Rotarygod's rotary oil tech blog
11-04-2005, 07:02 PM
#176
Registered
Thread Starter
Actually in a new car, I'd change the oil and filter immediately after you get home with it! You'll be surprised how much "break in material" is in the oil in the first 20 miles.
There are many that say do the 1000 mile slow break in. I say to do it faster under a heavier load. Which ever method you use, get that oil and filter changed at 20 miles, 500 miles, and again at 1000 miles. Only then should you begin your regular oil cahnge intervals. If you haven't changed it yet, do it. If you aren't sure about when to use synthetics and would rather be on the safe side, change to it after 1000 miles. That's plenty of time. I'd also try to make the extra attempt at draining the oil coolers as well when you do a change. They still hold a decent amount of oil. I find their lack of drain plugs to be a serious design flaw. Always change as much of the oil at a time as possible.
There are many that say do the 1000 mile slow break in. I say to do it faster under a heavier load. Which ever method you use, get that oil and filter changed at 20 miles, 500 miles, and again at 1000 miles. Only then should you begin your regular oil cahnge intervals. If you haven't changed it yet, do it. If you aren't sure about when to use synthetics and would rather be on the safe side, change to it after 1000 miles. That's plenty of time. I'd also try to make the extra attempt at draining the oil coolers as well when you do a change. They still hold a decent amount of oil. I find their lack of drain plugs to be a serious design flaw. Always change as much of the oil at a time as possible.
11-05-2005, 11:47 AM
#177
Note increased wear metals in the UOA (Used oil analysis) at 1k miles, in 1/7th the distance of a standard OCI (oil change interval).
Just posting this to back up rg's reasoning behind early oil changes. The analysis don't lie!
08-30-2006, 10:47 PM
#181
2005 Black RX-8 GT 6M
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose Area
Posts: 6,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just put Chevron 5W-30 in my RX-8 for the first time. If one is going to stick with dino oil, is this the route you would take rotarygod?
After doing extensive reading and searching on here, it seems that most likely Mazda specified 5W-20 in the US/Canada to help with fuel economy and emssions testing/standards since the rest of the populated world uses 5W-30. It would seem that the 5W-30 would be better at lubricating and sealing and particularly at high temperatures above 100F also from posts.
The only downside would seem to be that the mileage may go down some miniscule .xx amount.
Have I got it right? Would you use 5W-30 if you used dino oil?
And if I did use synthetics (still thinking about it), I would only use RP 5W-30.
After doing extensive reading and searching on here, it seems that most likely Mazda specified 5W-20 in the US/Canada to help with fuel economy and emssions testing/standards since the rest of the populated world uses 5W-30. It would seem that the 5W-30 would be better at lubricating and sealing and particularly at high temperatures above 100F also from posts.
The only downside would seem to be that the mileage may go down some miniscule .xx amount.
Have I got it right? Would you use 5W-30 if you used dino oil?
And if I did use synthetics (still thinking about it), I would only use RP 5W-30.
08-31-2006, 11:13 AM
#182
Registered
Thread Starter
I don't see any problem with running 5W30. Some have reported the engine running smoother with it so this may warrant additional study.
In regards to conventional oils, I personally like Havoline the best.
In regards to conventional oils, I personally like Havoline the best.
08-31-2006, 04:46 PM
#183
i've got royal purple 5w30 waiting in my garage... just gotta wait for my 8 to get back from the dealer... getting all the recall work done...
i'll post my impressions on switching to a syn 5w30 from reg 5w20
i'll post my impressions on switching to a syn 5w30 from reg 5w20
08-31-2006, 10:15 PM
#184
2005 Black RX-8 GT 6M
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose Area
Posts: 6,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
I don't see any problem with running 5W30. Some have reported the engine running smoother with it so this may warrant additional study.
In regards to conventional oils, I personally like Havoline the best.
In regards to conventional oils, I personally like Havoline the best.
Since the oil change, I have noticed the idle is smoother as well as the general mechanical sound/feel of the engine. I don't think this it's me just believing it since I changed the oil. Others have noticed similar changes.
If 5W-20 was all the best oil for the RX-8, I assume Mazda would have specified it for the rest of the world.
Now that Texaco (Havoline) is owned by Chevron--I would assume their motor oil is somewhat similar now?
Last edited by CarAndDriver; 09-01-2006 at 02:20 AM.
