Gomez

Look, I had a disagreement with RG in the past over the dino/synthetic thing, but I'm with him on this now. Early last year I obtained and posted a Mazda Australia Parts Bulletin outlining MA's decision to use mineral oil in rotarys here in Australia. ASH8 has posted about having seen it. At the time I posted it, I had had an interest in rotary engine vehicles for a total of two months. Much water has flowed under the bridge since, and I have had the opportunity to do a lot more reading about rotary design/construction, synthetic oil composition/attributes, alongside anecdotal use of synthetic by people posting on this forum. I've done a bit of reading on BITOG as well.

ASH8 has his opinion, but by his own admission he has been out of the game for a while now. Technology has moved forward. I intend to contact Mazda Australia's Technical Department sometime in the next week (I have a contact there), and seek their latest view on the age old debate. Standby for further comment.... :p

I am still using Mazda's Rotary Oil, and have since the first fill. It's just I'm not against the use of synthetics like I was in the past. This apparent heat issue in Vegas is a little disturbing for single oil cooler cars too.....

Gomez.

Lock & Load

When i questioned mazda as to why we only got the 1 oil cooler here in Australia other forum members had a go at me because in their eyes Mazda could do no wrong , well since the various issues that have and are plaguing this car we know now that Mazda definetely does plenty of wrongs

B...free
michael

6speed8

Personally, I use and will continue to use Castrol GTX 5-20, however, last year at the Mazda Rev-it-up in St. Pete Florida, I saw a Mazda tech putting Castrol SYNTEC in an RX-8.

The RX-8 was in an area roped off for was to be used as a test-drive track, but I went under the rope and questioned the tech putting the Syntec in the RX-8, saying "I thought Mazda did not recommend synthetic oil in the Renesis" The Tech's response was "no comment" and then rather sternly asked me to leave that area.


I just went out to the Castol site to see what they recommend (it allows you to select your vehicle and then gives oil choices), but the RX-8 engine selection function does not work.

It does list Syntec for the 1995 RX-7 1.3L (as well as Dino oils).

Check it out: http://www.castrol.com/castrol/Lubes...ategoryId=3240

staticlag

Car companies want to make money...

If they make a mistake, its in their best interest to not admit to it until the last possible second, because fixing mistakes costs money.

If it works, stick with it until it doesn't work anymore, because change costs money.

rotarygod

OMG what have I started!!!

First off, experience with rotaries in the 1970's!!!! does not have any relevance now as those were the ones with all the problems that have since been fixed. Just because my grandpa could fix a Model T Ford engine does not mean he can work on a Formula 1 engine or a rotary. Anyone remember 5 mm carbon apex seals? Anyone remember dual side seals or the 3 hole exhaust port and carburators? We don't have them anymore so don't worry about them even if you have heard of them. They have no relevance on today's engines! I remember the Houston Oilers football team. It doesn't make me an expert on the Texans does it?

If anyone questions whether I know where and what an oil control ring does and where it goes, I'm going to have to laugh at you and then I'm going to ask you to prove to me that you in fact do. Don't try to trick me into giving you the info. Should I go outside and take a picture of them on the spare race engine that I currently have apart? I'm pretty sure I've built a few engines so I probably know what and where they are. I'll give a hint though to their location, get out your history books, they are in the same place as they were in the 70's! They aren't the same material anymore though. the ones I use in my engines are made of Viton if anyone is interested.

Let me get this straight, there is someone here that has a problem with me telling someone to say they haven't been using synthetic oil if they have and they had an engine failure? Is it possible that you would actually divulge information that is irrelevant? Would you divulge information at a car accident you just had? You won't have a failure as a result of your oil being synthetic anyways. It may be because you haven't changed it or you overheated it but it won't be because you were running synthetic. Why give them something to deny your warranty over when it wasn't the cause anyways? Does any of that sound like a smart idea? It can't really be construed as the wrong thing to do if it isn't the culprit in the first place can it? You might as well just say, "Hi service guy. My car broke and I don't know why. What can I tell you that will make you void my warranty so I have to pay for it?" Um, only one word comes to mind right now and it's a childish one. Duh? That would need an "<I'm with stupid!" shirt if someone actually did that. What is dishonest is going out and street racing all the time, getting pulled over by the cops for doing it, and then claim ignorance and tell them you aren't so you can avoid going to jail. Of course you probably WOULD tell them that! What would be wrong is breaking your transmission or frying your clutch in a race while your car is under warranty and then taking it back to the dealer because "it's broke" then divulging how it happened. Even though I haven't done it, I know people that have and gotten it fixed. Do you just want to help them find a reason no matter how off the wall and far fetched to justify ripping you off? Even if it couldn't have done it? Sounds like it.

