Spoke to Mazda Engineer.....
12-22-2004, 03:14 PM
#102
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maolin,
Regardless of all the misunderstanding regarding the oil viscosity issue, I am glad that you were able to talk about all the issues/questions with a cool head. Besides, there are a lot of people who are behind the scene interested of what is going on. Changing gears reagarding your infomation, now with the fuel issue with the "nols" additives. I am still running the Costco Gas 91 and today I got 132 miles once my fuel gauge needle read 1/2 tank. Normally with the known brand.. this cas 76 I get most of the time 120 miles with that reading. I am going to stick with Costco gas for awhile at least to have a record. And for those who don't know what I am talking about. I posted my finding in Tech garage section
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...4&page=3&pp=15
Regardless of all the misunderstanding regarding the oil viscosity issue, I am glad that you were able to talk about all the issues/questions with a cool head. Besides, there are a lot of people who are behind the scene interested of what is going on. Changing gears reagarding your infomation, now with the fuel issue with the "nols" additives. I am still running the Costco Gas 91 and today I got 132 miles once my fuel gauge needle read 1/2 tank. Normally with the known brand.. this cas 76 I get most of the time 120 miles with that reading. I am going to stick with Costco gas for awhile at least to have a record. And for those who don't know what I am talking about. I posted my finding in Tech garage section
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...4&page=3&pp=15
12-22-2004, 03:19 PM
#103
Maolin34 -
Thanks for the original post. I can't believe that this has gotten so out of hand. The least interesting of which was regarding oil, yet that seems to be what everyone is focusing on.
I found it most interesting that there was discussion of redesigning the intake system. I wonder if the changes will be able to be retrofited to earlier models. We will just have to wait and see.
Thanks for the original post. I can't believe that this has gotten so out of hand. The least interesting of which was regarding oil, yet that seems to be what everyone is focusing on.
I found it most interesting that there was discussion of redesigning the intake system. I wonder if the changes will be able to be retrofited to earlier models. We will just have to wait and see.
12-22-2004, 03:20 PM
#104
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the fuel...I know when and IF I get the RX8, I will be keeping track of the fuel economy like a HUGE NERD....LOL, just to dispel or GOD FORBID...prove the fuel economy problem. I know if I get a 10-13mpg City car...I WILL SCREAM AND KICK ON THE GROUND like a little baby....until Mazda gives me my sucker and fixes the problem...LOL
12-22-2004, 03:36 PM
#105
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys. I don't think that any physical changes to future models would result in a retro fit, I think the costs are just to high. I do believe that Mazda will continue to reflash the ECU until they get a better result. I really do think that the air/fuel map is causing the majority of our issues, if they can fix it....I'll be wishing I was one of the really early buyers that received Gift Cards.
12-22-2004, 04:14 PM
#108
RX-VIII
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, I wonder where that leaves us California RX-8 owners? Road trip to Nevada, perhaps, to get reflashed?
Also, let's say the theoretical change to the intake hardware is worth 2 mpg. That's 26 miles per 13 gallon tank. So, at $2.00 a gallon and assuming 20 mpg achieved, that'd be $2.60 per tank. I suppose, depending on your driving habits and starting mpg, you could then figure out the break even point on the hardware. If it is a $500 part, that would be 192 tankfuls which would work out to something like 50000 miles, depending on, of course, your starting mpg.
All speculation, but speculation is a lot more fun than doing *real* work...I'm soooo ready for the Chrisma-huna-kwanzakah break to begin here at work! :D
~ Matt
Also, let's say the theoretical change to the intake hardware is worth 2 mpg. That's 26 miles per 13 gallon tank. So, at $2.00 a gallon and assuming 20 mpg achieved, that'd be $2.60 per tank. I suppose, depending on your driving habits and starting mpg, you could then figure out the break even point on the hardware. If it is a $500 part, that would be 192 tankfuls which would work out to something like 50000 miles, depending on, of course, your starting mpg.
All speculation, but speculation is a lot more fun than doing *real* work...I'm soooo ready for the Chrisma-huna-kwanzakah break to begin here at work! :D
~ Matt
12-22-2004, 04:42 PM
#109
Administrator
a note on that california flashing biz-
you must be talking about the now rescinded TSB which showed a different flash for california cars. even if they still go thru with a pcm scheme in this manner , the way it looks from the tsb you wont be able to go outside california to get it changed. you see it says flash x for all 2004 cars, flash y for fed/canada 2005 cars and flash z for 2005 california cars . that seems to imply that every US and Canada car would have x or y(2004 or 2005) but cali cars would have z(2005 cali rx-8s) on top of those so to tweak them for cali emissions mandates. no dealer would be able to "back flash" to remove z. or let me put it another way- it is possible to back flash a car but no dealer would do. especially , from what i gather, any dealer in Nevada.
you must be talking about the now rescinded TSB which showed a different flash for california cars. even if they still go thru with a pcm scheme in this manner , the way it looks from the tsb you wont be able to go outside california to get it changed. you see it says flash x for all 2004 cars, flash y for fed/canada 2005 cars and flash z for 2005 california cars . that seems to imply that every US and Canada car would have x or y(2004 or 2005) but cali cars would have z(2005 cali rx-8s) on top of those so to tweak them for cali emissions mandates. no dealer would be able to "back flash" to remove z. or let me put it another way- it is possible to back flash a car but no dealer would do. especially , from what i gather, any dealer in Nevada.
12-22-2004, 04:59 PM
#112
RX-VIII
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I was referring to the original post by Maolin34 that said "California owners have a completely different setup in terms of the program, as would any other state that has smog regulations."
I guess I read it to mean that as they do new reflashes California would be different. I suppose it'll all be more clear as time passes as to what Mazda will do (if anything). In the meantime, the CZ is tempting, but as this is my first new car, I like the idea of keeping my warranty intact for a while.
I guess I read it to mean that as they do new reflashes California would be different. I suppose it'll all be more clear as time passes as to what Mazda will do (if anything). In the meantime, the CZ is tempting, but as this is my first new car, I like the idea of keeping my warranty intact for a while.
12-22-2004, 05:12 PM
#113
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting that the new flash TSB is the same for 2004 models, and the California and Fed/Canada are only for 2005 models?
So that means that all 2005 non california or fed/canada 8's don't need this?
So that means that all 2005 non california or fed/canada 8's don't need this?
12-22-2004, 07:05 PM
#115
Go baby!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: La Jolla CA
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, this is one of the more interesting threads I have read for quite a while. Maolin34 has provided a great community service by conducting the interview and posting it here. Quite remarkable, and if he actually created these questions then he is a very skilled interviewer. I've read just about the whole thread from start to finish, and I have but one suggestion: Avoid using the term Thicker and Thinner. The debate seems to be in the symantics of these two particular words. I think everyone agrees that "more viscous" means the fluid runs slower, like molasses, and that this occurs at lower temperatures. I cannot find anyone -- including Maolin -- who disagrees with that. "Less viscous" is exactly the opposite. So if you use those phrases instead of "thick" and "thin" I think the debate vanishes and you can once again focus on the actual engineering issues that Maolin34 brings to the forum. Thank you for sparking this lively debate!
Last edited by 8_wannabe; 12-22-2004 at 08:15 PM.
12-22-2004, 07:55 PM
#116
Rotary Powered Decepticon
Originally Posted by IcemanVKO
Haha see how easy it is to get your terms mixed up, if you read my post you see that I mean thinner at higher temps, and yes I think I knew it before I was in 7th grade.
12-23-2004, 11:10 AM
#117
Hubble has been saved!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maolin,
Thanks for the very interesting info. After reading through this entire thread it just reinforces what I have perceived to be the case all along:
1. The RX-8 was built for a 250 HP engine and arrived in the US with substantially less HP than that.
2. The reason for this was compliance with EPA2 emission and cat-life requirements. It is irrelevant whether the cars came that way from Japan or were flashed that way at the port.
3. There is no simple fix. In the 18 months since the release to the US market, including the 2005 roll out, the car 's HP has really not improved. We may see a "magic" PCM flash in the future, and apparently Mazda would really like to give us one, but people shouldn't hold their breath waiting for it. Bottom line, it is what it is!
4. The naturally aspirated RENESIS engine is heavily dependent on technology to meet EPA standards and to produce even the estimated 205-238 HP that it does. This has two obvious side effects. First is that improving the HP is problematic, Mazda has already done the 80% "easy/effective" engine tweaks (if you call variable porting easy). Second is that the production technology is sufficiently "out there" that customers can actually see measurable performance variances between any two production vehicles (both in HP and MPG).
[IMHO section] Now, does any of this really matter? I would say no. I bought my RX-8 as a pre-order and I still have it. Yes, I was disappointed by the HP, gas mileage and resale value, but it is still a hell of a car.
Thanks for the very interesting info. After reading through this entire thread it just reinforces what I have perceived to be the case all along:
1. The RX-8 was built for a 250 HP engine and arrived in the US with substantially less HP than that.
2. The reason for this was compliance with EPA2 emission and cat-life requirements. It is irrelevant whether the cars came that way from Japan or were flashed that way at the port.
3. There is no simple fix. In the 18 months since the release to the US market, including the 2005 roll out, the car 's HP has really not improved. We may see a "magic" PCM flash in the future, and apparently Mazda would really like to give us one, but people shouldn't hold their breath waiting for it. Bottom line, it is what it is!
4. The naturally aspirated RENESIS engine is heavily dependent on technology to meet EPA standards and to produce even the estimated 205-238 HP that it does. This has two obvious side effects. First is that improving the HP is problematic, Mazda has already done the 80% "easy/effective" engine tweaks (if you call variable porting easy). Second is that the production technology is sufficiently "out there" that customers can actually see measurable performance variances between any two production vehicles (both in HP and MPG).