09-01-2006, 11:28 AM
#185
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Germany are only special SYNTHETIK DEXELIA Super 5w-30 recommend or equivalently ACEA A5/B5.
http://www.franken-online.de/hgb/RX-8/Mazda-Oel.pdf
http://www.franken-online.de/hgb/RX-8/Mazda-Oel.pdf
Originally Posted by expo1
Here is a Google translation of this 8/16/2006 doc. Now how did this oil get the Mazda stamp of approval?? What is the difference between a conventional synthetic and an un-conventional synthetic?
I wonder how many fewer engines Mazda would have had to replace if 5w-30 was also the requirement in the USA?
33 date: 16.08.2006 side: 1/1 engine oil specification
- Mazda Wankelmotore
technology (KSI) No.: 64/06 building group: D (E017/06)
very honoured contracting parties, from given cause we refer again to the specific engine oil requirements with wankel engines. With employment of conventional synthetic high speed engine oils it can come in exceptional cases to increased engine wear and to seal incompatibilities. Therefore we recommend urgently the employment of Mazda Dexelia Ultra 5W-30 with Mazda Dexelia Ultra 5W-30 concern it a particularly developed engine oil, which becomes optimally the special requirements of the Mazda Wankelmotore fair. Mazda Dexelia Ultra 5W-30 is the only engine oil for Wankelmotore, recommended by Mazda. If this engine oil should not be available in exceptional cases, then 5W-30 with the minimum requirement is ACEA A5/B5 to begin excluding lubricants of the specification SOWS. Engine oils with lower ACEA qualities (e.g. A1/B1) are not usable! Note: LOW SAP engine oils of the specification ACEA c1 and/or ACEA C1-A5-B5 and/or ACEA C2-A5-B5 are not suitable for the use!
Yours sincerely M. Grüttke E. weber
leader KS-technology KS-technology
I wonder how many fewer engines Mazda would have had to replace if 5w-30 was also the requirement in the USA?
33 date: 16.08.2006 side: 1/1 engine oil specification
- Mazda Wankelmotore
technology (KSI) No.: 64/06 building group: D (E017/06)
very honoured contracting parties, from given cause we refer again to the specific engine oil requirements with wankel engines. With employment of conventional synthetic high speed engine oils it can come in exceptional cases to increased engine wear and to seal incompatibilities. Therefore we recommend urgently the employment of Mazda Dexelia Ultra 5W-30 with Mazda Dexelia Ultra 5W-30 concern it a particularly developed engine oil, which becomes optimally the special requirements of the Mazda Wankelmotore fair. Mazda Dexelia Ultra 5W-30 is the only engine oil for Wankelmotore, recommended by Mazda. If this engine oil should not be available in exceptional cases, then 5W-30 with the minimum requirement is ACEA A5/B5 to begin excluding lubricants of the specification SOWS. Engine oils with lower ACEA qualities (e.g. A1/B1) are not usable! Note: LOW SAP engine oils of the specification ACEA c1 and/or ACEA C1-A5-B5 and/or ACEA C2-A5-B5 are not suitable for the use!
Yours sincerely M. Grüttke E. weber
leader KS-technology KS-technology
09-02-2006, 11:25 PM
#187
I use Synthentic since 1000 miles (first oil change), change every 1.5K-2.5K miles, I just reach 18000 miles. My engine still alive and strong.
better late than never
Just kidding, u're ok, most "above average" oil today, dino or Synth, can withstand 4000 miles.
Synthentic or not , your choice, since its your car.
better late than never
Just kidding, u're ok, most "above average" oil today, dino or Synth, can withstand 4000 miles.
Synthentic or not , your choice, since its your car.
Last edited by nycgps; 09-02-2006 at 11:31 PM.
09-04-2006, 01:01 PM
#188
the shit starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
next oil change I'm changing to synthetic Royal Purple 5W-20... I don't feel like messing with the numbers even if I found a benefit... unless it was 20 hp... and only 20 hp...
09-04-2006, 04:47 PM
#190
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cali
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have found this thread to be quite entertaining but unfortunately not sufficient to educate me fully.
I too have some theories of my own and I am not an expert in anything. Yes I have raced a few reciprocating cars and I have owned a rotary for a few years but I would not call myself an expert.
That said here is my 2 cents:
On the issue of Mazda recommending dino vs synthetic:
Everyone has theories about why Mazda does not recommend syn oil. In fact I know of very few major auto makers that recommend syn in any car/engine. (Other than porsche I know of none). Imagine how much money they would save on warranty repairs if they would recommend syn oil over dino oils? When I ask myself that question I cannot believe every major auto maker is knowingly recommending dino flids when using syn fluids would clearly save them money. So I am left with the only rational conclusion that: Over the course of the warranty period there will be no issues created in your engine from the use of dino fluid versus syn fluid.
My second theory is one of maintenance cost. At some point or another a consumer reports or some auto mag will publish a number describing the annual cost of maintenance of a vehicle. I am pretty confident that the auto makers want to have as low a number as possible. Recommending syn oils may increase that number above that of their competition. (please dont get started on a debate over the longer wear and cost benefits of syn vs dino)
Lastly, I dont believe any conspiracy theories that the oil giants are pushing auto makers to recommend dino fluids so they can continue to earn big bucks.
On the issue of what type of oil to use
So what oil should I use if I want my car to last and be cheap to maintain beyond the manufacturers warranty period?
In my opinion the debate should not be about which oil lubricartes better or which oil lasts longer or is more resistant to heat etc. This thread has not fully responded to the issue about the fact that, unlike a reciprocating engine, the rotary engine injects oil into the combustion chanber. This topic has come up but in my opinion has not been fully addressed.
One of four things must happen to this oil:
Now I would like one or more of the brilliant folks on this thread (and i mean that .. you guys seem really smart to me) to explain to me how syncthetic and conventional oil behave when subject to the explosion that occurs in my engine and what happens to each one afterwards. From my simple brain I would like it to be choice #1 (leave as a gas from exhaust without a trace).
Finally on the issue of which brand of oil to use
I am not sure it matters much but not all syncthetics are created equal. In fact as the thread has indicated so far there is quite a difference between the synthetics brands. In fact most are not fully synthetic (this is true even for the ones that dont call themselves blends). Except for a few of the synthetics (AmsOil being one of the few) most synthetics start off with a base stock that is petroleum based. I suspect that choosing a synthetic brand that is best for the rotary engine is not an easy task. Such an oil must lubricate, cool, not foam, leave no deposits, not destroy seals, rings, etc., scavenge, resist heat, and, unique to rotaries, finally leave without a trace via the exhaust.
I suspect that the differences between the dino oils brands matterrs much less since they have to be babied and kept below a given temp and changed often etc. So I dont really think it matters whether you use castrol GTX or Havoline Supreme or Valvoline conventional etc.
Thanks for your attention. Comments encouraged.
For the record. I use syn in all my reciprocating engine cars and I currently use mineral oil in my rx8 m6. I want my oil to burn easily and completely in my combustion chamber then leave without a trace. but perhaps i am wrong here so i am willing to be educated and ... change my oil
Respecfully,
Cuzzin
P.S. My rx8 has 35,000 miles and runs great. I change the dino oil very often using the recommended weight. I have not done an internal analysis of my engine nor have I ever done chemical analysis of the oil.
I too have some theories of my own and I am not an expert in anything. Yes I have raced a few reciprocating cars and I have owned a rotary for a few years but I would not call myself an expert.
That said here is my 2 cents:
On the issue of Mazda recommending dino vs synthetic:
Everyone has theories about why Mazda does not recommend syn oil. In fact I know of very few major auto makers that recommend syn in any car/engine. (Other than porsche I know of none). Imagine how much money they would save on warranty repairs if they would recommend syn oil over dino oils? When I ask myself that question I cannot believe every major auto maker is knowingly recommending dino flids when using syn fluids would clearly save them money. So I am left with the only rational conclusion that: Over the course of the warranty period there will be no issues created in your engine from the use of dino fluid versus syn fluid.
My second theory is one of maintenance cost. At some point or another a consumer reports or some auto mag will publish a number describing the annual cost of maintenance of a vehicle. I am pretty confident that the auto makers want to have as low a number as possible. Recommending syn oils may increase that number above that of their competition. (please dont get started on a debate over the longer wear and cost benefits of syn vs dino)
Lastly, I dont believe any conspiracy theories that the oil giants are pushing auto makers to recommend dino fluids so they can continue to earn big bucks.
On the issue of what type of oil to use
So what oil should I use if I want my car to last and be cheap to maintain beyond the manufacturers warranty period?
In my opinion the debate should not be about which oil lubricartes better or which oil lasts longer or is more resistant to heat etc. This thread has not fully responded to the issue about the fact that, unlike a reciprocating engine, the rotary engine injects oil into the combustion chanber. This topic has come up but in my opinion has not been fully addressed.
One of four things must happen to this oil:
- It is either burnt and leaves through the exhaust as a gas not damaging anything or building up on anything on the way out
- It is either burnt and leaves through the exhaust as a gas damaging something or building up on something on the way out.
- It is not burnt and leaves through the exhaust as a liquid.
- It is not burnt and remains building up in the engine hiding in some corner as sludge.
Now I would like one or more of the brilliant folks on this thread (and i mean that .. you guys seem really smart to me) to explain to me how syncthetic and conventional oil behave when subject to the explosion that occurs in my engine and what happens to each one afterwards. From my simple brain I would like it to be choice #1 (leave as a gas from exhaust without a trace).
Finally on the issue of which brand of oil to use
I am not sure it matters much but not all syncthetics are created equal. In fact as the thread has indicated so far there is quite a difference between the synthetics brands. In fact most are not fully synthetic (this is true even for the ones that dont call themselves blends). Except for a few of the synthetics (AmsOil being one of the few) most synthetics start off with a base stock that is petroleum based. I suspect that choosing a synthetic brand that is best for the rotary engine is not an easy task. Such an oil must lubricate, cool, not foam, leave no deposits, not destroy seals, rings, etc., scavenge, resist heat, and, unique to rotaries, finally leave without a trace via the exhaust.
I suspect that the differences between the dino oils brands matterrs much less since they have to be babied and kept below a given temp and changed often etc. So I dont really think it matters whether you use castrol GTX or Havoline Supreme or Valvoline conventional etc.
Thanks for your attention. Comments encouraged.
For the record. I use syn in all my reciprocating engine cars and I currently use mineral oil in my rx8 m6. I want my oil to burn easily and completely in my combustion chamber then leave without a trace. but perhaps i am wrong here so i am willing to be educated and ... change my oil
Respecfully,
Cuzzin
P.S. My rx8 has 35,000 miles and runs great. I change the dino oil very often using the recommended weight. I have not done an internal analysis of my engine nor have I ever done chemical analysis of the oil.
09-04-2006, 04:56 PM
#191
Given that the additives are relatively similar...and that the base stocks all burn below the temperature of combustion......this only leaves the relative lubricating properties of the oils as a variable.........synthetics have better chain lengths with stronger bonds, and therefore hold there lubricating properties longer.
I don't see where the problem is
I don't see where the problem is
09-04-2006, 05:17 PM
#192
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cali
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you are right dannorbe. I would like to question the guys at SynLube. If anyone knows anyone at SynLube (I think it is a Canadian company) would you please ask them about the following: SynLube makes perhaps the worlds only completely 100% synthetic engine lubricant. It has Synthetic base, synthetic, additives, Synthetic carriers etc. They claim it to be useful for just about everything except in three cases.
1. DO NOT USE in two stroke engines where oil is mixed with gasoline.
2. DO NOT USE in Mazda Rotary Engines
3. Not certified by FAA for use in radial aviation engines
Now why would a company who makes 100% syn oil exclusivly not recommend their oil for use in rotary engines?
Still puzzled,
Cuzzin
1. DO NOT USE in two stroke engines where oil is mixed with gasoline.
2. DO NOT USE in Mazda Rotary Engines
3. Not certified by FAA for use in radial aviation engines
Now why would a company who makes 100% syn oil exclusivly not recommend their oil for use in rotary engines?
Still puzzled,
Cuzzin
09-04-2006, 08:00 PM
#194
Good discussion going on--One question---What is best in a 2 cycle engine?
Well definatly not any 4 stroke engine oil> Why not? Because of the deposits it will leave in the combustion chamber/fouled plugs etc.
This one characteristic of our engine seemingly would force us to look at 2 cycles for the omp "best to use".
If you have a separate container for the omp oil pickup , what would you use then?
Not trying to convince anyone on anything--like cuzzing trying to learn. Sometimes my deductive reasoning has been wrong
olddragger
Well definatly not any 4 stroke engine oil> Why not? Because of the deposits it will leave in the combustion chamber/fouled plugs etc.
This one characteristic of our engine seemingly would force us to look at 2 cycles for the omp "best to use".
If you have a separate container for the omp oil pickup , what would you use then?
Not trying to convince anyone on anything--like cuzzing trying to learn. Sometimes my deductive reasoning has been wrong
olddragger
09-04-2006, 08:33 PM
#195
Registered
Thread Starter
Jeff, When I bought my last RX-7, the auxiliary ports were stuck closed. I ended up opening that engine up since I also noticed a manufacturing error on my engine on Mazda's part that I wanted to correct (different exhaust port sizes in relation to each other!). My engine had tons of carbon inside it and the intake ports looked very similar to that picture. It took lots of effort to free the sleeves again to move freely as the carbon had completely locked them shut.
I bought the car from the original owner. She was a friend of the family who used the car as a daily driver. She never revved the car up over about 3500 rpm and always babied it. She maintained regular oil changes and had documentation of it and always used conventional oil! One very big thing which contributes to carbon buildup in the engine is how you drive it. If you baby a rotary, it'll hate you and you'll have problems someday. If you drive it hard every once in a while, it will reward you with a longer trouble free life. She babied it and just drove it normally and the engine had carbon issues as a result of it. Synthetic had nothing to do with it because it wasn't being used.
Once again, I'm calling bs on Mazda as I've had the same thing happen with nonsynthetics. That's a just a terrible excuse that the legal department thought up. They do have a reason for issuing a tsb and the reason they did it needs to be understood.
First we must look at the history of synthetics. Synthetics originally did have issues that conventional oils didn't have and there were 2 such issues that caused problems. This applies to Group IV synthetics. The first issue was that early group IV's caused rubber parts to swell. The second problem was that the additive package in the base oil (the additive package is what makes it a motor oil) didn't like to mix well and would fall out of suspension. These 2 things sound like big issues. Fortunately there were also a couple of fixes for these. The first one was to add an additive to the base stock. This would counter the effect of swelling seals so that it was no longer an issue to rubber parts. The problem with this tactic was that additives had a way of falling out of suspension on early Group IV's. The second and best way to solve the issue was during the formulation stage of the Group IV base stock. There was a way for them to build this property into the oil so that it wouldn't hurt rubber seals and so it would keep the additive package mixed well. Problem solved. Group V synthetic oils never suffered this issue as far as I know. FWIW, Redline and Amsoil are both Group V oils.
Now seeing these past issues in the early days of Group IV oils may still make some people nervous. Understand that any issues now are not a flaw of the oil being a synthetic. It is a problem with who made it. Proof of this is in the fact that Idemitsu is a Group IV synthetic oil safe for use in rotaries. Right there it should be evident that Group IV's can be safe to use. Royal Purple is also a Group IV and is safe to use. Why then do we still have this tsb? This is easy to explain.
There may in fact still be an oil company selling a Group IV synthetic that hasn't had all of it's early issues taken care of. There could be a company who still has issues with their additive package falling out of suspension. There could still be a company who's oil is still causing seals to swell. I ask anyone, is this a problem with synthetics, or of the company that formulated it? So we can see that there is at least 1 manufacturer out there (maybe more, maybe not), that seems to have issues in the rotary. Why won't Mazda just name who this company is so we know not to use it? Again, this is easy to explain. It called the legal department! They are safer telling everyone not to use any synthetic which means that if everyone listens, the few people who would have potentially used the "bad" synthetic, won't. Problem solved. Had they named a specific company or 2, they would leave themselves open for a lawsuit from said companies as it could be seen as a shot against their product and image. See how this works? Lawsuits or the threat of one, are a main driving force of business decisions.
If synthetics were the real problem, there would be NO rotary safe synthetics. This includes Idemitsu. We know this not to be the case. There is A synthetic oil from A company out there that seems to have issues and that is the reason for this notice. The problem is that the oil in question may in fact be the most widely used and well known synthetic oil in the world! If they won't go the the proper lengths to make sure their synthetic oil is perfect, why would anyone want to use their conventional. It goes back to what Yamamoto-san told me last year at Sevenstock, "not all synthetic oils are created equal". Why people interpret this to mean that "NO synthetic oils are good in a rotary" is due to a complete ignorance of oil as well as why companies make the decisions they do.
If people must use conventional oil, that's fine. I used Havoline exclusively for years as well as Castrol for a while and loved it. They are good oils. I just wish more people understood what is really going on here in regards to synthetics rather than just putting all of their faith on a tsb without knowing the reasons for it. It's funny how the same people that do believe the tsb as gospel under all circumstances don't believe Mazda on their power claims or other negative press! Double standard?
I bought the car from the original owner. She was a friend of the family who used the car as a daily driver. She never revved the car up over about 3500 rpm and always babied it. She maintained regular oil changes and had documentation of it and always used conventional oil! One very big thing which contributes to carbon buildup in the engine is how you drive it. If you baby a rotary, it'll hate you and you'll have problems someday. If you drive it hard every once in a while, it will reward you with a longer trouble free life. She babied it and just drove it normally and the engine had carbon issues as a result of it. Synthetic had nothing to do with it because it wasn't being used.
Once again, I'm calling bs on Mazda as I've had the same thing happen with nonsynthetics. That's a just a terrible excuse that the legal department thought up. They do have a reason for issuing a tsb and the reason they did it needs to be understood.
First we must look at the history of synthetics. Synthetics originally did have issues that conventional oils didn't have and there were 2 such issues that caused problems. This applies to Group IV synthetics. The first issue was that early group IV's caused rubber parts to swell. The second problem was that the additive package in the base oil (the additive package is what makes it a motor oil) didn't like to mix well and would fall out of suspension. These 2 things sound like big issues. Fortunately there were also a couple of fixes for these. The first one was to add an additive to the base stock. This would counter the effect of swelling seals so that it was no longer an issue to rubber parts. The problem with this tactic was that additives had a way of falling out of suspension on early Group IV's. The second and best way to solve the issue was during the formulation stage of the Group IV base stock. There was a way for them to build this property into the oil so that it wouldn't hurt rubber seals and so it would keep the additive package mixed well. Problem solved. Group V synthetic oils never suffered this issue as far as I know. FWIW, Redline and Amsoil are both Group V oils.
Now seeing these past issues in the early days of Group IV oils may still make some people nervous. Understand that any issues now are not a flaw of the oil being a synthetic. It is a problem with who made it. Proof of this is in the fact that Idemitsu is a Group IV synthetic oil safe for use in rotaries. Right there it should be evident that Group IV's can be safe to use. Royal Purple is also a Group IV and is safe to use. Why then do we still have this tsb? This is easy to explain.
There may in fact still be an oil company selling a Group IV synthetic that hasn't had all of it's early issues taken care of. There could be a company who still has issues with their additive package falling out of suspension. There could still be a company who's oil is still causing seals to swell. I ask anyone, is this a problem with synthetics, or of the company that formulated it? So we can see that there is at least 1 manufacturer out there (maybe more, maybe not), that seems to have issues in the rotary. Why won't Mazda just name who this company is so we know not to use it? Again, this is easy to explain. It called the legal department! They are safer telling everyone not to use any synthetic which means that if everyone listens, the few people who would have potentially used the "bad" synthetic, won't. Problem solved. Had they named a specific company or 2, they would leave themselves open for a lawsuit from said companies as it could be seen as a shot against their product and image. See how this works? Lawsuits or the threat of one, are a main driving force of business decisions.
If synthetics were the real problem, there would be NO rotary safe synthetics. This includes Idemitsu. We know this not to be the case. There is A synthetic oil from A company out there that seems to have issues and that is the reason for this notice. The problem is that the oil in question may in fact be the most widely used and well known synthetic oil in the world! If they won't go the the proper lengths to make sure their synthetic oil is perfect, why would anyone want to use their conventional. It goes back to what Yamamoto-san told me last year at Sevenstock, "not all synthetic oils are created equal". Why people interpret this to mean that "NO synthetic oils are good in a rotary" is due to a complete ignorance of oil as well as why companies make the decisions they do.
If people must use conventional oil, that's fine. I used Havoline exclusively for years as well as Castrol for a while and loved it. They are good oils. I just wish more people understood what is really going on here in regards to synthetics rather than just putting all of their faith on a tsb without knowing the reasons for it. It's funny how the same people that do believe the tsb as gospel under all circumstances don't believe Mazda on their power claims or other negative press! Double standard?
Last edited by rotarygod; 09-05-2006 at 02:00 AM.