My daily driver was a little Honda I purchased back in 2000 brand new. I don't have them change my oil for me and I don't use their recommended oil brand. When I had an issue arise that needed to be fixed, they didn't ask, I didn't tell. Why? The issue wasn't caused by the oil. It wasn't serious anyways. They didn't ask me about my oil to see if there was any reason to not warranty something on the car. They didn't do an oil analysis to see if I was running vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry flavored oil when I should have had grape. Mazda is not going to do an oil evaluation. Even if they did one on the engine they got back in Japan, which took a while to get there and had the oil pretty well drained out of it to ship, by the time they did get an analysis back, you would long have had your engine in your car and would be driving around happily. Of course they don't do this because synthetics are not a concern of theirs in regards to engine failures. Practically every oil they would test on these engines would be broken down to some extent anyways regardless of type so that wouldn't prove anything.

Once again, do you have to believe what I do? Nope. I actually don't care. There is more than one way to do things. This is mine and I'm being told I'm wrong without a semblance of proof from a person trying to be given credibility as an "expert" to convince me otherwise and this is with overwhelming evidence that my way works quite well. It's endorsed by some of the best in the business who actually do test new methods. Is it to say that it is the only way to do it? No. Alot of people get set in their ways from conventional thinking. Personally I feel real world results mean far more than what any so called "expert" says. If an expert tells me that a tire won't blow up but I see real world evidence that 95% of them actually do, I think I'll listen to the evidence. People are fallable. Lab tests are even fallable. Real world everyday results aren't. That is how it actually works and it's the only place it counts.

This should get some people thinking. Answer me this, what if you did something in some way that you knew worked. You kept doing it this way and did it so much that this was what you always did. You kept doing it this way over the years and after a while you were the expert on this technique. Others had done it your way and listened to you for years. You were the standard and therefore could do no wrong. After a while, you became so trusted that you could say anything because you were the "expert". Then at some point in time later, a new kid comes along and tells you there is a better way to do it and that you have been doing it wrong for years. Of course that new guy is received with backlash as he doesn't have the years of experience to give him credibility compared to you so how could he know? What makes him so smart? So what that others out there have overwhelming proof that he's right? What if your way was correct when you originally started using it but technology had changed the rules and you didn't adapt your way? The whole point of this is simply, if a so called "expert" has been doing something for years and years and tells you something regardless of what it is, does the fact that he may have actually been doing it wrong for all those years suddenly make his way the right way because he is looked upon as the "expert"? If a factory service bulletin was written 20 years ago based on the technology of the time and someone found that it could be used again with little effort and appease most of the conventional thinking people since they look upon you as always being right, would they have a reason to update their stance and go to the effort to tell you otherwise? If not then would they really spend all of the time effort and money to test this information to update it or would they rather just type up an excuse line on paper that costs nothing but will keep you off their backs for a while longer? Chew on that one for a while.

I'll start another controversial topic that also needs updating to this "new standard". Breaking in a motor is best done at full throttle! Discuss...

Oh yeah, change your oil and filter regularly regardless of what you use and use what you want to!

staticlag

Yes, i have much experience.

I have experience in seeing though BS, crappy experimental procedure, and general buffonery.

I love arguing my best friends and I do it all the time, about politics, religion, anything that has real controversial meat to it. And I stand strongly by my opinions, but only because I have opinions that can hold their own in a fight of wits to the death. I genuinely like it when I **** people off with my ideas, it makes the arguements fun. If someone does genuinely best me with a good argument I will be the first admit to it and quickly adopt the winning point of view, because it never pays to go though life backing the loosing horse, and if you can't roll with the punches and be willing to change your beliefs on actual presented fact, then you will be like those archaic Amish people.

The whole time I have been arguing with you, in this thread and in the last, is not because of your free and conscious decision to use whatever oil you want in your own property. But because you are spreading unfounded rumors on something
that you admit to have no firsthand real knowledge of! That is what I am completely against.

Where is the Mazda RX8 proof???????????????????????????

Do you even own a Mazda RX8?

Let me spell it out for you, kindergarden style:

Just because 2 things share the same function, look the same, or even smell the same, doesn't mean that they are the same!

Examples:

What is the difference between a gas stove and a electric stove? Do you need to take special precautions with one as opposed to another? Yes,... you must make sure that the all the burners are lit and no gas is leaking though any hoses.

What is the difference between a 30 watt lightbulb and a 160watt lightbulb? Would it be safe to interchange them in a fixture?

What is the difference between xD card and Nokia's propritary MMC card? They both look exactly the same, but sure as heck I can't get the xD card to work in my phone.

I am hardcore biology, hardcore genetics, experimental procedure is a must in these fields. The tiniest distinction is still a distinction! A few atoms can change rubbing alcohol into wine! And just because it is written in the newspapers, or on TV, publicized by a major corperation, or written as an article by a doctor, does not make it truth, that was our first lesson!

The only reason why I am using Royal Purple is because I have researched it, a lot. Then I took the next step and decided to try it myself. Back when I first put it in my RX8 there was a lot of controversy and I was new to the rotary engine, a lot of people told stories of loss of compression on their rotaries and other horrible engine failures, with final lines saying: "Please, whatever you do, don't use synthetic!"

But I realized the benefits of using an ashless, robust, and super-advanced oil in our rotary engines.

Key benefits I weighted were:

Reduced carbon buildup, because of the ashless base.

Robust structure, so it would sill preform great even when heated for long periods of time near its top temperature without appreciable loss (which i found espically important because our cars use oil for cooling, and I want the slickest and most stable oil running through those oil coolers knowing heat transfer will be constant no matter how hard I push my rotary.) And with royal purple's 5w20 being able to protect like a 5w30 yet maintain its composure throughout its usable life made it ideal.

It was the oil cooling that made me switch to Royal Purple!

Possible downsides:

The deaded RUMOUR! that my engine would lose compression, the seals would fail, and I would be SOL.

That was when the RX8 first came out and I bought it in June 2004!

But I trusted those who actually had proof of running this oil in their rotaries without incident, and actually tore down those rotaries to find a chamber much cleaner previous rebuilds when they were using dino oil! Then I took the next step by using it myself.

This is my first rotary, and the manual did say that they advised Dino oil, but here was proof that this specific oil was actually good for the engine! All mazda had was a sentence in a book, saying it was not recommended, because they had "Not tested it yet!"

I mean, just those few people whose engines ran flawlessly were enough to completely dispell the argument by mazda! Because if it were true to not use this synthetic because it would cause damage, then it must be true to cause damage in all cases! Just like if I were to dump 15 lbs of sugar into my gas tank, you engine will always fail!

But just like any theory, you can prove right 6 ways from sunday, but it only takes one wrong to completely dispell it forever.

I mean, those peole that have been running this oil, their engines would be shot! But their not! It's the equivalent of dumping the 15 lbs of sugar into their gas tanks and having the engines run great! and even get a horsepower advantage!

This is why you are the ignorant one Ash, because you have mountains of "he said she said" data on old rotaries and fail to look to look at the outliers, namely the new improved engine with new oil seals, and the people who have been sucessfully running synthetics in all their rotaries for years.

This is why you are a 48 year old retired clerk with alzheimers Ash. If everyone thought like you, the human race would have never had any great scientists or inventors. Because you fail to notice the details.

