Rotarygod's rotary oil tech blog
08-27-2005, 02:01 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To each his own
Originally Posted by rotarygod
If you had an engine failure, would you really tell them you used it? You won't have an engine failure from it anyways but when a problem arises it is best to not divulge any information than you have to. If they ask you if you are using synthetic, say "no"! If you go in for a transmission problem and they ask you if you have been racing, you would probably say no also, even if you had been. They don't do an oil analysis and won't know unless you told them.
Mitch
08-27-2005, 03:15 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Applying a different expertise
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.
My expertise is not in oil, but in logical argument; I'm a lawyer. Bear with me, and I'll show you how Staticlag uses dishonest techniques to pretend he has answered opposing points of view without coming close to even talking about them.
1. I guess (a) and (b) are there to get us started on an emotional, irrational level -- the "your mother wears Army boots" argument.
2. The next two paragraphs repeat, and agree with, the difference in synthetics' molecular structure. S. ridicules stating that because it isn't in dispute. More childish "nyah,nyah" instead of saying something.
The last sentence is "why not use them?" Guess what? There was an answer to that question -- but S. doesn't admit there was, and try to analyze it. By just asking the question and then going on to other topics, S. is trying to fool his reader into thinking there wasn't an answer. Pretty tricky.
3. The next paragraph is another cutesy attempt to ridicule, completely unconnected with the subject.
4. Congratulations to S. on using only a few words in the next paragraph to accomplish two things: make a false charge about the substance of the argument, and try -- S's words didn't actually say what he meant -- another Army-boots insult. The explanation of molecular structure didn't stop as soon as it started. It continued to make a claim about the effect of the differences. [The kind of thing S. could have tried to rebut, if he had wanted to make an honest argument.] As for S's sneer that this was an attempt to seem -- not "be" -- educated, that kind of mudslinging is a waste of time.
5. Let's take all the rest if S's post together. That makes sense, because he starts by misstating the argument he opposes, so most of what follows after that can just be disregarded as fighting with a straw man.
"Now on the second part of your statement, that synthetics are a hydrocarbon polymer with a well organized structure (But any chain or 'polymer' of carbon atoms automatically needs to be organized to even chain in the first place!)"
"Minerals have a carbon based molecular chain whereas synthetics have a carbon based molecular spiral which changes form under increasing temperatrures."
Notice the difference? S. claims he just has to deal with a statement about a chain. The truth is that he has to deal with a statement that the difference between chain and spiral is important. Maybe he could, if he tried. But he didn't. Either deliberately or just from sloppiness, he gave no answer.
Just to emphasize the obvious, this post is not intended to give any opinion on the merits of the oil issue, or the technical accuracy of the post S. savaged. I'd like to see an informed analysis of it -- and hold the invective.
Mitch
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.
Originally Posted by staticlag
Prehaps you should use your deduction to actually research these subjects, like many of us did.
Use whatever you feel like.
Lets recap your post:
a) Everyone here is an idiot. None of your experience matters to me, but I'm too lazy to actually research the subjects myself.
b) Mazda says not to use synthetics, and I back them up, but fail to provide reasonable proof as to why.
A bit more food for thought:
You say that the molecular structure of synthetics is different, well, DUH! Thats why they're better than regular old mineral oils. If they were the same thing, then we would not be debating this, would we?
Synthetics have better protection and wear characteristics than mineral. Why not use them?
Honestly, there are so many scary words flying around here. I mean whenever somone throws in the word 'hydrocarbon' or 'molecular' or 'polymer' or golly jee whiz "SOLVENT!" Everone gets all excited. I dunno, water is a solvent for many things, I would be extremely careful about turning on your sink!
I like how in your post you begin to explain how mineral oils and synthetics are different at their molecular level, but your explanation stops as quickly as it started. Seems like you threw it in there at an attempt to be educated.
Let me elaborate for you:
What you said was: Mineral oils are a hydrocarbon polymer. For all those who don't dabble in organic chemistry, any organic fat or oil does this, that white stuff on your steak, or that gloss on the surface of your soup, is this stuff! Thats all that was said!
Now on the second part of your statement, that synthetics are a hydrocarbon polymer with a well organized structure (But any chain or 'polymer' of carbon atoms automatically needs to be organized to even chain in the first place!) Chains are a good thing, because the organization resists wear and tear, makes them more efficient lubricators, and ensures protection. Example: What do graphite and diamond have in common? They are both carbon, but the extreme organization of diamond makes it so much more durable than graphite.
Water is disorganized, thats why it is so free and loose. Oils are slippery because they are chains! Which is why we use them in the first place.
Now, any organic molecule is going to change conformational shape at high temperatures. If polymers didn't change conformational shape at high temperatures, we would have no gas refineriers, no plastics industry, no healthcare!
But since the synthetics are better organized (though both are organized, or else they would not use either in engines!), they have a better chance of staying together at high temperatures than something of less organization, which would fall flat on its face an completely break apart sooner.
The research is all there, when you feel like learning please pick up a book.
Use whatever you feel like.
Lets recap your post:
a) Everyone here is an idiot. None of your experience matters to me, but I'm too lazy to actually research the subjects myself.
b) Mazda says not to use synthetics, and I back them up, but fail to provide reasonable proof as to why.
A bit more food for thought:
You say that the molecular structure of synthetics is different, well, DUH! Thats why they're better than regular old mineral oils. If they were the same thing, then we would not be debating this, would we?
Synthetics have better protection and wear characteristics than mineral. Why not use them?
Honestly, there are so many scary words flying around here. I mean whenever somone throws in the word 'hydrocarbon' or 'molecular' or 'polymer' or golly jee whiz "SOLVENT!" Everone gets all excited. I dunno, water is a solvent for many things, I would be extremely careful about turning on your sink!
I like how in your post you begin to explain how mineral oils and synthetics are different at their molecular level, but your explanation stops as quickly as it started. Seems like you threw it in there at an attempt to be educated.
Let me elaborate for you:
What you said was: Mineral oils are a hydrocarbon polymer. For all those who don't dabble in organic chemistry, any organic fat or oil does this, that white stuff on your steak, or that gloss on the surface of your soup, is this stuff! Thats all that was said!
Now on the second part of your statement, that synthetics are a hydrocarbon polymer with a well organized structure (But any chain or 'polymer' of carbon atoms automatically needs to be organized to even chain in the first place!) Chains are a good thing, because the organization resists wear and tear, makes them more efficient lubricators, and ensures protection. Example: What do graphite and diamond have in common? They are both carbon, but the extreme organization of diamond makes it so much more durable than graphite.
Water is disorganized, thats why it is so free and loose. Oils are slippery because they are chains! Which is why we use them in the first place.
Now, any organic molecule is going to change conformational shape at high temperatures. If polymers didn't change conformational shape at high temperatures, we would have no gas refineriers, no plastics industry, no healthcare!
But since the synthetics are better organized (though both are organized, or else they would not use either in engines!), they have a better chance of staying together at high temperatures than something of less organization, which would fall flat on its face an completely break apart sooner.
The research is all there, when you feel like learning please pick up a book.
1. I guess (a) and (b) are there to get us started on an emotional, irrational level -- the "your mother wears Army boots" argument.
2. The next two paragraphs repeat, and agree with, the difference in synthetics' molecular structure. S. ridicules stating that because it isn't in dispute. More childish "nyah,nyah" instead of saying something.
The last sentence is "why not use them?" Guess what? There was an answer to that question -- but S. doesn't admit there was, and try to analyze it. By just asking the question and then going on to other topics, S. is trying to fool his reader into thinking there wasn't an answer. Pretty tricky.
3. The next paragraph is another cutesy attempt to ridicule, completely unconnected with the subject.
4. Congratulations to S. on using only a few words in the next paragraph to accomplish two things: make a false charge about the substance of the argument, and try -- S's words didn't actually say what he meant -- another Army-boots insult. The explanation of molecular structure didn't stop as soon as it started. It continued to make a claim about the effect of the differences. [The kind of thing S. could have tried to rebut, if he had wanted to make an honest argument.] As for S's sneer that this was an attempt to seem -- not "be" -- educated, that kind of mudslinging is a waste of time.
5. Let's take all the rest if S's post together. That makes sense, because he starts by misstating the argument he opposes, so most of what follows after that can just be disregarded as fighting with a straw man.
"Now on the second part of your statement, that synthetics are a hydrocarbon polymer with a well organized structure (But any chain or 'polymer' of carbon atoms automatically needs to be organized to even chain in the first place!)"
"Minerals have a carbon based molecular chain whereas synthetics have a carbon based molecular spiral which changes form under increasing temperatrures."
