If he said that you might be correct. He said CERTAIN Synth oils are ok, and it's not hard to find which ones he said, oops how did that photo get attached??

 

hmmm... doesnt say certain. And yes, probably should not have used quotes since I paraphrased. sorry.

 

Could you please point me to "the mounting evidence"regarding suitability of synth oil for the RX-8 engines.(I mean real evidence such as pictures of failures etc).Thanks in advance.

 

The one possible argument I see for the TSB, is not the amount of carbon, but the physical qualities of partially-carbonized oil. There are many forms of carbon, and it seems possible that one type of oil when partially-carbonized might yield a stickier residue, whereas another type might produce a more grainy or flakey residue. If the residue has just the right tarry, sticky quality then I could see small amounts slowly accumulating in the intake ports as pictured, as they are swept by the seals. The reason I think this is possible is that the region around the intake port is cooler, and perhaps allows oil residues in that area to burn, but only partially. I don't know if there are any areas in a piston engine that are quite analagous to this situation.

Thoughts?

 

Already been two service bulletins (Australian & European w/ a picture) distributed. My guess is more evidence will come as the recall gets in full swing.

 

You realise that the picture they show has all the "carbon" deposits in the Auxiliary Port.Note that no air flows thru that port until the engine is turning at least 6200rpm and under some load.If you look at the port below,the secondary port ,there is no deposition visible,and this port opens at about 3600-400 rpm.
Note they did not show a picture of the primary port which has air flowing thru all the time the engine runs
I take this as evidence that you need to run your engine at high rpm occasionally.

 

were did you get that stuff????

beers

 

Perhaps, but the picture only shows part of the other port. The one with the carbon has most of the deposit on the (trailing?) edge -- can't see the corresponding edge for the other port.

 

I'm sure you can say it is whatever you want but that's not going to fly either. Can you provide any evidence that it isn't a group IV oil? It is you know so have fun! BS is easy to find everywhere isn't it? As far as the "tour" was concerned, they don't just give tours to the public. David Canitz who gave us the "tour" happens to be one of the local RX-7 guys.

 

valpac: I'm not quite sure what your problem is but I can with absolute certainty say that you don't really intend to stay a member of this forum for much longer. Try me! Next time you have a problem with me, have the ***** to bring it to me personally instead of posting to others and waiting for me to happen across it. If that's not good enough for you I'll be at Sevenstock this year and will be more than happy to personally discuss it with you face to face.

In the mean time, you've got 10,000 words per post with which to counter all the information that I've ever posted on the forum over the past few years so get to work. I'll wait.

 

You see they could have shown a picture of the plug holes that they were so concerned about.The attached rotor housing is the rear housing off my motor,shown uncleaned,just as dismantled.This engine ran on Castrol Syntech 10W30.The pluge holes look fine.(the little hole is the one they expressed the concern about.

 

1. you should be able to find that fairly easily as i have (others have too) posted it on numerous occasions

2. whats funny about the australian bulletin is that the australian dealers only had synth to put inthe cars for over a year as the importer wasnt bringing in any non synth in the recommended weight.

 

What is even more funny is that the recall instructions don't seem to mention anything about synth oil usage.

Misfire and plugs foulage have been symptoms for some owners since the very beginning and don't seem to be related at all to the make up of the oil, but more to the viscosity and usage of the engine.

 

That's cool, I thought all dead Renesis went to Japan -- it's nice to actually see the insides of one that's been in service. How do the sides and intake ports look?

 

well Mazda ain't perfect and marketing is full of sin--so I go with what makes more sense to me. It never did make sense to me that Mazda said to use ony 5W20 in this car--all the time. Looks like that didnt make sense to a lot of others now doesnt it? Since that was wrong maybe they are wrong about good quality synthetics also. I think they are. And it's my motor and I can do what I want with it. Bah!
How many of you have ever torn a motor down? Ever seen an engine that has had poor mantaince? Ever seen one that has had good mantainance and ran a good synthetic? I have. I will run synthetic's. To Hell with Mazda in that regard. If they told me to jump off a bridge would I do it?
Olddragger

 

Huh? Both RG and I stood and listened while Both Rick Engman and the head of Mazda Rotary engineering told us in person that there were no problems with certain synthetics in rotarys, specifically RP and Valvoline....thats not making a statement based on opinion, thats coming from the horses mouth, which I trust more than MNAO which has to balance a bunch of issues in there statements.

RG is not against, no am I good mineral oils. But there are some unique advantages to certain synthetics that make them useful for rotary enthusiasts. This is about dispelling the myth that all sythetics are bad, no slaming people who use a good mineral oil.

We are trying to help here, this isn't something we spend hours testing and posting on b/c we like debating people. You want to here from the experts? Come meet us at sevenstock this year, I'll gladly introduce you.

Mazda's issues with synthetics are simple - They are all different, and therefore, Mazda doesn't want to take the time and money to test and certify which ones work and don't, pure and simple. That and the PR damage from being black listed could create a lawsuit. Its simpler to say don't use them at all.

The only thing RG and I are taking to our grave will be the knowledge that our research into oil meant we got the most longevity and power out our of engines.

 

Nice level headed response brillo. Bravo. It's much easier to believe what you say when you simply say it like it happened, and for some who want to, frustratingly hard to refute.

 

I've heard RG say that elsewhere before, and reading over this thread, I wonder, if the rotary is that sensitive to oil formulation, then how can Mazda recommend *all* dino oils?

Assuming similar additives (viscosity modifiers & detergents) are used in both dino and syn oils, are there *that* many diffferences in the synthetic base stocks out there?

 

[QUOTE=Nubo]That's cool, I thought all dead Renesis went to Japan -- it's nice to actually see the insides of one

Other than the damage I caused evrything looked really clean,no significant wear on the housings or the seals,side and apex (of course the motor only did about 20k miles).Just based on the visual,100k miles should be no problem.

 

Why would I bother to rebut all your posts? I have already said that I disagree with you on your opinions regarding synthetic oil usage in rotaries. The rest of your posts are not worth my effort.

Does disagreement with another member warrant a permanent ban or a veiled threat of violence?

 

Why not? Can we take that to the Polls sub-forum of the Lounge? Good question!

 

what exactly about posting synthetic/dyno oil scientific information and comments from Mazda's head rotary engineer qualifies to you as opinion?

 

Nope but your personal attacks do and yes you have made them in an off sort of way. You directly implied that I am lying to everyone. Remember saying this? "But you know, some people will defend their false statements to the grave." It came right after you said: "RG: blah, blah, blah". A "false statement" is what corporations and manufacturers give every day. Kind of like what you put all of your faith in. A "false statement" is one in which you know to be wrong yet you say it anyways. I don't give false statements. I give facts based on personal experience. A tsb from Mazda won't change my results.

How about this one. I know you didn't name me directly but everyone knows who you were directing it at and don't claim you weren't. "I really hate reading statements from self-professed experts on this forum that say "using synth oil is fine". Such statements are irresponsible in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary" That's a good one!

I'll tell you what I hate. I hate it when people like you who have zero usable experience on a topic seem to feel like it's your responsiblity to give advice. Contribute when you can but don't if you can't. I've stated time and again from personal experience why I like what I do and my reasons for doing them. Personal experience is quite beneficial and others want to know about it regardless of who it's from, good or bad. I've stated exactly why they have this tsb and why it's worded the way it is. I've even talked to the highest rotary person in the land about it which also backs up what I've said in regards to their reason for saying what they did. Have you? I know you don't read any of what I write (or you wouldn't respond with the material that you do) because you just said that I'm not worth your time. Maybe I'm not personally, and that's fine, but you can apparently learn something from some of what I write. You obviously don't know a whole lot about what you are arguing against when it comes to oils. That's the real reason you won't take the time to rebut me. You can't. You have no material other than "the tsb says". Again, I'll wait. Do your part and contribute.

Does this mean you have to believe what I say? Nope. What you don't need to do is call me "ignorant", "irresponsible", say I make "false statements", or just take a general attitude against me just because you disagree with me on a topic. A little tongue in cheek sarcastic humor is one thing and admiittedly is hard to convey through typing but you are actually saying it and meaning it. No I'm not letting that go. Remember I've never said that using conventionals is bad. I have just been defending good synthetics and talking from personal experience. One test result is worth more than a thousand expert opinions. I've had positive results for years and in light to the current tsb from Mazda stating they are bad is "mouting evidence to the contrary" in favor of synthetics (or at least the ones that I like). Remember what I just said about results vs opinions. Everyone also knows what oil I personally use. That's no secret.

 

I use RP, Yes RP, oh yes RP RP RP.

So? I like my Full Synthentic Oil. but I am not against Dino oils. You like it? You can use it. but I think valpac just have nothing to counter.

Dont bother valpac, u'll lose.

 

In all fairness to Mazda, I can appreciate the position synthetics put them in. I don't hate on them because of the "party line" they have to tow to balance all the issues involved. Work in corporate America long enough, you begin to at least appreciate the balancing act.

Hell, to be honest, if ever mazda and rotary owner used a good dyno oil and changed it every 3-4K the motoring world would be a better place as most cars would not only drive longer, but more efficiently.

the truth is, the majority of RX8 owners who drive the cars daily and occationally driven them hard will be more than fine with the above advice. There is a subset though that do push the cars hard, and need a good synthetic option for some extra protection. Thats where all this comes in. I would consider what and how you drive, and the costs involved before you jump into one camp or another. But I would also do your homework, do some research before deciding as well. Its interesting stuff, you might learn someting too.