Gas/Oil Premix Thread
02-14-2010, 08:26 AM
#2376
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, point taken. Apologies for getting a bit carried away
No, Mazda knows it can't sell a car to the masses that requires adding oil to to the fuel. Of course, they added the 3rd injector to better lubricate the center apex seal (after increasing the oil injection rate). How do you propose that we accomplish the same on the Series 1 Renesis? We have people here who use the AP to increase the oil injection rate even more, and we premix as well.
With respect to your opinion that the Renesis solved the carbon build-up problem in rotaries, we also have a member here who works in the US Mazda facility for rebuilding engines, and he attests to the main problem (80% of the time) being carbon build-up.
Take a look at this rebuilders opinion also:
With respect to your opinion that the Renesis solved the carbon build-up problem in rotaries, we also have a member here who works in the US Mazda facility for rebuilding engines, and he attests to the main problem (80% of the time) being carbon build-up.
Take a look at this rebuilders opinion also:
02-14-2010, 11:31 AM
#2377
BDC Motorsports
Like I said earlier -->
My guess is it's from the OMP.Also, I'm not so sure I'd call it a super-advanced engine unless you're being sarcastic. It's got many of the same enhancements the REW motor has. It's just designed to be a zero-overlap 13B, really.
B
02-14-2010, 11:33 AM
#2378
BDC Motorsports
No, Mazda knows it can't sell a car to the masses that requires adding oil to to the fuel. Of course, they added the 3rd injector to better lubricate the center apex seal (after increasing the oil injection rate). How do you propose that we accomplish the same on the Series 1 Renesis? We have people here who use the AP to increase the oil injection rate even more, and we premix as well.
With respect to your opinion that the Renesis solved the carbon build-up problem in rotaries, we also have a member here who works in the US Mazda facility for rebuilding engines, and he attests to the main problem (80% of the time) being carbon build-up.
Take a look at this rebuilders opinion also:
With respect to your opinion that the Renesis solved the carbon build-up problem in rotaries, we also have a member here who works in the US Mazda facility for rebuilding engines, and he attests to the main problem (80% of the time) being carbon build-up.
Take a look at this rebuilders opinion also:
B
02-14-2010, 12:22 PM
#2379
Registered
The Renny motors I've torn down had loads of carbon on them. They had rather enormous amounts; either as much or more than the older motors. I don't know what else to contribute it to than the OMP system.
Like I said earlier --> My guess is it's from the OMP.
Also, I'm not so sure I'd call it a super-advanced engine unless you're being sarcastic. It's got many of the same enhancements the REW motor has. It's just designed to be a zero-overlap 13B, really.
B
Like I said earlier -->
My guess is it's from the OMP.Also, I'm not so sure I'd call it a super-advanced engine unless you're being sarcastic. It's got many of the same enhancements the REW motor has. It's just designed to be a zero-overlap 13B, really.
B
"The shape of the side seals is interesting as well. It is a wedge shape. This is to help remove any carbon from building up in the groove which would cause it to stick. Carbon is also the reason for the interesting shape of the Renesis exhaust ports as well as the overly large seal clearances in the Renesis over the 13B. And some of you thought carbon was related to synthetic oils! Shame on you! That was actually the reason why we haven't seen a side ported rotary until the Renesis. Back in the '70's Mazda did try the side exhaust port and back then they also found it to be superior. The problem was the carbon would cause seals to stick and break. You can't market that. They met the standards of the time with the peripheral exhaust port so that's what they stuck with."
Last edited by robrecht; 02-14-2010 at 12:44 PM.
02-14-2010, 12:43 PM
#2380
BDC Motorsports
YES, I was being sarcastic, just having a little fun with Onyx57 thinking the Renesis solved the carbon problem (in another thread). I agree the 4-stroke OMP is the biggest culprit (along with overly rich AFRs), but if the flow rates are actually less than older rotaries (Nubo), it seems, as he and others say, the side exhaust ports (instead of peripheral ports) are also responsible for carbon being worse in the Renesis. Carbon build-up was the problem that killed Mazda's first experimentation with side exhaust ports back in the early 70s, but there have been some advances with the Renesis, of course. See, eg, rotarygod's explanation:
"This is to help remove any carbon from building up in the groove which would cause it to stick. Carbon is also the reason for the interesting shape of the Renesis exhaust ports as well as the overly large seal clearances in the Renesis over the 13B. And some of you thought carbon was related to synthetic oils! Shame on you! That was actually the reason why we haven't seen a side ported rotary until the Renesis. Back in the '70's Mazda did try the side exhaust port and back then they also found it to be superior. The problem was the carbon would cause seals to stick and break. You can't market that. They met the standards of the time with the peripheral exhaust port so that's what they stuck with."
