly increased heat transfer ability of the oil and coolant.

    Recently they took this tech and are selling it in retail outlets like Lowe's and AutoZone. Unfortunately they are a tiny company and their marketing sucks but they are turning that around. Their stuff works. From the greases (for axles and wheel bearings) to their Penetrating Oil destroys PB Blaster, Kroil, etc... To free up rusted and frozen bolts, as well as preventing metal from rusting. I gave some cans to my friends shop and he now won't use anything else. And it also works as an amazing CLP for guns. The Dry Lube is amazing in key locks, door hinges, and anywhere you'd use WD40 (who are very nervous about NanoPro taking off).. The Dry Lube also works great in trigger assemblies -to blow out all of the carbon and crap without leaving a residue that attracts dirt buildup. It also makes it feel like you gave your gun a trigger job, smoothening out the trigger pull..

    It's not a paid advertisement but rather I'm blown away that this secret high level technology is now available to the public and I can talk about it, after keeping it a secret and racing with it for years. Go try one product and tell me if it doesnt work, and if you're as impressed as I am, you'll be trying out all their products.


    NanoProMT's nano particles are 4 nanometers in diameter and it takes 20,000 of them stacked end to end to equal the width of a human hair.

    The technology is revolutionary and not only does it fill in the microscopic surface imperfections, penetrate the metal, and act like ball bearings to reduce friction, more importantly it improves heat transfer. There's a lot of quality base stock oils with good additives (which are MUCH larger than nano particles) but often reducing friction isn't the main problem, it's localized hot spots and running hot that reduces efficiency, robs power, and kills engines.

    Oil and Water are insulators and don't transfer heat all that well. NanoPro's nano particles are highly conductive and suck the heat out of the engine through "Mechanical Heat Transfer" (nano particles touching each other to transfer heat into the free stream of fluid) and then transfer heat through the cooler more effectively. This is the key to the product.


    Their Oil Stabilizer and Nano Cool coolant additive are amazing, and so is their Aerosols: Dry Lube and Penetrating Oil.
    Last edited by Stuntman; 08-17-2017 at 07:13 PM.

  3. #3
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,056
    Liked
    2138 times

    Default

    Thanks Billy and Emilio for starting this topic.

    Billy, do you have test data you guys have recorded using Nano MT Pro and without? I figure I have some good data recorded from my last couple of races/practice days. I will buy some Nano and do some same day testing and match that up with prior data as well.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  4. #4
    Old timer craZee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    El Cajon
    Posts
    640
    Liked
    432 times

    Default

    Here is all the data you need

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAFx0_-FvXo
    Olitho likes this.

  5. #5
    http://www.trackhq.com/Banners/yellowsitesponsor.gif
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    521
    Liked
    343 times

    Default

    Nano products are available at Autozone per the Nano website. Didn't find the oil additive but I found the gear oil. Amazingly cheap at 5.00 qt:

    Best Gear Oil Parts for Cars, Trucks & SUVs

    Correction - found the oil stabilizer:

    NanoProMT Oil stabilizer NDT32OS - Read 2 Reviews on NanoProMT #NDT32OS

    Mark
    AiM Data and Video systems, Suspension Setup, Race car builds, support, and rentals. At your beck and call.

    Mark Nichols
    Iron Canyon Motorsports
    http://www.ironcanyonmotorsports.com

  6. #6
    Senior Member bellwilliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    La Verne, California, United States
    Posts
    7,597
    Liked
    2246 times

    Default

    don't forget that Autozone is always 20% off($100 min) if you buy online....
    Supermiata S1, SuperMiata S2, Supermiata S3
    13 Tesla, ma: no engine !!
    17 GT350 !!
    08 M3 - Carmax warranty !!
    96 NSX
    06 EVO MR
    15 Mini Cooper S

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    84
    Liked
    45 times

    Default

    Placebos have their purpose in the world.

  8. #8
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,763
    Liked
    515 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CoolTech View Post
    Placebos have their purpose in the world.
    They do, an entire industry and most of the products out there are.

    NanoProMT is used (and providing significant benefits) in $50 million army aircraft, AMRDEC, and Boeing *Phantom Works. Those other companies aren't.
    Last edited by Stuntman; 08-01-2017 at 02:27 PM.
    bellwilliam likes this.

  9. #9
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,056
    Liked
    2138 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CoolTech View Post
    Placebos have their purpose in the world.
    Do you have tests concluding it does not work as claimed?

    Does Billy have logged data proving the performance gains?

    The next step is for some credible back-to-back testing with actual numbers. I will wait until then to praise or disparage.

    Billy, if you have recorded data please post it up. It will do wonders for integrity of the claims.
    bellwilliam likes this.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    84
    Liked
    45 times

    Default

    NanoProMT is used (and providing significant benefits) in $50 million army aircraft, AMRDEC, and Boeing Skunk Works. Those other companies aren't.
    Sure it is! "I read it on the internet, therefore it is true!!" BTW, Skunk works is pseudonym for Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Programs (ADP) - nothing to do with Boeing. Perhaps you meant Boeing Phantom Works.

    Where's the objective test data? Show me the data!

    Here's an example of the hugely scientific testing methodology.... only that the stuff was a complete fail.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBmmDZMrCw&t=7s

  11. #11
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,763
    Liked
    515 times

    Default

    In my racecars and during highly instrumented tests (as well as isolated lab tests) there's about a 7-10* drop water temps from the nanocool and oil for the oil stabilizer.

    There's so many variables in testing out in the field, especially cars that are sitting in the thermostat. I can pull up logged files but what's to say I didn't use different laps? Hell, I can use an out lap with water temps at 150* and then one half an hour into a session at 220* and then show (deceitful and flawed data) of a 70* difference.

    Skeptics and pessimists will remain that way. If you really need improved cooling and have the method and testing procedure to see a difference, you will see one. Don't believe me, try it. I'm not trying to sell anyone on anything. I don't benefit from it. I'm just sharing my insight, background, and experience with a revolutionary new product that I had to keep a secret for years, and now it's available to the public.

    I've used the stuff from the aerosols to oil for years, recently have been demonstrating it to friends on person and they all love the stuff. Try it for yourself and tell me it doesn't work, or don't. Doesn't bother me either way because it works and speaks for itself and doesn't need defending.

  12. #12
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,763
    Liked
    515 times

    Default

    You probably won't see a 10* drop if you throw the nanocool in your primarily coolant-based street car. Straight water cools better than coolant, and improving the surface tension with water wetter helps a little over straight water. Likewise, nanocool improved the heat transfer of the water and that's where you'll see the biggest drop in temp.

    However I run nanocool in my stock Mustang with the factory coolant and on track it subjectively seems like the cylinder head temps cool down faster on a cool down lap than before. I haven't logged and measured the difference or rate, but it did stick out when I wasn't even looking for that benefit.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    84
    Liked
    45 times

    Default

    The next step is for some credible back-to-back testing with actual numbers. I will wait until then to praise or disparage.
    I did some poking around to see if any of the claims could be substantiated. Looks like a graduate student form South Carolina did some research on the Nanopro claims using data collected from a UH-60 aux power unit. I couldn't find the full paper anywhere - only the teaser introduction but then you have to purchase the rest of the paper. I can only surmise that if the results were truly glowing, that nanopro would have every incentive in the world to see these results more broadly publicized. Instead, what we have is some carefully chosen marketing hype that in reality only vaguely refers back to the testing itself but far short of the results. There is absolutely no indication that I was able to find to imply/infer that this or similar products were actually in-use in ANY military aircraft. The hypothesis of the graduate paper was that if the claims (improved economy, less wear, reduced heat) were even remotely true, then the US Military could save literally 10's of millions of dollars annually. Hence the interest. But, as I said, there is no (in my limited snooping around) indication that the test results were positive and that the military is, in fact using the product. So, I guess one could subscribe to either one of two theories. First, maybe the tests were overwhelmingly successful but the military considers it a competitive advantage and both they and Nanopro have agreed to remain mum on the topic. Either that or maybe the test results were less than stellar which led to no adoption by the military. Everyone is free to make their own conclusions.

  14. #14
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,056
    Liked
    2138 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CoolTech View Post
    I did some poking around to see if any of the claims could be substantiated. Looks like a graduate student form South Carolina did some research on the Nanopro claims using data collected from a UH-60 aux power unit. I couldn't find the full paper anywhere - only the teaser introduction but then you have to purchase the rest of the paper. I can only surmise that if the results were truly glowing, that nanopro would have every incentive in the world to see these results more broadly publicized. Instead, what we have is some carefully chosen marketing hype that in reality only vaguely refers back to the testing itself but far short of the results. There is absolutely no indication that I was able to find to imply/infer that this or similar products were actually in-use in ANY military aircraft. The hypothesis of the graduate paper was that if the claims (improved economy, less wear, reduced heat) were even remotely true, then the US Military could save literally 10's of millions of dollars annually. Hence the interest. But, as I said, there is no (in my limited snooping around) indication that the test results were positive and that the military is, in fact using the product. So, I guess one could subscribe to either one of two theories. First, maybe the tests were overwhelmingly successful but the military considers it a competitive advantage and both they and Nanopro have agreed to remain mum on the topic. Either that or maybe the test results were less than stellar which led to no adoption by the military. Everyone is free to make their own conclusions.
    You are quite correct, but modern oils are in fact full of additives that make them better for various purposes. The trick is distinguishing which ones are right for our uses and which ones are not.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  15. #15
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,763
    Liked
    515 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CoolTech View Post
    Sure it is! "I read it on the internet, therefore it is true!!" BTW, Skunk works is pseudonym for Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Programs (ADP) - nothing to do with Boeing. Perhaps you meant Boeing Phantom Works.

    Where's the objective test data? Show me the data!

    Here's an example of the hugely scientific testing methodology.... only that the stuff was a complete fail.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBmmDZMrCw&t=7s
    Yes Boeing Phantom Works, my bad and I should know better because my uncle works for Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works.

    The US Army owns the test data and don't freely publish findings for the benefit of the community.

    Herrick Industrial used a pathetic and arbitrary and narrowly focused Timken Load Test to slam other products. That test is pretty useless because you pour the lubricant on basically a grinding wheel as it grinds away at a metal test section (they call a 'bearing'). This test rewards thick and sticky oils (like Lucas' oil stabilizer) since it keeps the oil stuck to the metal grinding wheel. Thin oils or those that aren't sticky will fail quickly to this test since it is a function of the load capacity of the base oil and it's irrelevant because under those (don't forget low RPM, ambient) conditions, additives in general aren't going to do much for that test.

    The success of that test relies on a VERY THICK and high quality base oil, which is probably the only thing that Herrick's TVT is good at -holding up to that arbitrary test . NanoPro's oil stabilizer does not use a very thick base oil because there are a lot of problems running overly thick oils in performance engine applications from reduced flow, reduced heat transfer, pumping losses, etc... Nascar cup teams use 0 to 20 weight oils for this reason -and they would quickly fail that Timken test.


