View Poll Results: For people who need new engine were you using synthetic or non-synthetic?
synthetic
8
36.36%
non-synthetic
14
63.64%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll
busted engines only
#51
To expand on that point, as RG has talked about, most do not see the difference in that they are both the same. It's just that Mineral Oil is something that is naturally created and Synthetic is something that is artificially created as but is still natural. The thing to watch out for, in any oil, is how it is formulated. This gets into alot of technical speak so just read RG's post:
https://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php...&postcount=322
Any time we get something in the final product that we don't want, we call it an impurity. In oils we may have compounds that we refer to as aromatics as well as some other things that get into the base oil. How well these aromatics are filtered out determines what grade of base stock we have in motor oil. Group I oils have the most contaminants. Up to 10% of the total base stock! Group II oils have a little more distillation (refining) done to bring these contaminants down somewhat. Up to this point we all still agree that we have conventional "dino" oil.
A Group III oil will take the refining process one step farther through a process called hydrocracking. This is whee we go back to the chemistry equation balancing act from above. Through the introduction of hydrogen (hence the "hydro" in hydrocracking)into the mix under high temperatures and pressures, the hydrogen molecules add themselves to the aromatics (contaminants) to completely change their molecular structure into somethig else. The end result is naphtenes and alkines. A chain of napthenes is called paraffins but through the hydrocracking process the aromatics are gone. This is a good thing. Through a simple chemistry formula balancing act in the real world we have taken something we didn't want and rearranged it with some outside help into something we did want. This process is not naturally occurring and therefore "synthetic". This is what makes a synthetic what it is. It may still be from a "dino" based oil. The end product is still something natural. It was the way we got it that wasn't.
Now to move on to the Group IV and V synthetic oils. Their base stocks are different. Sort of. Group IV base stocks are called Poly Alpha Olefins. Remember how I mentioned alkenes above? An Alpha Olefin is an alkene where the carbon-carbon double bond is between the #1 and #2 carbons in the molecule. Again, it's just a process to create this but the original product was all natural! A poly-alpha-olefin takes this one step farther and is nothing mroe than a polymer made by polymerizing an alpha olefin. This is a Group IV base stock. It was a base stock that made an natural end product through unnatural processes. Group V oils may use different substances as a base stock but still arive towards the same end result which is something natural through an unnatural process.
Now just to throw a little bit of conspiracy into things let get into a human equivalent of the synthetic oil. Lets say a woman wants to have a baby but for some reason the husband's troops are awol. They decide to use artifical insemination. A doctor goes in and fertilizes the egg in a way that is not natural (or fun!). 9 months later they have a baby. Do we consider the baby a synthetic human? Nope. We consider the conception artifical but we don't call the final product artifical. Synthetic oils are a process but the end result is all natural. Their advantages are that we can go in and get rid of or convert what we don't want into something better. In regards to the baby comparison just think of it as gene manipulation to create a smarter human. The bad sides of synthetics have been during the formulation stages early on where some compounds were allowed to exist that didn't do rubber parts any good. This was easily taken care of. The carbon buildup issues have nothing to do with the base stock but rather with what is added to it by each oil manufacturer. This is the additive package.
A Group III oil will take the refining process one step farther through a process called hydrocracking. This is whee we go back to the chemistry equation balancing act from above. Through the introduction of hydrogen (hence the "hydro" in hydrocracking)into the mix under high temperatures and pressures, the hydrogen molecules add themselves to the aromatics (contaminants) to completely change their molecular structure into somethig else. The end result is naphtenes and alkines. A chain of napthenes is called paraffins but through the hydrocracking process the aromatics are gone. This is a good thing. Through a simple chemistry formula balancing act in the real world we have taken something we didn't want and rearranged it with some outside help into something we did want. This process is not naturally occurring and therefore "synthetic". This is what makes a synthetic what it is. It may still be from a "dino" based oil. The end product is still something natural. It was the way we got it that wasn't.
Now to move on to the Group IV and V synthetic oils. Their base stocks are different. Sort of. Group IV base stocks are called Poly Alpha Olefins. Remember how I mentioned alkenes above? An Alpha Olefin is an alkene where the carbon-carbon double bond is between the #1 and #2 carbons in the molecule. Again, it's just a process to create this but the original product was all natural! A poly-alpha-olefin takes this one step farther and is nothing mroe than a polymer made by polymerizing an alpha olefin. This is a Group IV base stock. It was a base stock that made an natural end product through unnatural processes. Group V oils may use different substances as a base stock but still arive towards the same end result which is something natural through an unnatural process.