"This is to help remove any carbon from building up in the groove which would cause it to stick. Carbon is also the reason for the interesting shape of the Renesis exhaust ports as well as the overly large seal clearances in the Renesis over the 13B. And some of you thought carbon was related to synthetic oils! Shame on you! That was actually the reason why we haven't seen a side ported rotary until the Renesis. Back in the '70's Mazda did try the side exhaust port and back then they also found it to be superior. The problem was the carbon would cause seals to stick and break. You can't market that. They met the standards of the time with the peripheral exhaust port so that's what they stuck with."
B
02-14-2010, 03:04 PM
#2381
Nature vs. Nurture
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to my soaking test: I soaked a plug in seafoam for 12 hours, could not brush any of the crud off of it. Soaked a plug in FP Plus for 24 hours, same result.
Stealth, this was helpful for me
With my test of the cleaners on the plugs and with my personal opinion that my adding FP Plus has contrary effects, i will probably stop adding FP Plus to my Amsoil Saber Pro. Then I will periodically do a more invasive cleaning (sucking Seafoam or mazda's product into a vacuum port.
Stealth, this was helpful for me
...
1. What cleaning additives might be better than others and why? I woud stay away from continual use of the more aggressive ones, despite what some soaking tests might indicate.
2. What some specs really mean for judging one premix over another?
Most half-way decent premixes have additive packs that should help, but if it weren't for the 4-cycle OMP, I actually wouldn't worry about this too much based on years of experience of those who have gone before us. JASO FD should be the best in terms of judging one premix vs another, but would there be additional benefit by adding something like FP+? 'Detergent' specs on 2-stroke oil are most meaningful for 2-stroke motors, less so for daily drivers running rotaries with 4-stroke OMPs in tact. So I still tend to think for daily driving conditions, it might make sense to also add something like FP+. No proof, just following seemingly intelligent advice offered here.
Discussion of other specs like flash point, viscosity, etc, and their relevance to premix are either interesting or entertaining, depending on who's posting. I would appreciate it if we let the experts explain their reasoning on these fine points if they believe they have real relevance here or even if they just want to educate or demonstrate their expertise. Likewise, I would also appreciate any intelligent critique of any errors of interpretation I may have posted here! I'm just another poor dumbshit like most of us here trying to learn from the really smart guys.
1. What cleaning additives might be better than others and why? I woud stay away from continual use of the more aggressive ones, despite what some soaking tests might indicate.
2. What some specs really mean for judging one premix over another?
Most half-way decent premixes have additive packs that should help, but if it weren't for the 4-cycle OMP, I actually wouldn't worry about this too much based on years of experience of those who have gone before us. JASO FD should be the best in terms of judging one premix vs another, but would there be additional benefit by adding something like FP+? 'Detergent' specs on 2-stroke oil are most meaningful for 2-stroke motors, less so for daily drivers running rotaries with 4-stroke OMPs in tact. So I still tend to think for daily driving conditions, it might make sense to also add something like FP+. No proof, just following seemingly intelligent advice offered here.
Discussion of other specs like flash point, viscosity, etc, and their relevance to premix are either interesting or entertaining, depending on who's posting. I would appreciate it if we let the experts explain their reasoning on these fine points if they believe they have real relevance here or even if they just want to educate or demonstrate their expertise. Likewise, I would also appreciate any intelligent critique of any errors of interpretation I may have posted here! I'm just another poor dumbshit like most of us here trying to learn from the really smart guys.
MMMmm..
I have a bit of a problem making up 'brews', just add this and that to your fuel...NO Don't like it...
What are we trying to do Lubricate? or Clean?
Two totally different procedures or tasks IMO.
How can you successfully do BOTH at the same time....IMO you can't.
K.I.S.S
I have a bit of a problem making up 'brews', just add this and that to your fuel...NO Don't like it...
What are we trying to do Lubricate? or Clean?
Two totally different procedures or tasks IMO.
How can you successfully do BOTH at the same time....IMO you can't.
K.I.S.S
02-14-2010, 03:31 PM
#2383
Nature vs. Nurture
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more important part of my current thoughts is that if it can't clean this crud off my plugs in 24 hours, how will it work in a low concentration sprayed in with the gas.
The contrary effect that I am thinking about secondarily is that it would reduce the lubrication that I am purposely adding with the Amsoil Saber Pro. For each 10 gallons of gas, i add 4 of Saber Pro and 1 of FP Plus currently. Like Ash said, I am not sure that a cleaner and a lubricant mixed together (by me as opposed to the experts that put cleaners in oil) accompish what i want each to do.
The contrary effect that I am thinking about secondarily is that it would reduce the lubrication that I am purposely adding with the Amsoil Saber Pro. For each 10 gallons of gas, i add 4 of Saber Pro and 1 of FP Plus currently. Like Ash said, I am not sure that a cleaner and a lubricant mixed together (by me as opposed to the experts that put cleaners in oil) accompish what i want each to do.
02-14-2010, 03:31 PM
#2384
^I was going to ask the same thing.
Also, it it widely believed that a soak test can adequately determine the effectiveness of a cleaner? Clearly, the conditions present during combustion are much different than those of a table-top soak. I would expect that cleaners such as FP+ are designed to clean during the combustion process, as opposed to during a soak at atmospheric conditions.
Also, it it widely believed that a soak test can adequately determine the effectiveness of a cleaner? Clearly, the conditions present during combustion are much different than those of a table-top soak. I would expect that cleaners such as FP+ are designed to clean during the combustion process, as opposed to during a soak at atmospheric conditions.
02-14-2010, 04:37 PM
#2385
Registered
The more important part of my current thoughts is that if it can't clean this crud off my plugs in 24 hours, how will it work in a low concentration sprayed in with the gas.
The contrary effect that I am thinking about secondarily is that it would reduce the lubrication that I am purposely adding with the Amsoil Saber Pro. For each 10 gallons of gas, i add 4 of Saber Pro and 1 of FP Plus currently. Like Ash said, I am not sure that a cleaner and a lubricant mixed together (by me as opposed to the experts that put cleaners in oil) accompish what i want each to do.
The contrary effect that I am thinking about secondarily is that it would reduce the lubrication that I am purposely adding with the Amsoil Saber Pro. For each 10 gallons of gas, i add 4 of Saber Pro and 1 of FP Plus currently. Like Ash said, I am not sure that a cleaner and a lubricant mixed together (by me as opposed to the experts that put cleaners in oil) accompish what i want each to do.
I agree with Ash that you'll never eliminate all carbon in an engine while it's running, but mysql's teardown seemed to reveal a pretty clean engine (w FP+). Would it be cleaner with Amsoil? Maybe so. Who knows, that's what I consider one of the unresolved questions.
In my all-too limited mind, the balancing question is whether the side exhaust port Renesis needs more of a cleaner than even a typical 2-stroke engine or more than an older peripheral exhaust port rotary. That's why I currently err on the side of adding a so-called 'lubricious cleaner' to my premix. But you may be right that just using ASP may work better.
Whether or not a so-called 'lubricious cleaner' can lubricate and clean at the same time is another question. I don't necessarily think lubricating and cleaning are always opposites, when we're not talking about aggressive solvents. When you look at Renesis teardowns, you see that the parts of the rotor that are lubricated even with dirty 4-stroke oil are the cleanest parts of the rotor.
Last edited by robrecht; 02-14-2010 at 04:40 PM.
02-14-2010, 08:04 PM
#2387
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "carbon" you describe, or perhaps a more accurate description would be deposits left from combustion, accumulate from a number of "ingredients". Isn't it a by product of the combustion process not carbon as such, although a number of various carbon containing components are present in the deposits? The fuel, oil, additives and other contaminants that are introduced into combustion process pretty much determines what is left behind, in this respect the Rotary is similar to any other form of internal combustion engine? Would that be correct? It's not just the OMP perhaps? Then there is the driving style.
I have also seen a lot of gunk left behind in engines, not just Rotary, involved in a few minor lawsuits also where the contaminants were believed to be "snake oil" additives.
I have also seen a lot of gunk left behind in engines, not just Rotary, involved in a few minor lawsuits also where the contaminants were believed to be "snake oil" additives.
The Renny motors I've torn down had loads of carbon on them. They had rather enormous amounts; either as much or more than the older motors. I don't know what else to contribute it to than the OMP system.
Like I said earlier --> My guess is it's from the OMP.
Also, I'm not so sure I'd call it a super-advanced engine unless you're being sarcastic. It's got many of the same enhancements the REW motor has. It's just designed to be a zero-overlap 13B, really.
B
Like I said earlier -->
My guess is it's from the OMP.Also, I'm not so sure I'd call it a super-advanced engine unless you're being sarcastic. It's got many of the same enhancements the REW motor has. It's just designed to be a zero-overlap 13B, really.
B
02-14-2010, 11:54 PM
#2390
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correct, but they don't have an answer as to where all this "carbon" as you call it is coming from. Anyone care to hazard a guess other than the regular?
No, Mazda knows it can't sell a car to the masses that requires adding oil to to the fuel. Of course, they added the 3rd injector to better lubricate the center apex seal (after increasing the oil injection rate). How do you propose that we accomplish the same on the Series 1 Renesis? We have people here who use the AP to increase the oil injection rate even more, and we premix as well.
With respect to your opinion that the Renesis solved the carbon build-up problem in rotaries, we also have a member here who works in the US Mazda facility for rebuilding engines, and he attests to the main problem (80% of the time) being carbon build-up.
Take a look at this rebuilders opinion also:
With respect to your opinion that the Renesis solved the carbon build-up problem in rotaries, we also have a member here who works in the US Mazda facility for rebuilding engines, and he attests to the main problem (80% of the time) being carbon build-up.
Take a look at this rebuilders opinion also:
02-14-2010, 11:58 PM
#2391
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ran a Renesis '03 up to 186k miles without trouble, just regular maintenance, mineral oil (Mazda brand) and highway driving. Now I'm running a 2009, and Mazda here INSIST that i don't use synthetic oil because it will cause start up difficulties in the long run, and combustion deposits? Any comments as an expert re-builder on why they should be saying this?
The Renny motors I've torn down had loads of carbon on them. They had rather enormous amounts; either as much or more than the older motors. I don't know what else to contribute it to than the OMP system.
Like I said earlier --> My guess is it's from the OMP.
Also, I'm not so sure I'd call it a super-advanced engine unless you're being sarcastic. It's got many of the same enhancements the REW motor has. It's just designed to be a zero-overlap 13B, really.
B
Like I said earlier -->
My guess is it's from the OMP.Also, I'm not so sure I'd call it a super-advanced engine unless you're being sarcastic. It's got many of the same enhancements the REW motor has. It's just designed to be a zero-overlap 13B, really.
B
02-15-2010, 04:24 AM
#2393
Registered
From what I've read, I think that the 'excess' carbon comes from overly rich AFRs (trying to keep the EGTs low to protect the cat), from dirty 4-stroke (which isn't designed to burn well) being injected into the combustion chamber, and from side exhaust ports that don't allow as efficient of a flow as the peripheral exhaust ports. Of course, Mazda knows this.
02-15-2010, 07:45 AM
#2394
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ran a Renesis '03 up to 186k miles without trouble, just regular maintenance, mineral oil (Mazda brand) and highway driving. Now I'm running a 2009, and Mazda here INSIST that i don't use synthetic oil because it will cause start up difficulties in the long run, and combustion deposits? Any comments as an expert re-builder on why they should be saying this?
They may state that synthetic will cause harder starts because of the additional oil injectors. Synthetic oil does not burn like conventional oil. The extra synthetic oil, because it is not being burned off, might be fouling the plugs in some instances causing starting problems. 
02-15-2010, 08:41 AM
#2395
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually what they are saying, though not "officially", is that synthetics (other than their own) are leaving behind deposits on the side walls as well! What these "deposits" are I don't know, but it's not from the base oil which actually does burn cleanly, but from the additives that different companies use depending on what they are trying to sell. I know most of these additives, it seems some are leaving behind a lot of crap, on the seals as well, which is affecting cold start compression.
I'm just guessing at this using logic which may be incorrect They may state that synthetic will cause harder starts because of the additional oil injectors. Synthetic oil does not burn like conventional oil. The extra synthetic oil, because it is not being burned off, might be fouling the plugs in some instances causing starting problems.
They may state that synthetic will cause harder starts because of the additional oil injectors. Synthetic oil does not burn like conventional oil. The extra synthetic oil, because it is not being burned off, might be fouling the plugs in some instances causing starting problems.
02-15-2010, 09:17 AM
#2396
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any case, it is a CYOA by Mazda. They still do not say DO NOT USE SYNTHETIC OIL IN A ROTARY, they are just saying that some synthetics will cause hard starts and if you use synthetic, we will not be fixing this problem.
02-15-2010, 09:38 AM
#2397
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no, they do say it, 3 times as I mentioned before in the owners handbook for the new 2009 and 2010 models. I just got one and they are VERY specific NOT to use them.
02-15-2010, 09:44 AM
#2398
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The soaking test doesn't really prove anything. Seafoam is some nasty stuff and it WILL dissolve carbon. However, if you look at the ZOOM ZOOM Mazda Cleaner instructions, it must be done on a HOT engine to be effective. Also, as stated above, the residue on the plugs isn't carbon. It is the additives that are not burning completely.
02-15-2010, 10:40 AM
#2400
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owners have proven time and time again, that following Mazda's recommendations DO NOT guarantee any increase in the engines life span. How did they do this you ask? By following the recommendations and being rewarded with a low compression engine. Some people do everything by the book and perform all maintenance early and have the engine **** the bed after 40K miles. While others do the complete opposite and have it last 80K. Then you have the "educated" owners premixing, using heavier oils(conventional and/or synthetic) yada yada yada who still have engine failures. I had a point to this but I forget.........