|
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 2655409)
soif you have a warranty claim are you going to blurt out that you used an oil they didn't recommend ?
|
Originally Posted by mike01
(Post 2655712)
Absolutely not, but if they ask to see receipts for oil changes and they look up the UPC codes on the receipts to verify the correct oil was used they could theoretically tell. Maybe I'm just over-thinking the whole issue and being paranoid due to bad experiences with the dealer in the past.
|
Originally Posted by Huey52
(Post 2655238)
Actually, there's no thermal energy imparted by the microwave (RF) energy itself, but rather by the excitation of the water atoms/molecules themselves, but I see where you're [trying to] go here. ;)
I've been discussing the relatively low thermal mass of our rotary engine, compared to a similarly HP-rated piston engine, and its effect on fuel efficiency. Volumetric vs. thermodynamic efficiency. A different can of worms. Our engines are less efficient than the piston variety because rotaries have a larger surface to volume ratio in the combustion chamber. The burn in a rotary quenches over a relatively larger area as it reaches the wall. To get a given amount of energy at the flywheel, you need to burn a given amount of gas. To burn the same amount of gas in both engines, you need to introduce more in a rotary because less of it is burned. For the same amount of gas burned, you get similar amounts of heat lost to the engine mass. Since the rotary has a lower mass, it tends to get hotter. I assume we have oil coolers for that reason. This is how I see it. It would be interesting to hear your reasoning as to why the lower 'thermal mass' of a rotary causes it to run cooler. |
Sorry, don't have the time to render an epistle on internal combustion engine thermodynamic (vs. volumetric) efficiency, but again there is plenty of substantiating data out there. The unfortunate truth is that despite the wonders of high power output for its mass, our rotaries get poorer gas mileage. But I gladly (well, kinda gladly) pay that concession for all the fun handling the RX-8 provides.
Originally Posted by Delmeister
(Post 2656736)
Fair enough - correction: For similar RF energy inputs into two bodies, similar levels of thermal energy will be induced in both, and the smaller of the two will get hotter.
Our engines are less efficient than the piston variety because rotaries have a larger surface to volume ratio in the combustion chamber. The burn in a rotary quenches over a relatively larger area as it reaches the wall. To get a given amount of energy at the flywheel, you need to burn a given amount of gas. To burn the same amount of gas in both engines, you need to introduce more in a rotary because less of it is burned. For the same amount of gas burned, you get similar amounts of heat lost to the engine mass. Since the rotary has a lower mass, it tends to get hotter. I assume we have oil coolers for that reason. This is how I see it. It would be interesting to hear your reasoning as to why the lower 'thermal mass' of a rotary causes it to run cooler. |
what are your guys thoughts on using a heavier weight like 10W40 or 20W50 as the pervious rotaries have used? i've used the mfr's specified 20W50 all summer long for 10 years in my RX-7's without a problem.does the renesis have THAT much tighter internal tolerances requiring a thinner oil or are they wanting to use 5W20 for fuel mileage and cold start aiding?
|
5w30 ftw
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands