The Truth About Full Synthetics and Rotaries
04-18-2013, 01:16 AM
#76
Registered
I've used RP in rotaries since about 1997. Never had a problem and I stand by it.
I know people cite UOA's when it comes to oil viscosity and come to the conclusion that since RP loses a couple of cst points that it is bad. My question is, how do you know? Keep in mind that as long as the oil maintains at least 2 cst of viscosity at temperature, it has the viscosity to do it's job. Additive package aside. Does anyone here even truly know how to read a UOA or how each item is actually relevant? I'm going to say no to that with near 100% certainty. Just randomly comparing one UOA to anther oil UOA and pointing out that one has more of something than another and therefore must be better is a poor way of deducing performance yet it seems to be the standard that people who even give second thought to them seem concerned about.
The logic of "would RP, or any other synthetic oil company, pay for a blown engine" is also an argument bordering on complete ignorance. What idiot what voluntarily tell Mazda that they did something not recommended by the manufacturer and then expect them to honor a warranty contingent on following their rules? Um...duh??? Moron?! First off, there is no legal recourse to deny a warranty based on the base stock of an oil so long as it meets the specifications set forth by the auto manufacturer. I'm not sure you can even find an oil that doesn't meet specs on paper anymore. Second, you can not test a used oil to determine if an oil is conventional or synthetic. No one can. That isn't an opinion. Therefore, even if Mazda wanted to test your oil, and keep in mind the average dealership mechanic is dumber than a feces throwing monkey, they couldn't. If they claim they can, tell them to go for it but don't even fall prey to fear and admit to what they are hoping you will which is to admit some form of fault.
I know some people make the horrible assumption that an engine that failed must have failed solely because of the oil in it rather than another problem such as the right foot of the idiot driving it and not maintaining it properly or any other reason but the fact of the matter is, you may as well just throw your feces if your only rational thought is some poorly sought after conclusion based on the sad ignorant assumption of someone else just as ignorant about oil who only believes what other lemmings online tell them.
Now that I've mildly stated my thoughts to the collective of rotary community oil intelligence, I'll tell you a few things that I and a few others here on the forum learned back at Sevenstock 8 from the lead Mazda rotary engineer himself, Mr. Yamaguchi-san.
The first question that I asked him, and zoom44 was there to witness it, was are synthetic oils bad for rotary engines? His answer? No. He explained that early on when the first synthetics came out they were highly inconsistent. They were not all created equal and some did not perform as they were supposed to. Fast forward 30 years to where we are now and things are very different. To think that any modern day synthetic isn't superior to any synthetic from 3 decades ago is to continue to argue that the Earth is still flat. We all know better, at least in terms of the shape of the Earth. Apparently some of you haven't gotten the memo yet. Definitely not when it comes to oil.
I asked him why Mazda does not recommend synthetics in rotaries and he laughed. He personally helped formulate Idemitsu for the 787B. If he didn't believe in synthetics, he wouldn't have done that. Don't try to make any excuses about how "it's formulated for rotaries while others aren't" unless you can specifically list each component in their formulation that makes it any more rotary safe than any other synthetics. You won't find anything. I know, I know...but a UOA says...yeah yeah, you're an idiot. The one thing that sticks out about Idemitsu is it's abnormally high levels of Moly. You may think that this is great for anti wear and you'd be correct. What a UOA will never tell you is that high levels of Moly are difficult to keep in suspension and will ultimately settle out of the oil in a street driven engine. That oil was formulated for a race engine that was pretty much constantly running at high rpm and then the oil drained. More of it in a UOA tells you nothing useful if you don't have any other information that just that number to compare with others. Big deal.
Yamaguchi-san mentioned that in order for Mazda to absolutely state that synthetics were all safe, they'd have to be sure that no one would use one that wasn't. In other words they can't take the chance that someone that still has a 30 year old bottle of synthetic oil on the shelf in a dusty corner of their garage will use it. It was interesting that through his broken english and my lack of Japanese he stated not to use Mobil 1 synthetic in rotaries. He didn't elaborate as to why but for some reason through his testing he did not like it. I don't know if it was a European spec or US spec oil and I guarantee that whatever it was the spec has changed since then anyways. Nevertheless Mobil 1 is the #1 used synthetic in the world. They'd leave themselves open for a lawsuit if they named Mobil 1 specifically as an oil not to use. It's far easier just to tell everyone not to use any and be done with it. Sometimes they have far simpler reasons for doing things than nerds staring at UOA's all day would want to believe. Now since I always used RP I specifically asked him about it and he said it was good oil. Again, he didn't elaborate as to what he liked in it.
Since I got this info straight from the highest ranking rotary engine person in the world, I'm inclined to believe him before I'll believe anyone else. Racing Beat originally used Amsoil until RP came out. Now they recommend RP. No RP does not pay them to recommend it. Jim Mederer recommends what he tests and likes. Period.
A few years ago I asked Rick Engmann, engine builder for Jim Downing and probably the most experienced rotary engine builder in the US what his thoughts on synthetics in rotaries were. His answer? "I wouldn't use anything else." They raced with them.
I know someone is now going to discount the opinions of the smartest rotary people on the planet with some excuse like, "but they were using a group IV oil not a V" or some other nonsense and my response to you is to hold on tight, your boat is approaching the edge of the world.
There are a lot of good oils out there today, conventional and synthetic. My personal favorite synthetics are Royal Purple, Amsoil, and Redline. They are all great oils and you shouldn't be scared of any of them. For conventionals I like Havoline or Castrol. I absolutely hate Pennzoil. I've found engine smoothness to fall off noticeably after about 1000 miles with it.
There is no reason for there to still be an oil debate in rotaries. There is no debate. It is settled. Synthetics are fine. Period. If you disagree, be wrong. That's your choice but don't convince others to be wrong too. That's what you do when you argue against synthetics in rotaries. Get over it or sell your car to someone who isn't so damed stupid. There are plenty of LSx and Hemi powered cars out there to choose from that I'm sure you'd be far happier with.
Am I saying that you must use synthetics? Nope. Not at all. Use what you want. If you feel that you don't want to spend the extra few dollars per quart of oil for added protection but are willing to use the highest octane, most expense gasoline you can buy at every fill up for no added performance benefit, go ahead. How you spend your money is your business.
Damned it feels good to be back bitching at people! It's been far too long.
I know people cite UOA's when it comes to oil viscosity and come to the conclusion that since RP loses a couple of cst points that it is bad. My question is, how do you know? Keep in mind that as long as the oil maintains at least 2 cst of viscosity at temperature, it has the viscosity to do it's job. Additive package aside. Does anyone here even truly know how to read a UOA or how each item is actually relevant? I'm going to say no to that with near 100% certainty. Just randomly comparing one UOA to anther oil UOA and pointing out that one has more of something than another and therefore must be better is a poor way of deducing performance yet it seems to be the standard that people who even give second thought to them seem concerned about.
The logic of "would RP, or any other synthetic oil company, pay for a blown engine" is also an argument bordering on complete ignorance. What idiot what voluntarily tell Mazda that they did something not recommended by the manufacturer and then expect them to honor a warranty contingent on following their rules? Um...duh??? Moron?! First off, there is no legal recourse to deny a warranty based on the base stock of an oil so long as it meets the specifications set forth by the auto manufacturer. I'm not sure you can even find an oil that doesn't meet specs on paper anymore. Second, you can not test a used oil to determine if an oil is conventional or synthetic. No one can. That isn't an opinion. Therefore, even if Mazda wanted to test your oil, and keep in mind the average dealership mechanic is dumber than a feces throwing monkey, they couldn't. If they claim they can, tell them to go for it but don't even fall prey to fear and admit to what they are hoping you will which is to admit some form of fault.
I know some people make the horrible assumption that an engine that failed must have failed solely because of the oil in it rather than another problem such as the right foot of the idiot driving it and not maintaining it properly or any other reason but the fact of the matter is, you may as well just throw your feces if your only rational thought is some poorly sought after conclusion based on the sad ignorant assumption of someone else just as ignorant about oil who only believes what other lemmings online tell them.
Now that I've mildly stated my thoughts to the collective of rotary community oil intelligence, I'll tell you a few things that I and a few others here on the forum learned back at Sevenstock 8 from the lead Mazda rotary engineer himself, Mr. Yamaguchi-san.
The first question that I asked him, and zoom44 was there to witness it, was are synthetic oils bad for rotary engines? His answer? No. He explained that early on when the first synthetics came out they were highly inconsistent. They were not all created equal and some did not perform as they were supposed to. Fast forward 30 years to where we are now and things are very different. To think that any modern day synthetic isn't superior to any synthetic from 3 decades ago is to continue to argue that the Earth is still flat. We all know better, at least in terms of the shape of the Earth. Apparently some of you haven't gotten the memo yet. Definitely not when it comes to oil.
I asked him why Mazda does not recommend synthetics in rotaries and he laughed. He personally helped formulate Idemitsu for the 787B. If he didn't believe in synthetics, he wouldn't have done that. Don't try to make any excuses about how "it's formulated for rotaries while others aren't" unless you can specifically list each component in their formulation that makes it any more rotary safe than any other synthetics. You won't find anything. I know, I know...but a UOA says...yeah yeah, you're an idiot. The one thing that sticks out about Idemitsu is it's abnormally high levels of Moly. You may think that this is great for anti wear and you'd be correct. What a UOA will never tell you is that high levels of Moly are difficult to keep in suspension and will ultimately settle out of the oil in a street driven engine. That oil was formulated for a race engine that was pretty much constantly running at high rpm and then the oil drained. More of it in a UOA tells you nothing useful if you don't have any other information that just that number to compare with others. Big deal.
Yamaguchi-san mentioned that in order for Mazda to absolutely state that synthetics were all safe, they'd have to be sure that no one would use one that wasn't. In other words they can't take the chance that someone that still has a 30 year old bottle of synthetic oil on the shelf in a dusty corner of their garage will use it. It was interesting that through his broken english and my lack of Japanese he stated not to use Mobil 1 synthetic in rotaries. He didn't elaborate as to why but for some reason through his testing he did not like it. I don't know if it was a European spec or US spec oil and I guarantee that whatever it was the spec has changed since then anyways. Nevertheless Mobil 1 is the #1 used synthetic in the world. They'd leave themselves open for a lawsuit if they named Mobil 1 specifically as an oil not to use. It's far easier just to tell everyone not to use any and be done with it. Sometimes they have far simpler reasons for doing things than nerds staring at UOA's all day would want to believe. Now since I always used RP I specifically asked him about it and he said it was good oil. Again, he didn't elaborate as to what he liked in it.
Since I got this info straight from the highest ranking rotary engine person in the world, I'm inclined to believe him before I'll believe anyone else. Racing Beat originally used Amsoil until RP came out. Now they recommend RP. No RP does not pay them to recommend it. Jim Mederer recommends what he tests and likes. Period.
A few years ago I asked Rick Engmann, engine builder for Jim Downing and probably the most experienced rotary engine builder in the US what his thoughts on synthetics in rotaries were. His answer? "I wouldn't use anything else." They raced with them.
I know someone is now going to discount the opinions of the smartest rotary people on the planet with some excuse like, "but they were using a group IV oil not a V" or some other nonsense and my response to you is to hold on tight, your boat is approaching the edge of the world.
There are a lot of good oils out there today, conventional and synthetic. My personal favorite synthetics are Royal Purple, Amsoil, and Redline. They are all great oils and you shouldn't be scared of any of them. For conventionals I like Havoline or Castrol. I absolutely hate Pennzoil. I've found engine smoothness to fall off noticeably after about 1000 miles with it.
There is no reason for there to still be an oil debate in rotaries. There is no debate. It is settled. Synthetics are fine. Period. If you disagree, be wrong. That's your choice but don't convince others to be wrong too. That's what you do when you argue against synthetics in rotaries. Get over it or sell your car to someone who isn't so damed stupid. There are plenty of LSx and Hemi powered cars out there to choose from that I'm sure you'd be far happier with.
Am I saying that you must use synthetics? Nope. Not at all. Use what you want. If you feel that you don't want to spend the extra few dollars per quart of oil for added protection but are willing to use the highest octane, most expense gasoline you can buy at every fill up for no added performance benefit, go ahead. How you spend your money is your business.
Damned it feels good to be back bitching at people! It's been far too long.
04-18-2013, 02:03 AM
#77
Registered
...The logic of "would RP, or any other synthetic oil company, pay for a blown engine" is also an argument bordering on complete ignorance. What idiot what voluntarily tell Mazda that they did something not recommended by the manufacturer and then expect them to honor a warranty contingent on following their rules?...
I have no reason to doubt that synthetic is OK, as you so eloquently describe. But I do have a problem when a company has a strong statement that their product is OK and does not stand behind it.
In a parallel situation, I've got an early model Nikon DSLR. Cleaning the sensor is an issue. Nikon's official position is that it's not a DIY. There's a small company that makes sensor cleaning products, and they back it up. In instances of sensors going belly-up, they've either paid for sensor replacement, or worked with their customers to get Nikon to fix things.
Ken
04-18-2013, 06:14 AM
#79
I know people cite UOA's when it comes to oil viscosity and come to the conclusion that since RP loses a couple of cst points that it is bad. My question is, how do you know? Keep in mind that as long as the oil maintains at least 2 cst of viscosity at temperature, it has the viscosity to do it's job. Additive package aside. Does anyone here even truly know how to read a UOA or how each item is actually relevant? I'm going to say no to that with near 100% certainty. Just randomly comparing one UOA to anther oil UOA and pointing out that one has more of something than another and therefore must be better is a poor way of deducing performance yet it seems to be the standard that people who even give second thought to them seem concerned about.
http://www.normalexception.net/image...00-rp-5w30.png
I then contact RP for more information on the claim. They had me run another OCI of RP 5w30. They sent me a free sample kit and offered to pay the shipping and the cost of analysis. I sent in my sample, they contacted me within a few days and asked me to make sure I was really running the 5w30, because the results that I was getting were that of a control run of their 5w-20. I will have to dig up some of the emails I had with one of the RP techs about the issue... even they were confused on why the results were the way they were.
Last edited by paimon.soror; 04-18-2013 at 06:17 AM.
04-18-2013, 09:49 AM
#80
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Synthetic oil is fine. And after tearing a few of these engines apart and seeing the bearings, knowing what oil was used, and the maintenance history, I am convinced synthetics offer significantly better protection. What is more important than what type of oil you use is how often you change it.
But like everything else rotary related, you can ask 10 different "experts" what oil they prefer and why, and you will get ten different opinions.
But like everything else rotary related, you can ask 10 different "experts" what oil they prefer and why, and you will get ten different opinions.
04-18-2013, 10:17 AM
#82
You gonna eat that?
iTrader: (1)
04-18-2013, 10:47 AM
#85
You gonna eat that?
iTrader: (1)
Those who are tired of it or have their minds made up could choose not to read it.
Is this unreasonable?
04-18-2013, 11:17 AM
#86
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Do things not evolve over time? Things do, but nothing relating to this topic has evolved.
Could the experiences of those who have not discussed this yet have some value?
No.
Those who are tired of it or have their minds made up could choose not to read it.
Is this unreasonable?
Yes they could and no, that is not unreasonable.
Oh and I was being a smart ***, FYI.
Last edited by 9krpmrx8; 04-18-2013 at 11:21 AM.
04-18-2013, 11:19 AM
#87
Registered
Because 1wickedR3 joined this site back in December, and his first post was a product placement plug for RP. I'm surprised that Internet Brands did not come down on him for that, not being a paid site vendor and all.
But at least the thread got RG out of hibernation.
Ken
But at least the thread got RG out of hibernation.
Ken
04-18-2013, 11:21 AM
#88
You gonna eat that?
iTrader: (1)
04-18-2013, 12:46 PM
#92
Registered
Nope. I've owned 6 different rotary powered cars but not an 8. That has no relevance though since the Renesis isn't fundamentally different to any before it. It just isn't unique.