Now just to throw a little bit of conspiracy into things let get into a human equivalent of the synthetic oil. Lets say a woman wants to have a baby but for some reason the husband's troops are awol. They decide to use artifical insemination. A doctor goes in and fertilizes the egg in a way that is not natural (or fun!). 9 months later they have a baby. Do we consider the baby a synthetic human? Nope. We consider the conception artifical but we don't call the final product artifical. Synthetic oils are a process but the end result is all natural. Their advantages are that we can go in and get rid of or convert what we don't want into something better. In regards to the baby comparison just think of it as gene manipulation to create a smarter human. The bad sides of synthetics have been during the formulation stages early on where some compounds were allowed to exist that didn't do rubber parts any good. This was easily taken care of. The carbon buildup issues have nothing to do with the base stock but rather with what is added to it by each oil manufacturer. This is the additive package.
#53
I got a case of Castrol GTX a few months ago because it was on a really good sale (price per bottle this way ended up being around half the price than if I were to buy one at a time) and I've heard it was good quality.
#54
Originally Posted by nycgps
and Also , I want to say that Mazda is really stupid about this one.
Idemitsu has been selling *Rotary safe* oil for a long time, its Synthetic AND they co-devolpe it with Mazda AND they won Le mans 24 with it AND they even said it on their site that it results in less wear and improve heat transfer.
If what Mazda said is true (Synthetic will result in Carbon Build up), that means Idemitsu is Lying ! (So does RP, but get to that later). and they should sue them for false Advertizing !!!
Idemitsu has been selling *Rotary safe* oil for a long time, its Synthetic AND they co-devolpe it with Mazda AND they won Le mans 24 with it AND they even said it on their site that it results in less wear and improve heat transfer.
If what Mazda said is true (Synthetic will result in Carbon Build up), that means Idemitsu is Lying ! (So does RP, but get to that later). and they should sue them for false Advertizing !!!
First of all, you can't mention Idemitsu oil and Le mans 24 in your argument. Oviously Idemitsu is a racing oil. Furthermore, the conditions that Idemitsu bases their results are much different than the use through "ordinary driving"... Le mans is a 24 hour endurance race. High engine stress for a long period of time.
If people want to use synthetics, I'm fine with it. If they want to use mineral or semi-synthetic, I'm fine with it too. ONLY TIME WILL TELL.
PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD> NOT ANOTHER SYNTHETIC DISCUSSION PLEASE
#55
Originally Posted by devious12
You cockbag you had to flame me anyway huh! haha!
it was totaly in jest.. i forgot the smiley...
cockbag.. have not heard that for awhile.
beers
#56
Originally Posted by zoom44
here i am. actually mentioned this to brillo awhile ago in a conversation. re reading some of the recall documents Ive come to a different understanding of some of the syntax used.
first- Mazda is concerned about the extra buildup left over when burnign some synths. its not lawyer talk its fact- some synths leave deposits when burned that in combination with the carbon buildup causes issues. this buildup can cause engine problems. just the few reports we've had here of carboned up APVs should be enough for anyone to believe it.
but the part im understanding the recall has to do with the emissions part of the recall. i believe that one thing they are worried about is the deposits leaving the engine then burning in the CAT. this material burns at a high temp causing over heating of the CATs and excellerating the premature failure.
this is only a theory of mine with no proof yet other than some wording in the recall documents that suggested it to me. i have of course emailed Mazda for some information. They seemed to be "receptive" to the idea of some technical answers, so we'll see what they say.
first- Mazda is concerned about the extra buildup left over when burnign some synths. its not lawyer talk its fact- some synths leave deposits when burned that in combination with the carbon buildup causes issues. this buildup can cause engine problems. just the few reports we've had here of carboned up APVs should be enough for anyone to believe it.
but the part im understanding the recall has to do with the emissions part of the recall. i believe that one thing they are worried about is the deposits leaving the engine then burning in the CAT. this material burns at a high temp causing over heating of the CATs and excellerating the premature failure.
this is only a theory of mine with no proof yet other than some wording in the recall documents that suggested it to me. i have of course emailed Mazda for some information. They seemed to be "receptive" to the idea of some technical answers, so we'll see what they say.
the part i would like to understand is why on some cars the cat fails and other the apex seals dry out under certian conditions.... but rarely does a car have both problems.
beer
#57
Hmmmm......That would be pretty interesting to determine why that is. If it's the same kind of situation that causes both things to happen, sounds like random chance as to what you end up with.
I take mine in tomorrow afternoon to drop off for the recall. Now, if I can figure out how to squeeze in about 300 miles of driving tonight I'll be due for an oil change too. LOL
I take mine in tomorrow afternoon to drop off for the recall. Now, if I can figure out how to squeeze in about 300 miles of driving tonight I'll be due for an oil change too. LOL
#58
What I dont understand is why people use synthetic in the first place. If you change your oil as per recomendations, its just a waste of money. But if it is a preference of yours to use synthetic because you think it will protect better, go ahead...I dont think Mazda would say synthetic could be an issue just to cover their ***. They are not denying engine claims as a result of someone using synthetic, they are just saying they have seen issues associated with the use of synthetic.
#59
Originally Posted by BunnyGirl
I got a case of Castrol GTX a few months ago because it was on a really good sale (price per bottle this way ended up being around half the price than if I were to buy one at a time) and I've heard it was good quality.
#62
Originally Posted by otherside
What I dont understand is why people use synthetic in the first place. If you change your oil as per recomendations, its just a waste of money. But if it is a preference of yours to use synthetic because you think it will protect better, go ahead...I dont think Mazda would say synthetic could be an issue just to cover their ***. They are not denying engine claims as a result of someone using synthetic, they are just saying they have seen issues associated with the use of synthetic.
People are crying because Mazda "does not recommended it" years years YEARS before that TSB show up.
Actually they go against it back when 20 something 30 years ago that the OLD FORMULA SYNTEHTIC OIL melt the rubber o rings. What are we now ? 2006 ?
Do you Anti-synthetic for rotary people have ANY idea what has been changed for all these years? Technologies.
We use mp3s instead of tapes., we have Athlons X2 instead of 8088.
What does that mean ? things change.
and I think someone of you might want to re-read what excatly I said before about Idemitsu and Mazda. then you'll get the idea.
Idemitsu makes nothing but Full synthetic oil, if Mazda has prove that Synthetic is bad, they should sue them right away for *falseful advertizment*. but if they sue them, Im sure Idemitsu will counter sue Mazda as well since they co-devolpe the oil with Idemitsu.
Nothing happens now , right ?
Maybe there are some Synthetic out there that might cause problems. but most people who has problems are people who has never been to this board. I would say 90 % of the people does not even know wth he has under the hood. does not know that to keep the engine happy the owner has to rev it high every once in a while, same thing goes for piston engines too! but sadly too many uneducated users out there.
and Mazda, by saying *no synthetic* could save them millions of dollars in warranty repair. and its *legal for them* to say whatever they want.
By saying something thats perfectly legal AND it would save the company multi million dollars. Why not ?
Last edited by nycgps; 10-06-2006 at 11:53 PM.
#63
I voted synthetic, but I don't blame the oil and I drive my car to 9k at least 3-4 times a week. In fact after I break in the new motor I’m going to use Royal Purple again. What the problem might be for me is I take my daughter to the bus stop and I let my car idle 5-10 minutes while waiting for the bus. Either it is to hot, to cold or the damn mosquitoes my car is left running. All that time adds up at the end of the year. This might be my problem if my car is not injecting enough oil at low rpms. If that is the not the reason someone please tell me what is.
#65
Originally Posted by turbodiesel_1
If royal purple was so good it should have protected your engine from busting in the first place then.
and that is aimed at whom????
if me the issue i have that has the motor being replaced showed up at 25 k miles... mazda replaced my mop at 30k miles. i switched to rp at 30 k miles...
so i am guessing that rp did not have anything to do with the problem...
maybe you could start a syn vs dino thread on a myspace forum...
beers
#66
Originally Posted by echoj8
I voted synthetic, but I don't blame the oil and I drive my car to 9k at least 3-4 times a week. In fact after I break in the new motor I’m going to use Royal Purple again. What the problem might be for me is I take my daughter to the bus stop and I let my car idle 5-10 minutes while waiting for the bus. Either it is to hot, to cold or the damn mosquitoes my car is left running. All that time adds up at the end of the year. This might be my problem if my car is not injecting enough oil at low rpms. If that is the not the reason someone please tell me what is.
more to it than that... and it is not low rpms... it is / was cruising on light throttle.... ie. on cruise at 70 to 75 mph for long period of time..