[IMHO section] Now, does any of this really matter? I would say no. I bought my RX-8 as a pre-order and I still have it. Yes, I was disappointed by the HP, gas mileage and resale value, but it is still a hell of a car.
04-28-2006, 11:21 PM
#118
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tacoma, Washington
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all of those who want more info for themselves to understand actually how engine oil works visit this site:
http://www.performanceoiltechnology....quirements.htm
For all of those who want to know more about the improvements that were made over the RX-7 engine to make the RX-8 "RENESIS" visit:
http://www.mazda.com.au/articleZone....ticleZoneID=90
Also, seek the facts, not just what you know.... if someone makes a statement about something and you believe it is not true, do some research and get all the information for yourself.
http://www.performanceoiltechnology....quirements.htm
For all of those who want to know more about the improvements that were made over the RX-7 engine to make the RX-8 "RENESIS" visit:
http://www.mazda.com.au/articleZone....ticleZoneID=90
Also, seek the facts, not just what you know.... if someone makes a statement about something and you believe it is not true, do some research and get all the information for yourself.
04-29-2006, 12:36 AM
#119
ZEE-non
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IcemanVKO
if the oil gets more viscus, at higher temps, which I do believe it does, then that reduction in friction, would result in less pressure, against the incomming air.
One thing that makes sense out of all of this is why 87 octane is actually better than 91 or higher. All fuel has additives, but the way that they increase octane in the the fuel is by adding a little something at station. They add something for mid grade and something else for high grade. I assume they are adding oxigenators, and that Mazda is telling customers to use 91, because it meets the EPA, where 87 doesn't. However 87 produces better fuel economy by leaning out the mixture, and more power also.
One thing that makes sense out of all of this is why 87 octane is actually better than 91 or higher. All fuel has additives, but the way that they increase octane in the the fuel is by adding a little something at station. They add something for mid grade and something else for high grade. I assume they are adding oxigenators, and that Mazda is telling customers to use 91, because it meets the EPA, where 87 doesn't. However 87 produces better fuel economy by leaning out the mixture, and more power also.
And I've been wondering about this...Iceman, which grade gas are you using? 87 is regular unleaded. I'm currently using 89, mid grade. If I can drop to 87, then that makes me happy because I save $1.40 every tank. If gas prices were $1.40, then that would be like getting a free gallon for every 13!!!
/edit: I really should look at post dates before adding my $0.02. Astrozoom, thanks for the links.
Last edited by skwidd; 04-29-2006 at 12:50 AM.
04-29-2006, 04:27 AM
#121
Originally Posted by astrozoom
For all of those who want more info for themselves to understand actually how engine oil works visit this site:
http://www.performanceoiltechnology....quirements.htm
For all of those who want to know more about the improvements that were made over the RX-7 engine to make the RX-8 "RENESIS" visit:
http://www.mazda.com.au/articleZone....ticleZoneID=90
Also, seek the facts, not just what you know.... if someone makes a statement about something and you believe it is not true, do some research and get all the information for yourself.
http://www.performanceoiltechnology....quirements.htm
For all of those who want to know more about the improvements that were made over the RX-7 engine to make the RX-8 "RENESIS" visit:
http://www.mazda.com.au/articleZone....ticleZoneID=90
Also, seek the facts, not just what you know.... if someone makes a statement about something and you believe it is not true, do some research and get all the information for yourself.
i am glad you are reading, but looking at the post date is a good idea..
beers
04-29-2006, 04:28 AM
#122
Originally Posted by skwidd
Oil definitely does flow better/more easily as it gets hotter. As an example, when you change the differential oil in a miata, it is recommended you either leave it in the hot sun for a few hours or nuke it for a minute or so. Why? Flows easier into the differential. If you do not heat it up, you're gonna have a real fun time trying to get it through the tube you need to use from the bottle to the differential.
And I've been wondering about this...Iceman, which grade gas are you using? 87 is regular unleaded. I'm currently using 89, mid grade. If I can drop to 87, then that makes me happy because I save $1.40 every tank. If gas prices were $1.40, then that would be like getting a free gallon for every 13!!!
/edit: I really should look at post dates before adding my $0.02. Astrozoom, thanks for the links.
And I've been wondering about this...Iceman, which grade gas are you using? 87 is regular unleaded. I'm currently using 89, mid grade. If I can drop to 87, then that makes me happy because I save $1.40 every tank. If gas prices were $1.40, then that would be like getting a free gallon for every 13!!!
/edit: I really should look at post dates before adding my $0.02. Astrozoom, thanks for the links.
see above^^^^
beers
04-29-2006, 03:08 PM
#125
Registered User
I say that heat has nothing to do with anything!!! Age is what determines thickness!!! I base this on the fact that I was thinner when I was younger. Winter and summer do not change this unfortunate fact.