    On another note, the "4-ball" wear test is also another arbitrary and useless test to measure the performance of an oil. But since both the 4-ball and Herrick's test are easy to do, it's an easy way to quantify a useless aspect of an oil and get an instant result. The true test of the performance of an engine lubricant requires A LOT more complex, time consuming, and expensive tests. Companies that focus on such arbitrary wear tests are the exact same people you're criticizing for selling snake oil and marketing BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoolTech View Post
    I did some poking around to see if any of the claims could be substantiated. Looks like a graduate student form South Carolina did some research on the Nanopro claims using data collected from a UH-60 aux power unit. I couldn't find the full paper anywhere - only the teaser introduction but then you have to purchase the rest of the paper. I can only surmise that if the results were truly glowing, that nanopro would have every incentive in the world to see these results more broadly publicized. Instead, what we have is some carefully chosen marketing hype that in reality only vaguely refers back to the testing itself but far short of the results. There is absolutely no indication that I was able to find to imply/infer that this or similar products were actually in-use in ANY military aircraft. The hypothesis of the graduate paper was that if the claims (improved economy, less wear, reduced heat) were even remotely true, then the US Military could save literally 10's of millions of dollars annually. Hence the interest. But, as I said, there is no (in my limited snooping around) indication that the test results were positive and that the military is, in fact using the product. So, I guess one could subscribe to either one of two theories. First, maybe the tests were overwhelmingly successful but the military considers it a competitive advantage and both they and Nanopro have agreed to remain mum on the topic. Either that or maybe the test results were less than stellar which led to no adoption by the military. Everyone is free to make their own conclusions.
    According to a RAM (Reliability, Availability and Maintainablility) Team Lead for the Apache at the Redstone Arsenal, that APU (aux power unit) showed a 30% reduction in vibration, 10-12*F drop in bearing temps and a 3% decrease in fuel consumption.

    NanoPro is used in the rotor heads on Apaches, BlackHawks, and many other aircraft for the army and Boeing's Phantom Works. You seem to be the type of skeptic that will never believe, nor will ever test it, but again, i've been involved with testing these products for years and its' the real deal. You can't even get the opportunity to test a product on a $50 million aircraft without extensive testing in the lab and on other platforms without overwhelmingly positive results.

    It's easy to be a skeptic and look at easy to perform (but flawwed) tests to quantify the performance of an oil or additive. In reality, it's far more complex than that...


    0.02
    Last edited by Stuntman; 08-01-2017 at 03:23 PM.
    Olitho and bawareca like this.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    84
    Liked
    45 times

    Default

    NanoPro is used in the rotor heads on Apaches, BlackHawks, and many other aircraft for the army and Boeing's Phantom Works.
    You keep making these wild-ass unsubstantiated claims. The basis of a lot of your argument seems to be that if it is good enough for the military, then it is good enough for me. Yet, you offer NOTHING of substance to back up your usage claims. My friend's sister's cousin, brother's nephew, told me that the military uses this to lubricate the squeaky hings of the bathroom stall doors. So there, now we have another completely unsubstantiated statement.

    Much to Ford's dismay, there have been several blown GT350 motors. The good news is that Ford has been quite proactive in addressing these under warranty. God forbid someone has the huevos to pour this crap into a GT350 engine and then has a 1/1000 failure. Think Ford would be super-willing to warranty the motor.

    I'm glad that your subjective testing has convinced you of the merits of this product. If it was 10% as good as the marketing claims they make, I trust that there would be a whole library of independent test results available (what better than to substantiate there case?) - yet there is virtually nothing.

    Lastly, you claim to be so neutral and unbiased - yet not too long ago you were over on the FordGT Forum as an extreme advocate of the exact product. Somehow I doubt your neutrality.
    Olitho and dc2696 like this.

  17. #17
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,763
    Liked
    515 times

    Default

    And people like you are the reason I don't post on forums. I can't be unbiased and praise a Camaro or criticize it because I drive for Ford, similarly I can't praise a Ford product without being biased.

    I don't need to justify to you what I do or my background and credibility, or even prove that I work with that RAM lead and have been to the Redstone Arsenal and have worked with these guys first hand, and won races with their products.. Hell, given your ananonomity, it wouldn't surprise me if you work for Herrick, or a pusher of their products. If someone had an honest question, I'd be willing I answer, but I don't have time to argue with useless people who don't have anything better to do than argue and prove how smart they are on the internet.
    Last edited by Stuntman; 08-01-2017 at 03:59 PM.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    84
    Liked
    45 times

    Default

    and have worked with these guys first hand, and won races with their products..
    OK, well, at least that is out in the open. I too love and respect sponsors and would want to do everything I could to support their products to the best of my ability (I say this sincerely). And, for the record, I make no attacks on you - only to ask that you provide some foundation for your claims. No doubt much of what you are saying here has likely been told to you but I am sorry that that in itself doesn't make it true.

    I don't try to be anonymous here. I have 35 years working as an aerospace engineer as a profession and supporting my son's fledgling amateur car racing career. The last couple of years of my aerospace career I have been consulting with companies on the governments Future Vertical Lift (FVL) and the pre-cursor Joint, Multi-role Techniocal Demonstrator (JMR-TD). As you may know, the intent of this speculated $100B program is to replace all of the US military's vertical lift aircraft. Consequently, I spend a LOT of time with Sikorsky/Boeing on the SB>1 Defiant program and with Bell/LM on the V280 Valor. And yes, I have some good friends at the Redstone Aresenal and am equally familiar with a lot of the on-going research projects at the University of Alabama Huntsville. I also regularly attend the American Helicopter Society's annual conference and will read quite a few of the research papers as they pertain to my line of business.

    As a result, the more you have been referencing rotorcraft and usage in Apache & Blackhawks - the closer you are to my professional wheelhouse. And, as close as I might be to these folks, I CANNOT say that what you claim is not true - I can only ask you what data you have to substantiate you claims. My fear is that it is what you have been told - but that doesn't make it true. But even if everything you were told WAS true - and this was a product providing the benefits you cited in rotocraft components, it is not necessarily germane to its use in an automotive internal combustion engine. In these cars - the oils have a very complex balance of additives and the OEMs do a whole boatload of testing to get it right. What you see increasingly in the automotive world - and not the least of which is Ford, is very specific standards that must be adhered to. Grab an additive from Autozone and dump it in - how would you expect the OEM to respond? Sure, go ahead? Using/testing/finding needed differentiation in a racing engine is an entirely different story. Knock yourself out. But advocating these kinds "unsubstantiated" products to a production car with a warranty and hoping for the best is IMO, irresponsible.
    Olitho likes this.

  19. #19
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,763
    Liked
    515 times

    Default

    You claim to be an aerospace engineer but use a Timken test as a "scientific" (and relevant) test for an automotive oil?

    I've tested experimental versions of those products in my racecars before they made it into aircraft. It was a secret at the time, NanoPro wasn't a retail company and they didn't have any commercial products until just this past year or two, many years after I was racing with it, so No, it was not a "sponsorship" or had to promote or make them happy. NanoPro has never been on a racecar of mine until Daytona of this year.. As you said different oils and greases in different applications need different characteristics and needs. And NanoPros oil stabilizer is optimized for the use in automotive engines. Plus they are working with major oil suppliers as well as Ford, so it's hardly irresponsible to recommend a product that actually works.

    Hell, I had a buddy just try out their Penetrating Oil on a 6,000hp 24cyl natural gas marine ship with 4yrs and 16,000hrs on it today, and he was blown away how well the penetrating oil removed the bolts without galling and ruining them like they always do. Seriously, go try it yourself and tell me it doesn't work.
    Last edited by Stuntman; 08-01-2017 at 04:59 PM.
    Olitho likes this.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    84
    Liked
    45 times

    Default

    Stuntman, truce! I think you are a very accomplished driver and most likely a great person whom I likely have more in common with than in difference. I don't want to argue/debate with you. If I have offended you in any way, please accept my most sincere apologies.

    Note: My reference to the Timken test was intended to be sarcastic reference to a "scientific" test.

    Let's move on. I'm glad these product have returned value to you. Myself, I might try some things but would stop short of pouring something into my engine without more data. As others have said, lots of mature people here and each can make their own decisions.

    I hope I have not dampened your enthusiasm to post as I think you have a lot to offer given your accomplishments.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts