Ok this post(s) may be a bit of a rambler. I am trying to connect the dots between several trains of thoughts and clues spread about the forum by various members. Then adding some speculation of my own. If I am technically wrong on anything I hope some of the other folks here will set me straight.

First let me say that I have an effort underway which I hope will result in a way for us to know EXACTLY what the various flashes do. After spending some time recently on the UK club and reading about Mazda using a flash to turn off the Cruise Control that owners managed to get working, I feel that no one should change the operation of my car without informing me what they are changing and how much it is being changed. Then we have heard they are changing mop operation with previous flashes. Also they have possibly changed a/f ratios in open loop. More oil use in my opinion would lead to a change in emissions. Also if you weren’t aware that it would increase your oil consumption then you might not check often enough. Low oil could damage your engine and then Mazda would say “well you let your oil get to low” when it was really because of a change they made. Richer A/F ratios lead to less fuel economy. Changes that affect our wallets, which we should be informed about. They have been told in the UK that if they refuse a flash they might have their warranty voided. But if there is one they/we need in the future since all previous changes are carried over to new flashes then we may at some point be force to accept changes we don’t want and if out of warranty maybe even charged for them. So that’s the basis of the conversation I am having with some people to hopefully get more info from Mazda.


More thoughts on the MOP and oil. During the time this conversation is going on we have heard some news about a possible new oil metering pump. It was said that Mazda is trying this out to fix a few cars. It was suggested that perhaps this new MOP is coming from Racing Beat since they have a similar product. I got an answer to that from Jim Mederer-

“I have not heard of any higher-volume pump available from Mazda. Of course, it could be true - the modification we offer is based on a high-flow pump supplied by Mazda on a supercharged engine we ran here. The only possible reason I can think of for them to do that would be for very cold or very hot starting, where extra oil can be helpful. However, since the MOP only runs wide open at high RPM/high volumetric efficiency, it seems they could simply re-flash the ECU to provide more oil at cranking. They certainly wouldn't want a stock engine running more oil ALL THE TIME - oil consumption is already an issue.”

 

So that begs the question “how much more oil does Mazda think the engine requires?” Why would they change to a higher volume pump when they could just adjust the amount at any given rpm? We then start hearing about some standard-power AT cars having stalling issues and loss of compression. Mazdaspeedgirl then reported that a dealer in Lubbock Texas had replaced a bunch of engines with these symptoms. I was very skeptical and I apologize to Mazdaspeedgirl for that. We found out that the Lubbock dealer had actually changed out perhaps as many as 6 engines. I was heard to exclaim, “That’s got to be all of the ATs in Lubbock!!” Since then there have been reports that other dealers in Texas and Las Vegas are seeing the same issues (thanks again MazdaspeedgirlJ) it seems these issues are caused by carbon buildup. Many of the AT cars are never driven at high rpm. The owners never use the paddle shifters or go WOT so the engines are running at 3k rpm a lot. Okstatepike reported that he was having this issue. Judging from his screen name he is in Oklahoma. So this is a problem in warmer states right now. Okstatepike reported that he was told to rev it up more and to stay on premium gas. This is a way to clean out the carbon and keep it from returning. I first suggested and have in the past as well, that regular gas makes for more complete combustion. But after a little research I found I was woefully incorrect and changed my answer to this-

“Lower octane gas 87 or 89 octane the ignition and burn can happen so Quickly and last for such a short time that a good potion of the gas can be left unburned. This can accelerate carbon buildup. Higher-octane gas, 92 or 94, ignites slower and burns LONGER. This leads to more complete combustion leaving less unburned or no unburned fuel and resulting in LESS carbon build up...”

Okstatepike then reported that Mazda has a fix coming for this issue but that they have to run it by the EPA first. This struck me because I had already suggested in a previous conversation that adding more oil would increase emissions. That must be why they have to pass it by the EPA. But then I thought that couldn’t be right. Adding oil will just increase the carbon build up rate in these problem cars. This was backed up by what Jim Mederer had said earlier and by Rotarygod in a quick conversation.

Okstatepike then said he is joining the new engine club because of the time delay for the new fix.

Since it’s a problem of the cars running at low RPMs allot then they should just change the shift points. Now maybe that is why they want to add oil. If these AT cars start running at higher RPMs when they aren’t fully warmed they will need more lubrication. They will also be using more fuel than the owners are used to and perhaps more than what the window sticker says on unsold cars. That might be why they have to run it by the EPA. Not the emissions per se but because it could change the Fuel Economy. Also they might change the fuel requirement to a stricter wording saying 92 octane only.

Last night it occurred to me that the Renesis engine might exasperate this type of problem. In the older style 13b engines much of the unburned hydrocarbons got swept out the exhaust ports. One of the reasons the Renesis is more emissions friendly is because the side ports prevent this from happening as much. I am suggesting that this is the problem. Because more are kept in the chambers they can accumulate faster in cars that are run at low RPMs allot of the time, instead of burning off.