Notice the difference? S. claims he just has to deal with a statement about a chain. The truth is that he has to deal with a statement that the difference between chain and spiral is important. Maybe he could, if he tried. But he didn't. Either deliberately or just from sloppiness, he gave no answer.
Just to emphasize the obvious, this post is not intended to give any opinion on the merits of the oil issue, or the technical accuracy of the post S. savaged. I'd like to see an informed analysis of it -- and hold the invective.
Mitch
08-27-2005, 06:59 PM
#53
Registered
Thread Starter
OK guys enough is enough. No one is forcing anyone to use what they don't want to. The fact is that there is no evidence to prove that synthetics are harmful in any way to any currently produced engine. Not even the Renesis. I started this thread to tell people what I like and why. That's it. If you don't like it, use something else. Simple. Don't come on here trying to tell me I'm wrong and then justify it with theory and molecular chemistry. It's a waste of time. We all have opinions and personal preferences. The fact that I and others have been using it for several years with no issues makes it a pretty open and shut case. You don't have to agree with the verdict though. Use what you want and what you believe to work best and leave it at that. I never once tried to make everyone use what I use. I do want to educate the people who need it though as to the MYTH of synthetic oil in the rotary engine. It's fine and works great. There has been no hard evidence that synthetics can harm a Renesis engine. There have been no engine failures as a result of using synthetics. You just can't argue with that. You can still use whatever you like though.
08-27-2005, 07:07 PM
#54
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 3,535
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Not to put a spanner in the works :D but theoratically can these two oils be mixed using part synthethic and part mineral , or could this lead to problems .??
Now and then i have topped up my mineral based oil with a bit of synthetic when my mineral oil runs out and i cant immediately get my hands on some ??
B...free
michael
Now and then i have topped up my mineral based oil with a bit of synthetic when my mineral oil runs out and i cant immediately get my hands on some ??
B...free
michael
08-28-2005, 09:47 AM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the moment
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vizacar
These oil debates bore me.
Am I alone?
Am I alone?
Seems to me to boil down to there being a lack of specific testing data for the Renesis, lots of positive history and data in rotaries with synthetics from pretty saavy folks, lots of testing data for synthetics on fundamentals of lubrication all rolling together and distilling through a few BS filters to -- MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS and deal with it. Geesh, this has evolved into a bad TV show. I love logic and science. This thread has both but it is now boring because with the Renesis, the science on synthetics can only be extrapolated from other experiences. MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS.
sorry folks, just had to vent. Raining this morning and missed my Tee Time... Maybe I will wax my 8
08-28-2005, 10:28 AM
#58
Lubricious
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 3,425
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by TCReedy1
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?
08-28-2005, 02:17 PM
#59
I posted a link on how to get a tribologist to look directly at your UOA's...but everyone would rather argue instead of having Terry Dyson provide direct feedback on the effects of syn/non syn on the rotary platform.
I'll give the link again.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com
And a direct link to info about Terry
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/dyson_analysis.html
Terry is also a sponsor of BITOG, and has contributed much to discussions and myths about viscosity, wear, and synthetics.
His analysis of your sample also includes a TBN (basically a raw # as to the amount of additives remaining in the oil), which is useful for extended oil change intervals, as well as giving you an idea of how hard the engine is on a particular oil.
I highly recommend his service, and he does give proven results in terms of reducing wear and providing actual feedback on what all the #'s in your used oil analysis mean.
Mazda racing teams have used him in the past...I suggest those looking to prove a point do so by using his service. If you could get one group of syn guys to do Dyson analysis's, and one group of dino guys to do dyson tests as well...you could actually have arguments based on tribologist feedback on the rotary engine.
More info on oil and oil related discussions @
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com
I'll give the link again.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com
And a direct link to info about Terry
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/dyson_analysis.html
Terry is also a sponsor of BITOG, and has contributed much to discussions and myths about viscosity, wear, and synthetics.
His analysis of your sample also includes a TBN (basically a raw # as to the amount of additives remaining in the oil), which is useful for extended oil change intervals, as well as giving you an idea of how hard the engine is on a particular oil.
I highly recommend his service, and he does give proven results in terms of reducing wear and providing actual feedback on what all the #'s in your used oil analysis mean.
Mazda racing teams have used him in the past...I suggest those looking to prove a point do so by using his service. If you could get one group of syn guys to do Dyson analysis's, and one group of dino guys to do dyson tests as well...you could actually have arguments based on tribologist feedback on the rotary engine.
More info on oil and oil related discussions @
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com
08-28-2005, 03:31 PM
#60
The Professor
Originally Posted by crossbow
I posted a link on how to get a tribologist to look directly at your UOA's...but everyone would rather argue instead of having Terry Dyson provide direct feedback on the effects of syn/non syn on the rotary platform.
I'll give the link again.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com
And a direct link to info about Terry
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/dyson_analysis.html
Terry is also a sponsor of BITOG, and has contributed much to discussions and myths about viscosity, wear, and synthetics.
His analysis of your sample also includes a TBN (basically a raw # as to the amount of additives remaining in the oil), which is useful for extended oil change intervals, as well as giving you an idea of how hard the engine is on a particular oil.
I highly recommend his service, and he does give proven results in terms of reducing wear and providing actual feedback on what all the #'s in your used oil analysis mean.
Mazda racing teams have used him in the past...I suggest those looking to prove a point do so by using his service. If you could get one group of syn guys to do Dyson analysis's, and one group of dino guys to do dyson tests as well...you could actually have arguments based on tribologist feedback on the rotary engine.
More info on oil and oil related discussions @
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com
I'll give the link again.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com
And a direct link to info about Terry
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/dyson_analysis.html
Terry is also a sponsor of BITOG, and has contributed much to discussions and myths about viscosity, wear, and synthetics.
His analysis of your sample also includes a TBN (basically a raw # as to the amount of additives remaining in the oil), which is useful for extended oil change intervals, as well as giving you an idea of how hard the engine is on a particular oil.
I highly recommend his service, and he does give proven results in terms of reducing wear and providing actual feedback on what all the #'s in your used oil analysis mean.
Mazda racing teams have used him in the past...I suggest those looking to prove a point do so by using his service. If you could get one group of syn guys to do Dyson analysis's, and one group of dino guys to do dyson tests as well...you could actually have arguments based on tribologist feedback on the rotary engine.
More info on oil and oil related discussions @
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com
How about tape? Will it help if I tape the hell out of it?
Apparently everyone loves tape. We get so much tape on oil sample containers that we should be in the used-tape business. But you know what doesn't work very well? Scotch tape. Don't do it. It's really not any good. Our apologies to the Scotch tape people. Now electrical tape — that's tape we can respect.
Apparently everyone loves tape. We get so much tape on oil sample containers that we should be in the used-tape business. But you know what doesn't work very well? Scotch tape. Don't do it. It's really not any good. Our apologies to the Scotch tape people. Now electrical tape — that's tape we can respect.
But I need to yell at someone. How about you? Can I call up and yell at you?
Knock yourself out.
Knock yourself out.
I don't think you understand my deep, unyielding love of tape. I am going to tape that container so well, the oil couldn't get out if it tried.
You and everyone else, brother.
You and everyone else, brother.
08-28-2005, 03:56 PM
#61
Registered
Thread Starter
Since this thread has evolved away from what I originally posted it for, knowledge and personal judgement, I'm going to go back and slowly start deleting posts from it. A blog is basically intended to be a personal account of what I like and why. It is not meant to tell anyone that they have to use anything. It is intended to share what I like and why. If you disagree, good for you. I am a person that ONLY cares about results and wanted to share my proven results with everyone else. If I had found that a certain product didn't work well, do you honestly think I'd tell you guys why I like it? I'm not selling anything.
Most importantly, I don't care what oil any of you guys use. I'm not here to tell you that you absolutely have to use any one oil type or company. I just told you what I like and why. So to those of you that disagree, get over it.
Most importantly, I don't care what oil any of you guys use. I'm not here to tell you that you absolutely have to use any one oil type or company. I just told you what I like and why. So to those of you that disagree, get over it.
08-29-2005, 08:25 PM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RG...thanks for sharing the blog. Don't let the ankle biters get you down. (Ankle Biter = those little gnats that like to pick at you and distract.) I, for one, look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Motor onwards.
Motor onwards.
08-29-2005, 09:20 PM
#63
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
Originally Posted by 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.
Look, it's fairly simple. Modern synthetics do everything mineral oils do. They just do them better. Burnability, foaming characteristics, heat dissipation, anti-friction properties, longevity, seal protection, etc--all are better. That's pretty much scientific fact. The only question is, why wouldn't Mazda recommend them.
Just a guess, but it's probably for the same reasons that nearly all cars from all manufacturers still have a stone-age 3,000 mile oil change interval listed in the owners manual, when that could easily be much higher. Oil changes are a gravy train for the dealers. I read an article about this in Forbes, it was quite interesting how touchy dealers and lube-station owners are about this.
There's another aspect too. The Renesis holds 3.8 quarts of oil. (Why that isn't higher, maybe RG or somebody can clue us in.) Anyway, we also know 2 other things: A) The renesis can consume about a quart of oil every 1,000 miles; B) Synthetics like to brag about how they can go 8,000 miles or more.
Knowing the oil capacity is 3.8L, along with points A and B, makes a light bulb go off in my head. Maybe Mazda doesn't want your average Joe Dumbass to think he can go 8,000 miles between popping the hood on his RX-8, because ANY oil could potentially be long gone at 4,000 miles. Legally, would Mazda be responsible for Joe's wrecked engine? Maybe not, but why not avoid legal battles and an undeserved bad reputation to begin with--especially if the solution boosts dealer profits a bit.
Originally Posted by TCReedy1
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?
edit: the various o-rings in a rotary are Viton? Any other elastomers? The reason I ask is, I'm pretty sure we have some catalogs from o-ring manufacturers at work, with chemical/temperature/etc. compatability charts. I'll ask one of our engineers at work to be sure, but I'm pretty sure Viton is what you'd use in a valve carrying most any motor oil.
Last edited by BaronVonBigmeat; 08-29-2005 at 09:31 PM.
08-30-2005, 03:20 AM
#64
Registered
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by BaronVonBigmeat
There's another aspect too. Anyway, we also know 2 other things: A) The renesis can consume about a quart of oil every 1,000 miles; B) Synthetics like to brag about how they can go 8,000 miles or more.
Knowing the oil capacity is 3.8L, along with points A and B, makes a light bulb go off in my head. Maybe Mazda doesn't want your average Joe Dumbass to think he can go 8,000 miles between popping the hood on his RX-8, because ANY oil could potentially be long gone at 4,000 miles. Legally, would Mazda be responsible for Joe's wrecked engine? Maybe not, but why not avoid legal battles and an undeserved bad reputation to begin with--especially if the solution boosts dealer profits a bit.
Knowing the oil capacity is 3.8L, along with points A and B, makes a light bulb go off in my head. Maybe Mazda doesn't want your average Joe Dumbass to think he can go 8,000 miles between popping the hood on his RX-8, because ANY oil could potentially be long gone at 4,000 miles. Legally, would Mazda be responsible for Joe's wrecked engine? Maybe not, but why not avoid legal battles and an undeserved bad reputation to begin with--especially if the solution boosts dealer profits a bit.
09-04-2005, 01:03 PM
#65
www.evoperform.com
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: tax free delaware
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not trying to hijack your thread here RG, but i recently (sept. 2nd to be exact) performed an oil change and switched over to royal purple 5w20 in the 8. drained oil coolers to get as much out as possible (made a mess too, ever see oil shoot 6 feet out from the front of the car? but that's another story).
i noticed an immediate improvement in overall smoothness and idle quality. anyway, just wanted to add my 2qts worth on the oil debate.
i noticed an immediate improvement in overall smoothness and idle quality. anyway, just wanted to add my 2qts worth on the oil debate.
09-05-2005, 07:41 AM
#66
M0D Squad -charter member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lurch519
drained oil coolers to get as much out as possible (made a mess too, ever see oil shoot 6 feet out from the front of the car? but that's another story).
I changed my oil Friday, jacking up the car on both sides in an attempt to drain the coolers, but got very little.
09-05-2005, 08:03 AM
#67
www.evoperform.com
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: tax free delaware
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i disconnected the coolers, and drained the oil out, though when i hooked em back up, i didnt fully seat the coupling on the one on the drivers side, and when i started it to circulate the oil, the pressure shot oil at least 6 feet out from the front of my 8
09-05-2005, 12:19 PM
#68
Coming thru in waves...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere between Yesterday and Tomorrow.
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another oily mess
RG, nice info here. You really have renewed my interest in synthetic oils for rotaries, an interest I thought I no longer had the nerve to revive.
I'm giving it another 2 years though, while my dealership still does the free routine maintenance thing (Castrol 5w20). I wonder what the word will then be.
I have to slap your knuckles (you're not the only one here either) cocerning your reaction to ASH8. Take your profession - whoever you are that is reading this. You like to think that you have become a pretty good source of information. Infallible? Hardly, but pretty darned reliable. After all, you spend the majority of your awaken life doing it. You have at least some level of interest in it, enough to pretty well keep up with the latest trends and knowledge bases. You like to think that you are up on all of the latest, at least to a level where you can make a decent and honest living.
You have seen new things come into your field - the latest most greatest thing known to man since the invention of sliced bread. It handles what the old couldn't with the greatest of ease. Everyone at least makes a decent attempt to adopt this new technology. After a while, problems crop up, first one thing, then something else... you know where I'm going here... major problems, and they're all new kinds of problems, hard to pinpoint where they're coming from at first, soon to find that it's from that new thing that was supposed to be slicker than snot on a doorknob. In the longrun, it's just snot.
Be careful how you treat your elders and the advice they freely offer you. They know what they're talking about, usually more than you care to know, and sometimes, even more than you want them to know.
Notice how ASH8 is done giving you free advice here... not that you were looking for any in the first place, but...
I'm giving it another 2 years though, while my dealership still does the free routine maintenance thing (Castrol 5w20). I wonder what the word will then be.
I have to slap your knuckles (you're not the only one here either) cocerning your reaction to ASH8. Take your profession - whoever you are that is reading this. You like to think that you have become a pretty good source of information. Infallible? Hardly, but pretty darned reliable. After all, you spend the majority of your awaken life doing it. You have at least some level of interest in it, enough to pretty well keep up with the latest trends and knowledge bases. You like to think that you are up on all of the latest, at least to a level where you can make a decent and honest living.
You have seen new things come into your field - the latest most greatest thing known to man since the invention of sliced bread. It handles what the old couldn't with the greatest of ease. Everyone at least makes a decent attempt to adopt this new technology. After a while, problems crop up, first one thing, then something else... you know where I'm going here... major problems, and they're all new kinds of problems, hard to pinpoint where they're coming from at first, soon to find that it's from that new thing that was supposed to be slicker than snot on a doorknob. In the longrun, it's just snot.
Be careful how you treat your elders and the advice they freely offer you. They know what they're talking about, usually more than you care to know, and sometimes, even more than you want them to know.
Notice how ASH8 is done giving you free advice here... not that you were looking for any in the first place, but...
Last edited by Racer X-8; 09-05-2005 at 12:28 PM.
09-05-2005, 01:01 PM
#70
Coming thru in waves...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere between Yesterday and Tomorrow.
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And they listened to him and took his advice. :p Oooh, now that's bad.
Was he an expert in the field of suicide bombers? Croud control? Darn...
But anyway, good thread, good info, and RG, your experience in the use of synthetic motor oils in rotaries and the experience that you found elsewhere and shared with us is very encouraging and I commend and thank you for that!!! It's just that the way ASH8's gracious contribution to this was treated, that he's an old-timer, set in his ways, that when it comes to the new technology, he don't know **** from shinola, made this thread a hard read.
I will unfortunately have to agree with your stance on Mazda's position. The corporate world which includes and controls their engineering almost always mantains many old-time stances on things of this type. Sure, Mazda has a zillion engineers and many of them surely do know more than all of us here combined on this very topic. It takes a long time for those in control to be convinced about these kinds of things though, and until they are convinced enough to do a corporate change, the change is not. That can take years after the people who know know, even after those who need to know in order to make the corporate change know. It's funny like that.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I was confronted with "Oh, that. We've tried that already, years ago, and it doesn't work, trust me." Yeah, well, how long ago was that? When you tried it, did you try it correctly? Lemme just try... "NO, I told you we tried it and it doesn't WORK!" Blah blah blah. Now, that is information you should NOT take freely, but there it is. It happens all the time.
I didn't sense that kind of mentality coming from ASH8. That's what has me going off like this. He was holding on to some old beliefs alrighty, but that's good. Get the old standards and show that they no longer apply. ASH8 should not have been compelled to feel ashamed to have put those old standards on the table here though. He didn't to me come off as closed-minded about it all.
Was he an expert in the field of suicide bombers? Croud control? Darn...
But anyway, good thread, good info, and RG, your experience in the use of synthetic motor oils in rotaries and the experience that you found elsewhere and shared with us is very encouraging and I commend and thank you for that!!! It's just that the way ASH8's gracious contribution to this was treated, that he's an old-timer, set in his ways, that when it comes to the new technology, he don't know **** from shinola, made this thread a hard read.