04-18-2013, 12:50 PM
#94
04-18-2013, 12:51 PM
#95
Registered
I ran RP for a while, and while I was confident in the support that it gets from the community, I still decided to run some UOA's for myself. The first time I ran a UOA even the folks at Blackstone were alarmed at some of the results. I was running a 5w-30 and they thought I made a mistake because the viscosity of the oil dropped off significantly after a few thousand miles.
http://www.normalexception.net/image...00-rp-5w30.png
I then contact RP for more information on the claim. They had me run another OCI of RP 5w30. They sent me a free sample kit and offered to pay the shipping and the cost of analysis. I sent in my sample, they contacted me within a few days and asked me to make sure I was really running the 5w30, because the results that I was getting were that of a control run of their 5w-20. I will have to dig up some of the emails I had with one of the RP techs about the issue... even they were confused on why the results were the way they were.
http://www.normalexception.net/image...00-rp-5w30.png
I then contact RP for more information on the claim. They had me run another OCI of RP 5w30. They sent me a free sample kit and offered to pay the shipping and the cost of analysis. I sent in my sample, they contacted me within a few days and asked me to make sure I was really running the 5w30, because the results that I was getting were that of a control run of their 5w-20. I will have to dig up some of the emails I had with one of the RP techs about the issue... even they were confused on why the results were the way they were.
04-18-2013, 12:54 PM
#96
Registered
People are debating a non issue. You can still argue that the Earth is flat thereby creating a debate but it doesn't change the fact that you've been proven wrong. The oil debate may as well be the Earth is flat debate. People aren't required to believe facts.
04-18-2013, 12:58 PM
#97
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 239 Likes
on
109 Posts
Now that I've mildly stated my thoughts to the collective of rotary community oil intelligence, I'll tell you a few things that I and a few others here on the forum learned back at Sevenstock 8 from the lead Mazda rotary engineer himself, Mr. Yamaguchi-san.
Fast forward 30 years to where we are now and things are very different. To think that any modern day synthetic isn't superior to any synthetic from 3 decades ago is to continue to argue that the Earth is still flat.
It was interesting that through his broken english and my lack of Japanese he stated not to use Mobil 1 synthetic in rotaries. He didn't elaborate as to why but for some reason through his testing he did not like it.
Fast forward 30 years to where we are now and things are very different. To think that any modern day synthetic isn't superior to any synthetic from 3 decades ago is to continue to argue that the Earth is still flat.
It was interesting that through his broken english and my lack of Japanese he stated not to use Mobil 1 synthetic in rotaries. He didn't elaborate as to why but for some reason through his testing he did not like it.
UOA's show Mobile 1 is extremely effective in anti-wear properties. Perhaps a decade ago it wasn't, but the proof is out there that the wear materials in UOA's using Mobile 1 are quite good compared to other oils.
04-18-2013, 01:01 PM
#98
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 239 Likes
on
109 Posts
It's possible to debate that the world is still flat after all. A point doesn't have to be correct for someone to debate it. Ineffective? Sure.
Most of us here agree that synthetics are the right choice. Which synthetic... that sure is still under debate
04-18-2013, 01:03 PM
#99
Registered
I made it pretty clear that I didn't know which oil he tested, how long ago, or why he didn't like it. I also stated that it has probably been reformulated several times since that test which may make it a non issue. Probably so. I know people who have used Mobil 1 synthetic in rotaries with no issues at all. It does beg the question though, and a valid one at that, does reading a UOA really tell you everything? It certainly doesn't with Idemitsu which is a great race engine oil.
04-18-2013, 01:06 PM
#100
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 239 Likes
on
109 Posts
Comparing a UOA from Idemitsu raced for 8 hours on an engine then drained to a Mobile 1 UOA from an engine with 3,000 miles of daily driving.... yeah, that would be pointless.
Comparing oils on your own engine with the same driving used on both, the same engine on both, yes, I believe that tells you what you need to know about how your engine is wearing. Which is what 9k did, and posted the UOAs showing the progression. It's solid enough for me, and have no reason to believe it's inaccurate or misleading.
Comparing oils on your own engine with the same driving used on both, the same engine on both, yes, I believe that tells you what you need to know about how your engine is wearing. Which is what 9k did, and posted the UOAs showing the progression. It's solid enough for me, and have no reason to believe it's inaccurate or misleading.