Want real data ash? Like I have said: I have 17 thousand miles on my ODO, 16 of which have been using Royal Purple, ask me how my car is running in 5 years and I will continue to disprove your claim that synthetics are bad.

staticlag

wow RG, you type fast, i was still working on mine and u already spouted that off.

You were writing on the speed of Passion I guess

Gomez

Now on that we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess....

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

a) I worked in an R&D lab for a major oil company

b) synthetics burn cleaner - they are actually pretty much required for upcomming diesel engines just to pass upcomming emissions regs because the burn-off of conventional oil has too high of sulphur contents

c) in order for the oil to meet all standards needed to meet your warranty, the oil must pass all of the seal compatibility tests - synthetics do

crossbow

Time to start another secondary argument. (Good post btw RG).

We had a mini-debate over one of the relatively unknown differences between heavier and lighter viscsoity oils in another thread, which has somewhat cropped up here in this thread as a side note.

Quick notes on viscosity.

1) Viscosity doesn't indiciate protection. Thicker is not necessarily better then thinner.
2) Most people like to use thicker weight oils because they believe they'll handle the heat better...which is partially true...what people don't realize is that the thicker the oil, the higher the oil temps. Thus throwing in a heavier weight oil to try and address a heat problem, actually adds MORE heat to the mix by raising oil temps.
3) Viscosity specs in different countries are becoming more of a factor of supply then actual recommendations. Its extremely difficult to get certain formulations in some countries, which is why 20 wt oils are not spec'd in places like south america, or africa...the supply isn't there to enable the cars to use them.\
4) HTHS (High Temp High Sheer) ratings give a better gauge of an oils ability to protect in high heat situations then the viscosity of the oil. If a 5w-40 sheers to a 20 wt, and the 20 wt oil stays in grade...whats the difference between the two?

I collected a set of threads and explanations explaining the advantages of moving to a thinner weight oil in a car that specs a thicker one in oil temp arguments with data.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001235#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001235#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001235#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001235#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001235#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001246#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001251#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001257#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001266#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001271#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=001279#000000
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...1;t=006127;p=1

There are another 6-8 threads continuing the discussion, but I got tired of linking them. I figure 95% of the people will only click the first link anyway, read a sentence or two, and then throw out the argument without finishing the discussions.

The author of the discussions btw, drives a 575M ferrari, which specs 15w40 I believe...he was running 0w-20 mobil1 with good wear #'s on his UOA...even better then the 15w-40...

StealthTL

iTrader: (1)

I am not really a participant in this, more of a statistic.....

Took my 1972 RX-3 to the US in 1975 (honeymoon ), while I was there, bought five cans of the latest and greatest oil, Mobil 1. (as used by the space program!!!) Yes, back then it was in cans :o

Within a few weeks, I had anti-freeze burning in the chambers, and it was getting expensive. The Mazda dealer examined it and told me it was "water ingression" and that they would get me a new motor, I would only pay the labour. I felt bad that my new oil went with the old engine, it WAS over $6US/quart, for a total equivalent in todays dollars to about 6 million dollars! :D

I didn't know what I had started back then.....
Sorry.

S

(Maybe I know the difference between rubber and Viton, or may be just a slow learner - today I am using 'guess what' in my '8!!)

brillo

One of the biggest problems with auto enthusiasts IMO is that there is this tendency among us to get stuck in a mindset that how things worked back in the good old days of the 70's is still how automotive things work today.

To me the ultimate irony is that I see a lot of this mindset with the rotary crowd, which is funny, b/c our engine is the epitome of challenging convention in the automotive world.

Whether its oil, engine break-in, tuning, suspension techniques, tires etc.... or pick your favorite area to debate, there is a natural tendency to assume that once you've got something that works, there is not a better way of doing something. (especially if it was perfected in the past and passed down…ie, my father always did it this way)

I’m just as guilty as everyone else, for example, when the STS turbo came out, like most I said, that can’t work, there will be to much lag etc….only after I decided to really dig in and investigate did I realize that thinking was wrong.

The auto industry is so dynamic now, cars, which didn't really advance much between the 40's and early 70's, made HUGE leaps in design, tolerances, technology and performance. Hell, just in the last 10 years or so, look at the advances in powertrain design (variable everything, direction injection, hybrids etc). So there are many myths and folklore about tuning and maintenance that may have been true in the 70's or 80's that today have no bearing on reality.

Its tough to keep up with all the changes, which is one of the reasons that I love cars, I'm always learning something. I challenge everyone here, weather its the oil debate, porting, tuning etc.... to really practice challenging convention, to think outside the box and not just take someone’s word for how something works. You may find it will change your opinion, or it may not, but you’ll certainly be better informed and less likely to get left behind in the ever changing automotive world.

rotarygod

It took me longer than you think it did. I had to go back several times and edit what I wrote for things of an "offensive" nature. I still came out with that. At least it is shorter!

I am just going to keep saying it even though most people understand the whole point of this thread. It was intended to dispel some of the old unfounded, unproven, and false myths of oils and rotary engines. I thought I'd tell people what I personally use and have had experience with in the real world in my own personal cars. Obviously I have an opinion. What I wanted to show is that I have never had a problem, no one I know who uses the same stuff has ever had a problem, and even the most well respected rotary company in the country agrees with this choice. I didn't even include Rotary Performance in Dallas as they too have used Royal Purple in their cars. (Even their 620rwhp stock port 13B at 28 psi WITH a 75 shot of nitrous didn't blow up and guess what type of oil they used!!! If it were flavored, it would be grape!) I've provided a link to a very informative forum and website to get any and all of your oil questions answered. It's only coincedence that they like alot of the oils I do.

Suddenly I get hostile responses back from a couple of people telling me my way isn't good because the man says it isn't. Suddenly a couple of people are telling me that they trust the opinion of a company who's words and excuses they don't trust when it comes to any other topic. Suddenly someone is saying not to trust the oil website because they alter the results in their favor to make things look good. If anyone believes that btw, they obviously haven't been there. They are selling nothing. They have nothing to win or lose by insulting an oil or by showing how good it is. They are there for public info only. They provide real world proof and let you decide for yourself. No one tries to force you to use what you don't want to. (except the dealership!) Go on that forum and pick ANY question about oil that you can possibly think of and post a question there. You WILL get a response back answering your question! That's about as unbiased a site as I have ever seen and it is terribly informative. The only reason I can think of that someone wouldn't trust their info is if they were using an oil that everyone on that board doesn't like and they just don't believe it because they are set in their ways. Is it possible that could affect one's opinion of them? Hmm...


Here's another thing to think of. Unfortunately there are still some out there that classify oils in rotaries into 2 camps, synthetic and conventional. For the people that argue that one type is good and one type is not, you'd better be stating this from an all or nothing point of view. In other words, you'd better think that ALL synthetic oils are bad and ALL conventional oils are good in the rotary. I mentioned Rotary Performance above. They were using Royal Purple but have since swtiched over to Idemitsu Synthetic. For those that don't know who this is, this is the EXACT same oil that was used in the Mazda LeMans 787B and other Mazda rotary race cars. It is about $7 a quart if you are lucky so it is quite expensive. They have marketed this as "rotary specific" synthetic oil. I truly think that is marketing genious on their part to say that, as those 2 little words stamped on a bottle suddenly make it fine to use even though it is synthetic. Those marketing guys are good! If only all the other companies had thought of that. Is their blend proprietary to only them? Probably, but then again so is almost anyone elses. There might be one or two exceptions to that somewhere. What makes a synthetic oil suitable for a rotary where others aren't? Is it the fact that theirs burns cleaner than conventional oils when in the combustion chamber? So do other synthetics. Is it the fact that they have greater resistance to breakdown than conventional oils? So do most other synthetics. Is it that they have superior lubricative properties? So do other synthetics. So what's the rotary advantage? What gives them the right to stamp "rotary specific" on a bottle of theirs when others can't? Is it because they are Japanese? Racing Beat and many others would be out of business if everyone only bought parts directly from Japan so what really makes this oil so special? Is it because Mazda actually used in in their race cars and won? Remember to those synthetic doubters out there that this is an all or nothing position on your part. You are completely for or against them. This means that Mazda uses synthetics in the engines that require the best care and most protection even though they say not to. Please don't think that the cars that need the most protection to them means your street car. It doesn't! Another thing about Idemitsu oil. Yes it says it is rotary specific. Someone commented on Amsoil saying they didn't meet certain standards here because they used too much of an additive. (Ignore the fact that their oils test above average and eclipse the standard in terms of performance. Real world results! The rules are going backwards right now btw with less additives and protection in the newest oils!) Idemitsu is a race oil. What does this mean? It means that they are using more of the additives so they will have better lubrication and have better protection. Because of this though they use less detergents. These help resist breakdown. Why do they use an oil with less detergent if they need protection? Quite simply it is because they change the oil frequently. With race oils, you need to. They do a superior job of lubricating but their overall life is shorter. Thankfully it is plenty long enough to make it through races so they don't worry about breakdown. Don't use these oils on street cars though. You won't change you oil often enough. Good synthetics do provide alot the benefits of race oils in that they have better lubrication than conventional oils. Non race synthetics also resist breakdown better though and this is very important for a street car. What's the problem with them? Remember even if there is nothing wrong with them, it still doesn't mean you have to use them.

If Mazda truly did do oil analysis, does anyone honestly think they would have changed their position on oils so many times in such a short time span? Would they actually test oils, say they are OK based on those results, retest to say oops they aren't, and then go back to older engines and compare them with newer ones to say OK we goofed again. They are fine in some but not others. Does that actually make sense to anyone? Half of the info we received on this multiple position change came through an office secretary by the way and we had all of these options within about a 2 week timespan! Anyone who is testing will not constantly change their position like this. If you do, you are trying to give test results before you have them. It is far more likely that they quickly on the spot came up with an easy answer to appease most of the people. While some look at them from the standpoint that they say you can't use synthetics, maybe you guys should ask yourself why they actually said you could for a while? They use it. Speculation doesn't matter. Real world results do.

I'm getting sick of typing.

crossbow

On a side note to the whole syn vs no syn in rotary's...isn't the stock oil in the rx8 semi-synthetic? Has anyone done a factory fill UOA? I'd put my money on the fact its most likely semi-synthetic...like every other mazda vehicle since 03.

Semi-synthetic btw, means up to 10% of the oil is synthetic basestock (could be mistaken though). Semi-syn's are also reserved for highly refined group III oils (which are also sometimes called synthetic oils by certain marketing companies).

I highly recommend anyone to visit BITOG. The amount of information there is absolutely staggering, and many industry leaders post and contribute to the forum. There are quite a few racers, and race companies which will discuss certain products and make recommendations, as well as tribologists who have worked with mazda racing teams....

Nubo

I have no idea what Mazda "knows" on this subject. My owners' guide does not mention Synthetic Oil anywhere. It gives the specific API service rating that the oil must have. My synthetic oil meets those specs. Those who worry about their warranty have nothing to fear -- You are following the owners' guide.

The lubrication and sealing functions of the metered oil are provided by liquid oil. That the oil burns has nothing to do with performing these functions. The "burning" happens later. Don't be misled into thinking that synthetics' higher heat tolerance makes "burning" difficult. Combustion and exhaust temps far exceed the flash point of any oil.

Then how do you explain rotary owners who have run synthetic oil for 100,000 or 200,000 miles, even in RX-7 whose seals are ostensibly LESS "resistant" to these effects? If synthetic oil "dissolved" these O-rings, why are these users' O-rings not dissolved?

Again, the fundamental point is if the manufacturer has anything to say, it should be said in the Owners' Guide. Internal memos between departments have no bearing on the customer. Nor do they indicate an official "Mazda Position" on the matter. This only seems to indicate that this debate is alive and well inside Mazda itself just as it is here. I think it's likely that some within Mazda cannot let go of incidents that took place nearly two generations ago -- reaction between seal materials and specific oil chemistries BOTH of which are LONG GONE. Customers have proven the reliability of synthetic oil in the rotary; we do not have to wait for Mazda to do so. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that Mazda will at some point recommend synthetic oil OVER conventional oil for these cars.

Nubo

ok, here's my SWAG (silly, wild-assed-guess) about why Renesis may have more problems with residues. Peripheral exhaust ports allow oil and partially-burned oil residues to be slung out of the combustion chamber. Side ports do not, so they remain until completely burned. This means you need less oil, but also that oil spends more of its time in a less-than-ideal state.

bureau13

Maybe, but this whole urban legend about synthetic oils not burning cleanly and leaving "ash" or other deposits is just that...an urban legend. It MAY have some basis in fact stemming from an early synthetic oil, I can't rule that out...but as has been repeated over and over again on this thread, modern synthetics burn CLEANER than non-synthetic oils, not the other way around.

jds

Nubo

We agree.

max5roadster

AGREED!
Got my Royal Purple, Mobil Synth Filter, and LUCAS UCL. Warranty Be Damned! HAHA! (Unless of course I need it.)

samsong

Too bad there's not a way to collect data from actual car owners on the type of oil they use, miles accumulated, frequency of oil changes, occurrence of lubrication problems, etc to actually pull a statistical analysis together and end this debate (within 90% confidence level ). Think of all the RX8s on the road as a giant lab. Too complex for your typical poll, I guess. It would be a good survey for some aspiring actuarial student. Any takers? Wonder if Mazda does this already or should?

Just thinking out loud...

crossbow

Some members already have samsong. If one of you started a database, you could have a UOA section like 6tech does. There is one 8 owner with something like 4-6 UOA's of redline 5w-20.

Example...something like this
http://www.mazda6tech.com/index.php?...d=26&Itemid=51

I still have another 8 or so to put up, but I've gotten lazy. Its interesting that the wear between 10w-30's and 0w-20's is about the same, regardless of climate or environment...in fact the valvetrain wear of the 20 wts are usually better.

samsong

Thanks, Crossbow...interesting site. I hadn't seen a UOA data dump before...that was educational and I think I'll consider getting UOA's done myself. I look forward to seeing what is available for the 8.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of correlating oil use to losing an engine and not UOA data. Because of the number of variables involved, a multi-variable statistical method (can't think of the term right now) would be helpful to find if there are any correlations to be found (statistical correlations). The survey would have to capture a large audience to be statistically relevant (maybe RX8club), and ask about geography (ave temperature), oil type (syn/dino, weight), oil change frequency, nominal driving habits (gentle highway to track), miles accumulated, and if an engine has been replaced during this interval. With a large enough population, one could try to see if there is any correlating factor between engine failure & oil type while also allowing for other variables. I'm no statistician (probably didn't even spell it right), but was exposed to this type of analysis in school, so was just thinking there might be something to apply to this. Guess I'm still a geek

Thanks for the site, though...good stuff.

g-man

kw1k

Hey where can i get some royal purple?

TCReedy1

Lots of posts about best oil for the Renesis Rotary. I don`t get that anyone writing is an engine lubrication specialist, well experienced in the design of internal combustion engines and the wide range of complex design parameters required to ensure the correct Tribology within an engine. So..my deduction is that I believe everything you guys wrote is largely personal opinion without an objective technical base behind it.

Mazda does not recommend Synthetics for the Renesis because sythetics at molecular level behave entirely differently to minerals. Minerals have a carbon based molecular chain whereas synthetics have a carbon based molecular spiral which changes form under increasing temperatrures. That means lubricity under temperature & pressure and also life-performance is way different. Bottom line is that the Tribology of the Renesis was designed by Mazda to use Mineral oil. Thats how the engine was designed, validated and released. If you go using synthetic, what guarantees have you that the Exhaust Gas Recirculation oil-combustion process won`t be altered? What guarantee have you that the long term lubrication of the rotor tips won`t be affected? Where is the proof? Who has any significant mileage accumulated using synthetic?

Food for thought

Lets get technically accurate and stop mucking about with excited personal opinions.

two rotors

Yikes what a technical post.