RX-8 Reliability - Engine Data Survey
08-05-2010, 03:29 PM
#76
Nice!
Hey Riwwp.
The engine failure section you may want to rework.
I would put Apex seal damaged/destroyed
Side seal damaged/destroyed both Under the compression failure category.
for example I had low compression and it was from side seals failure, and possible apex seal wearing. Or you could make it so we can select multiple failures.
It will help to narrow down causes.
Just a thought! back to the survey!
Hey Riwwp.
The engine failure section you may want to rework.
I would put Apex seal damaged/destroyed
Side seal damaged/destroyed both Under the compression failure category.
for example I had low compression and it was from side seals failure, and possible apex seal wearing. Or you could make it so we can select multiple failures.
It will help to narrow down causes.
Just a thought! back to the survey!
08-05-2010, 03:32 PM
#77
Registered
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
I thought about that, but decided to split them out.
I can combine them after the fact if needed, but I can't split them out later if I start combined.
Most "compression loss" is due to seal wear, but plenty of the turbo guys have blown engines from simple destruction or damage to the seals, that has nothing to do with wear.
Will it matter? I don't know. But that's why I split it out.
I can combine them after the fact if needed, but I can't split them out later if I start combined.
Most "compression loss" is due to seal wear, but plenty of the turbo guys have blown engines from simple destruction or damage to the seals, that has nothing to do with wear.
Will it matter? I don't know. But that's why I split it out.
08-05-2010, 03:46 PM
#80
Registered
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
I'll have to get those answers manually from people that finished.
I was rejected by the survey and can't get back in . Put in an I instead of a 1 ....
08-06-2010, 07:26 AM
#83
Registered
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
Up to 17 responses overnight.
Several people responded for just 1 engine, when they have multiple engines (and IDs to use)
Updated the result file in the 2nd thread post
Several people responded for just 1 engine, when they have multiple engines (and IDs to use)
Updated the result file in the 2nd thread post
08-06-2010, 08:38 AM
#84
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Agreed, and that is what I will take "compression loss" to mean. I'd like to put "seal wear", but most with it won't get more than "compression loss". Those that actually break their seals I expect will actually select the seal option. I'll probably still be combining them together in the end.
Excellent catch. I will add it in once people are out of it.
I'll have to get those answers manually from people that finished.
Excellent catch. I will add it in once people are out of it.
I'll have to get those answers manually from people that finished.
08-06-2010, 10:28 AM
#86
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Haha, Well, only one of them lasted long enough to even do one and i have Zoom Zoom cleaner in my garage as we speak but I will probably wait until next year since I just did my plugs not long ago.
08-06-2010, 03:29 PM
#89
Registered
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
31 engine IDs handed out so far, 18 responses.
08-06-2010, 03:47 PM
#90
Surf Hard, Drive Hard
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Indialantic, Florida
Posts: 7,840
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
9 Posts
I have lots of data analysis tools. What format does the raw data form take, and can you PM me just a small sample.........maybe like my data and one or two others? I'd like to play with it some, and then maybe send the results back to you.
08-06-2010, 07:26 PM
#91
Registered
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
I'll email the file to you in the morning. It was meant to be shared, so you will only get the engineIDs as identifiers.
It does need some work, as the file download structure isn't ideal for straight upload. Header changes and such is recommended.
Nightly bump though.
31 engine IDs handed out, 18 of those have completed the survey.
It does need some work, as the file download structure isn't ideal for straight upload. Header changes and such is recommended.
Nightly bump though.
31 engine IDs handed out, 18 of those have completed the survey.
08-06-2010, 07:58 PM
#92
Didn't fill out my 2nd one .
I see a flaw in the way you are presenting the information with regard to FI engine failures .
That is because FI engines generally fail in a catastrophic manner unrelated to any of the questions you asked . So including FI failures will distort the results.
I see a flaw in the way you are presenting the information with regard to FI engine failures .
That is because FI engines generally fail in a catastrophic manner unrelated to any of the questions you asked . So including FI failures will distort the results.
08-07-2010, 07:10 AM
#93
Surf Hard, Drive Hard
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Indialantic, Florida
Posts: 7,840
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
9 Posts
I'll email the file to you in the morning. It was meant to be shared, so you will only get the engineIDs as identifiers.
It does need some work, as the file download structure isn't ideal for straight upload. Header changes and such is recommended.
Nightly bump though.
31 engine IDs handed out, 18 of those have completed the survey.
It does need some work, as the file download structure isn't ideal for straight upload. Header changes and such is recommended.
Nightly bump though.
31 engine IDs handed out, 18 of those have completed the survey.
You can strip out any and all so called "identifiers", or I certainly will.
I can grab it right out of the pdf file, but it's a lot more labor intensive.
Dave
Last edited by Mazurfer; 08-07-2010 at 07:16 AM.
08-07-2010, 09:28 AM
#94
Registered
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
Didn't fill out my 2nd one .
I see a flaw in the way you are presenting the information with regard to FI engine failures .
That is because FI engines generally fail in a catastrophic manner unrelated to any of the questions you asked . So including FI failures will distort the results.
I see a flaw in the way you are presenting the information with regard to FI engine failures .
That is because FI engines generally fail in a catastrophic manner unrelated to any of the questions you asked . So including FI failures will distort the results.
But while we can remove FI results from analysis, we can't add them in if we find we want to look at FI numbers in anyway.
Better to capture the data and remove it later than not capture the data and need it later.
And I don't want anyone to decide not to participate just because they are FI
08-07-2010, 07:47 PM
#96
Registered
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
Yeah, I just wanted to play with it and see what graphs I could produce. Not so much for now, but maybe when we get a much larger sample. I don't even need engine ID's or anything like that. As long as the answers line up in columns or rows(or I can get them that way) and to be able to tell one set of answers from the next. Once I get it into a workable format(and there are many), and produce the output wanted, then I can just write a script.
You can strip out any and all so called "identifiers", or I certainly will.
I can grab it right out of the pdf file, but it's a lot more labor intensive.
Dave
You can strip out any and all so called "identifiers", or I certainly will.
I can grab it right out of the pdf file, but it's a lot more labor intensive.
Dave
08-12-2010, 03:18 PM
#100
Super Moderator
And I agree the conclusions I have made are not accurate and that there are many factors that play into the reliability issues with the 8. For me, I look at the changes made to the Series II and I think the reason for the failures are obvious in the changes made to the Series II engine.
The survey is a good "Idea", not so sure it is going to change anything and yes it may confuse "new" owners..I would like to see a disclaimer that at this stage this survey only applies to 04-2008 RX-8's?
As I have said before the Renesis is basically an FC RX-7 engine with Side Exhaust Ports.
And IMO the number one issue causing bad compressions was Mazda's omission of any middle oil injector/weeper for the middle of the Apex Seal..Mazda has Always had a middle oil supply in every 13B since the FC...except Renny 1.
Oil Pressure is the next issue where Mazda goofed, particularly at high RPM.
IMO the "other" issue is long term "wear" of bearings subjected to sustained High RPM, above 7500 RPM.
These are MY Opinions.
It would be very interesting to visually see the Parts and Data Mazda takes out of the US reman plant, one would think the data would be consistent to all the engines opened in Japan for inspection tests and replacements.