This probably will not be an issue in other countries where the standard power is mated with a 5 speed. Only here, and Japan possibly, where the ATs have been purchased by folks who always let the tranny do the shifting, never put their foot in it, spend allot of their drive time in slow traffic or do allot of short trips

 

So as I see it now there are going to be some changes coming for ATs. These should come in the form of a flash that changes the shift points and maybe oil metering. There could also be a new requirement that they only use 92octane or higher and a change in the listed fuel economy. This type of change can only help me in my ongoing effort, through conversations with legal and journalistic sources, to have Mazda be more open with owners about what the flashes actually do to change the operation/performance of our cars. Not just with those that find their way to our site but with all owners. The ultimate result I would like to see would be a little pamphlet distributed with each flash. This would explain the changes and allow the car owner to make an informed decision on whether to accept or decline a flash. Also owners would not be threatened with voided warranties for declining.


And you all thought RG’s posts were long J:D

 

Just wanted to say that I owned an automatic RX-8 from August 2003 - April 2005, and I never had to add oil ONCE the whole time. I even kept a quart of oil in the trunk since everyone was telling me that the car was going to consume a bunch of oil after a few fill ups. That quart stayed in the trunk for the whole time I owned the car. I guess the low port engines consume a negligible amount of oil...because my oil light never came on once the entire time I owned it. Maybe I was just lucky?

On the other hand with my new manual RX-8 I recently acquired, I've already had to add oil twice.

 

long posts make the baby jeezus cry

 

jerky- howover the full line on the dipstick was it when you bought the car? how many miles did you put on the car? how many times and at what mileage did it go in for service. it may be that your oil consumption was higher than you realize. a good service person will always top of the fluids when your car is in. just a thought.

 

Interesting read, thanks for taking the time Zoom44. On the flashing issue:

I completely agree with you on the sneaky changes Mazda makes in flashes. I've gotten so fed up with it the last 3 times I've been in for service, I told them to NOT flash my car with any new software. They argued with me the first time, to which I said "give me the keys, I'll go somewhere else". The truth is, if you like the way your car is operating, don't get it flashed. I heard another rumor at the track yesterday that Mazda is seeing a great deal of pre-mature cat failures in RX-8s. The "P" flash richens the AFRs all the way through the rev range to try and stop this. Exactly what i'm talking about.

 

yes exactly. thats something i didnt address earlier in this thread. but i did address it an ongoing email conversation i am having

"Mazda has also experienced some problems with pre-mature catalytic converter failure. If they continue to have to replace Catalytics at their cost this could cost them allot of money. They could decide to enrich the Air/Fuel ratios via a flash reprogramming because the extra fuel would flow unburned into the cat cooling it. This is done already to some degree. If they do this it would decrease my gas mileage. But if i was a regular uninformed consumer who didn't watch his mileage carefully, i wouldn't know except i would spend more and more time and money at the pumps. I should be informed of changes like this so i can decide if i want them or not."

thanks for bringing up that point and for taking the time to read the posts I just had an idea i hadnt considered before. This could be related to the side port issue as well. Because the side ports retain a larger amount of the unburned fuel then previous engines, it could require a larger amount of fuel being injected to provide the necessary cat cooling. This could be why the cars run so "pig rich" from factory.

 

I have no idea what the oil level was on the car when I bought it. I put ~30,000 miles on the car. Went into service every 3,000 miles...so that would be 10 oil changes.

You may be right since I only checked my dipstick maybe 5 times for the entire period that I owned the car for, and it was always right below full.

Then again, I think I read a while back that another AT owner also reported never seeing his oil light come on either.

 

The oil level can be far below the bottom mark on the dipstick without triggering the oil light. Conversely you can have enough oil and still trigger the oil light under certain conditions. They are not related in the way you think.
________
Medical marijuana dispensaries in la

 

Wouldn't enriching the A/F fatio for this purpose also increase Flooding problems again.... I thought Mazda put in a Flash not too long ago to LEAN down the A/F to reduce Flooding, and now is it turned back around because of the effects on the Cat??

 

I'm at nearly 40,000 miles now, and have never used the full auto 'feature' of the transmission. I've been running on the L flash since it was available. Averaging a steady 18 mpg 50/50 city/highway since purchase, and can hit 26mpg on long highway trips at 70 mph. I Redline multiple times a day. Oil consumption is about 3/4 of a quart every 2000 miles. Goes way up on those long highway trips though (1/2 a quart on the last 700 mile trip with no stopping except for gas). Zero problems, thusfar.

I'm happy enough with the L flash, that I refuse to let the dealer change it.

Thanks for the info.

 

Great Thread Zoom44. I dont care how long they are, if they are this informative.
I hope you will keep it updated with any info you find. I think you are right on track, and believe your assumptions are correct. I for one would like to know what changes are made to my car and why! Then I can make any changes i want, so my car performs how I want it to.

 

I've never had stalling issues with my A/T--but I do open up and drive it hard--and only use 93 octane.

 

"Okstatepike reported that he was having this issue. Judging from his screen name he is in Oklahoma."

I actually live in Austin, TX.

Great info, and it does seem to make sense, keep up the good research!

 

thanks

 

Not necessarily. What they did to reduce the flooding issue is to not inject any fuel into the rotor housing for the first 1-2 seconds the engine is started. This allows any fuel stuck there to be ignited, burn, and push out the exhaust ports.

And the truth is Mazda could see pre-mature cat failure from pushing too much fuel into the cat I believe. If too much fuel gets there it could clog the cat. I know of one person this happened to already.

 

exactly - i think ive said this before but its cool having someone on the same page(so to speak)thanks RPIRX-8

demob05 here is what i wrote last year concerning your question. hope this clarifies a little-

 

Hey Charlie, the other day I posted in another thread about the new MOP that my dealer replaced on an auto tranny car, and then hinted that they also replaced one on a manual tranny. Remember? Well it was two auto tranny cars. They have not replaced the MOP on a manual yet.

 

ah good to know Kevin. it is something i dont understand tho. Rotarygod commented on it yesterday i think. Why increase the oil feed if the problem is carbon lock on the autos. as Jim Mederer said oil consumption is already a concern and the engines could be kept clean simply by revving more. but they are obviously working on the AT car issue. curiouser and curiouser...

 

L flash, which my 8 was on when I bought it, was extremely rich. We remember the Port Campaign that was performed to extend cat life by reducing exhaust temps...this was done hastily to meet EPA 2(Cat Life).

Premature Cat failures were most oftenly a result of clogged Cats from too much fuel. My understanding is that the latest flashes M-P have been leaning the AFR's out...for the most part. My fuel mileage is better than it has ever been on "P", and low/mid range power is also better. (Now 18mpg Mixed driving)

Are these posts now saying that MAO is adding fuel to the AFR's again? Which also implies that the last few flashed since L...M, N, and now P have been adding fuel? I don't think so. It wouldn't make much sense.

Let make sure this is clear....are we saying that M flash was not as rich a P?

I think that P is probably the leanest through the low/mid range with the most aagressive timing....that's not based on an definitive info...just how it feels. I also did not have the N flash for very long before I was updated to P. Probable about 3 or 4 weeks tops. Before I had my car reflashed to P, diconnected my battery, and reset the Eshaft...and the car still felt the same to me. P flashed a few days later, and I feel the differences. Throttle response is sharper, small changes in throttle position make almost instantaneous changes...I think they are getting better.

With respect to the AT's, could it be that the MOP is the same spec as the MT's?

If so, does it pump the same amount of oil at redline in AT (7500) as the MT(9000)? I might think that if the MOP is supplying the same amount of oil, it might not burn it off as well at 7500 rpm as the MT would at 9000-9500. Perhaps the cause of the carbon buildup?

These are just my impressions, let me know what you guys think.

 

well the richness we are talking about here is just re-hashing the topic. as far as we know they have been leaning out from L to P. we are just back tracking for the newer folks. sorry for the confusion.

the issue is that they can and have in the past use PCM flashes to increase our fuel usage costing us time and money with more trips to the pump. My point in this regard is that the owners should be informed that this type of change is going to be made and have the right to refuse such change without worrying that their warranty could be voided.

on the oil- that could be the case. id have to check. but really they could use the same pump and just program it thru the pcm to deliver less oil(as per Jim Mederer). the wierdness factor comes from what kevin is telling us. That they are trying LARGER volume MOPS in some ATs. this is counter intuitive if the problem is carbon lock. adding more oil wouldnt make sense.

 

Ok, thanks Zoom...I understand.

Also, with the MOP...JM says that the MOP in the MT is already at "step 60" at high rpm/load, so I could see the MOP upgrade or change in that case. I would also agree with your assessment of the AT MOP issue. Why add more oil? I think that there may be more to it though....we are just looking at this "literally". There must be some very specifc details to the AT engine operation that is making the issue more complicated. If it were easy enough to just reduce the oil from the MOP, then that seems to be an easy fix....but it must be causing another problem.

This one is weird, and hopefully they fix these without many more engine replacements...these costs are already high with multiple reflashes, cats, and engines will kill an margin quick.

 

Just yesterday I had to add oil on my auto 8. Last time I had an oil change done was back in January and I only put on about 2500 miles. Normally I dont check my oil except for when I clean my car. What I noticed from having low oil was that my car was dragging.

 

yeah RotaryIT the MOP change could be beneficial for higher performance issues like those with the turbo kits, or charles hill with is NOS or folks who are racing alot.

and no doubt the issue is more complicated than we are seeing on the surface. otherwise they wouldnt be looking to get EPA certs like OKstatepike reported from his dealer.