this condion with to little oil injected in some cars causes the apex seals to dry... hence loss of power. and starting to run warm...
syn or dino is the same...
beers
#67
What can possibly Mazda gain from not recommending syn oil? I suspect it has to do with plain old chemistry. An engine that has to burn oil to function is an engine that has to build up carbon in varying degrees. So one syn under "x" driving maybe good or bad, depending on chemistry plus pressures and temp. I suspect Mazda feels the variables are more controllable with good ol' dino but I ain't no chemist or SAE member. What is absolutely surprising to me is that after 30 plus years of rotary experience Mazda has not figured out what the oil chemistry best suited to minimizing carbon build up is. Or maybe they have but don't what us to know! In other words, the issue may not be so much syn vs dino but what it leaves behind when and how it burns.
Last edited by rogerdodger; 10-08-2006 at 10:47 PM.
#68
Originally Posted by rogerdodger
What can possibly Mazda gain from not recommending syn oil? I suspect it has to do with plain old chemestry. An engine that has to burn oil to function is an engine that has to build up carbon in varying degrees. So one syn under "x" driving maybe good or bad, depending on chemestry plus pressures and temp. I suspect Mazda feels the variables are more controllable with good ol' dino but I ain't no chemist or SAE member. What is absolutely surprising to me is that after 30 plus years of rotary experience Mazda has not figured out what the oil chemestry best suited to minimizing carbon build up is. Or maybe they have but don't what us to know!
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/cumulative-synthetic-oil-discussion-52856/
then i can quote the maker of the rx8 motor about syn... and then we can... blah blah blah....
maybe the problem with carbon build up in europe is to much oil injeced into the motor at the wrong time...
a bit different than here due to epa where to little oil is injected at the right time...
do you think dino oil burns cleaner than syn????
read learn enjoy...
and btw. what year?
beers :beers:
#69
Originally Posted by turbodiesel_1
If royal purple was so good it should have protected your engine from busting in the first place then.
wow,
took the time to read all your posts here... you dont no anything about anything....
i had to expain the epa to you, duh!
do you work for an oil comp or something?
beers
#70
I'm getting a bad headache , man. Is it safe to say that whatever Idemetsu uses is pretty much best based on years of racing and taking rotaries apart, syn or not ? I don't know what burns cleaner, that's whole point. Temp and pressure - as in rpm's, etc, have a lot to do with it. In fact if syn runs engine at lower temp that could cause more deposits, so higher temps may be better for less carbon build up but bad for other reasons like seals.
Last edited by rogerdodger; 10-08-2006 at 11:04 PM.
#71
Originally Posted by swoope
more to it than that... and it is not low rpms... it is / was cruising on light throttle.... ie. on cruise at 70 to 75 mph for long period of time..
this condion with to little oil injected in some cars causes the apex seals to dry... hence loss of power. and starting to run warm...
syn or dino is the same...
beers
this condion with to little oil injected in some cars causes the apex seals to dry... hence loss of power. and starting to run warm...
syn or dino is the same...
beers
#72
Originally Posted by echoj8
Thanks for the response Swoope. Hopefully I get my car back it's been a week now. Dealer broke my motor mount I've been waiting for it to arrive. And I do a trip every two weeks cruising around @70mph when I take my kids to visit the grandparents.
very cool... did school at ut, i miss austin.
if you have any ?s pm me.... can expain alot...
beers
#73
Originally Posted by rogerdodger
What can possibly Mazda gain from not recommending syn oil? I suspect it has to do with plain old chemistry. An engine that has to burn oil to function is an engine that has to build up carbon in varying degrees. So one syn under "x" driving maybe good or bad, depending on chemistry plus pressures and temp. I suspect Mazda feels the variables are more controllable with good ol' dino but I ain't no chemist or SAE member. What is absolutely surprising to me is that after 30 plus years of rotary experience Mazda has not figured out what the oil chemistry best suited to minimizing carbon build up is. Or maybe they have but don't what us to know! In other words, the issue may not be so much syn vs dino but what it leaves behind when and how it burns.
explain.
my answer would be, because its *better be safe than sorry* and theres no way for Mazda to say *which oil is good which oil is not good*. and its ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS easier to just say does not recommend. and does any of you anti-synthetic people read? does not recommend is NOT THE SAME AS AGAINST.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
badinfluence
Series II Aftermarket Performance Modifications
6
08-31-2015 12:51 PM
cschoeps
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
0
08-06-2015 01:44 PM