I will unfortunately have to agree with your stance on Mazda's position. The corporate world which includes and controls their engineering almost always mantains many old-time stances on things of this type. Sure, Mazda has a zillion engineers and many of them surely do know more than all of us here combined on this very topic. It takes a long time for those in control to be convinced about these kinds of things though, and until they are convinced enough to do a corporate change, the change is not. That can take years after the people who know know, even after those who need to know in order to make the corporate change know. It's funny like that.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I was confronted with "Oh, that. We've tried that already, years ago, and it doesn't work, trust me." Yeah, well, how long ago was that? When you tried it, did you try it correctly? Lemme just try... "NO, I told you we tried it and it doesn't WORK!" Blah blah blah. Now, that is information you should NOT take freely, but there it is. It happens all the time.
I didn't sense that kind of mentality coming from ASH8. That's what has me going off like this. He was holding on to some old beliefs alrighty, but that's good. Get the old standards and show that they no longer apply. ASH8 should not have been compelled to feel ashamed to have put those old standards on the table here though. He didn't to me come off as closed-minded about it all.
Last edited by Racer X-8; 09-05-2005 at 01:55 PM.
09-05-2005, 10:39 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: atlanta ga
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help me out here please. I only have one question. Does the current manual actually state that synthetics are prohibited in the modern rotary?
Also, Baron, there's only one problem with your theory: Mazda, like most other manufaturers IS recommending long oil change intervals (7500 I believe). It's the dealers who encourage the traditional 3000 mile standard. I personally like to change mine very frequently.
Also, Baron, there's only one problem with your theory: Mazda, like most other manufaturers IS recommending long oil change intervals (7500 I believe). It's the dealers who encourage the traditional 3000 mile standard. I personally like to change mine very frequently.
09-06-2005, 01:00 AM
#74
Well, I just did my second oil change maybe a few days ago.
Im using Full Synth Quaker State 5w20.
After reading all these posts. I think I might switch over to Royal Purple. (where to buy it by the way, I live in New York, any online sites recommend?)
but one thing Im sure is that, The Manual did NOT say a word about "dont use Full Synth Oil". and I "personally" think that Synth oils are improving Everyday. Im not saying that Mineral oils are not, but from what Im seeing is that. Synth is better than Mineral Oils at THIS moment.
So, yes, Full Synth Oil for me.
and Lets NOT forget, Mazda did NOT say jack about Synth oil in 8's manual. so what does that mean? they left it out? I dont really think so ? Do they agree ? I dont know. Are they using us as lab rats ?(to test Synth Oil, nothing beats LIVE testers like us) Maybe.
Who knows, I have 4K miles now and I did 2 oil changes already. and I plan to change my oil every maybe 1.5 ~ 2K miles. I dont race my 8, its just that I love my 8 and I want to make her runnin' happy at all times.
Full Synth Oil all the way.
(Remember its my OWN opinion, no hard feelings everybody)
Im using Full Synth Quaker State 5w20.
After reading all these posts. I think I might switch over to Royal Purple. (where to buy it by the way, I live in New York, any online sites recommend?)
but one thing Im sure is that, The Manual did NOT say a word about "dont use Full Synth Oil". and I "personally" think that Synth oils are improving Everyday. Im not saying that Mineral oils are not, but from what Im seeing is that. Synth is better than Mineral Oils at THIS moment.
So, yes, Full Synth Oil for me.
and Lets NOT forget, Mazda did NOT say jack about Synth oil in 8's manual. so what does that mean? they left it out? I dont really think so ? Do they agree ? I dont know. Are they using us as lab rats ?(to test Synth Oil, nothing beats LIVE testers like us) Maybe.
Who knows, I have 4K miles now and I did 2 oil changes already. and I plan to change my oil every maybe 1.5 ~ 2K miles. I dont race my 8, its just that I love my 8 and I want to make her runnin' happy at all times.
Full Synth Oil all the way.
(Remember its my OWN opinion, no hard feelings everybody)
Last edited by nycgps; 09-06-2005 at 01:03 AM.
09-06-2005, 01:21 AM
#75
Super Moderator
Originally Posted by olddragger
I believe experience. I am very pragmatic. I also think Mazda goofed in writing in the manuel to use only 5/20 in all temperture ranges.
olddragger
olddragger
America's use of synthetic oils is most likely greater than any other country, and I have yet to hear of any thermal damaged RX-8 engines in other countries this past northern summer.
Someone is sure to know.