09-04-2006, 08:50 PM
#196
Registered
Thread Starter
Here's MY easy guide for using synthetics and the ones I know to be safe:
Royal Purple: A Group IV oil. I and many others have used it for years. Racing Beat also recommends it and has tested it.
Amsoil: A Group V oil. Again it has a history of successful rotary use. Racing Beat used to recommend this oil until they discovered Royal Purple!
Redline: A Group V oil. Many rotary owners have used Redline products for years with great results. Proven track record in rotaries.
Idemitsu: A Group IV oil. Yamamoto-san himself from Mazda assisted in the formulation of this oil for the 1991 LeMans winning 787B 4 rotor race car. Designed to be used in rotaries. Proven track record in rotaries.
Valvoline: A Group III oil. While it is still debated whether or not a Group III oil is a true synthetic or not, it can legally be called one. It is the same paraffin base stock as Group I and II conventional oils but has undergone a process called hydrocracking to improve it. More on this can be found online. Whether or not you consider it a true synthetic or not, it should still be noted that this is a better more refined oil than the average conventional which still makes it a great oil. Valvoline synthetic was the oil run by Downing in their Kudzu race cars. Proven in rotaries.
That's all of them that I would use. Any others I would only at the user's risk as I don't know the history of their success in the rotary engine. Some others may be fine to use while some may not. I know which ones I like and what I use and have no desire to test or learn any further. I'll let someone else test the rest.
One of the names I did get straight from the horses mouth as far as a synthetic NOT to use was Mobil 1. There was no direct reason given. This is the most highly used synthetic in the world and Mazda has apparently had issues with it in rotaries as far as carbon deposits go. That was an unofficial position from them and you will never see it listed in writing for reasons I have already explained. Most highly used and easy to obtain synthetic oil in the world and problems with it's extended use in a rotary engine. Does anyone see a tsb coming?
Does anyone still not understand why Mazda says what they do?
Royal Purple: A Group IV oil. I and many others have used it for years. Racing Beat also recommends it and has tested it.
Amsoil: A Group V oil. Again it has a history of successful rotary use. Racing Beat used to recommend this oil until they discovered Royal Purple!
Redline: A Group V oil. Many rotary owners have used Redline products for years with great results. Proven track record in rotaries.
Idemitsu: A Group IV oil. Yamamoto-san himself from Mazda assisted in the formulation of this oil for the 1991 LeMans winning 787B 4 rotor race car. Designed to be used in rotaries. Proven track record in rotaries.
Valvoline: A Group III oil. While it is still debated whether or not a Group III oil is a true synthetic or not, it can legally be called one. It is the same paraffin base stock as Group I and II conventional oils but has undergone a process called hydrocracking to improve it. More on this can be found online. Whether or not you consider it a true synthetic or not, it should still be noted that this is a better more refined oil than the average conventional which still makes it a great oil. Valvoline synthetic was the oil run by Downing in their Kudzu race cars. Proven in rotaries.
That's all of them that I would use. Any others I would only at the user's risk as I don't know the history of their success in the rotary engine. Some others may be fine to use while some may not. I know which ones I like and what I use and have no desire to test or learn any further. I'll let someone else test the rest.
One of the names I did get straight from the horses mouth as far as a synthetic NOT to use was Mobil 1. There was no direct reason given. This is the most highly used synthetic in the world and Mazda has apparently had issues with it in rotaries as far as carbon deposits go. That was an unofficial position from them and you will never see it listed in writing for reasons I have already explained. Most highly used and easy to obtain synthetic oil in the world and problems with it's extended use in a rotary engine. Does anyone see a tsb coming?
Does anyone still not understand why Mazda says what they do?
Last edited by rotarygod; 09-05-2006 at 01:47 AM.
09-04-2006, 10:17 PM
#197
Don't get me wrong - I only use synthetic oil, I just wanted your refutation to apply specifically to that "TSB".
I just replaced my motor, so I will crack the old one open and see what 45k miles of really hard driving on Mobil 1 has done to the innards.
I just replaced my motor, so I will crack the old one open and see what 45k miles of really hard driving on Mobil 1 has done to the innards.
09-04-2006, 11:56 PM
#199
Nah, you didn't miss anything. I haven't posted any details.
Two weeks ago, at the end of a 4.5 mile, 12%+ grade hill climb with the A/C blasting in 117°F ambient (6% humidity at 2200 feet or so), 12 PSI in third with engine coolant temps around 240°F, A/F of 10.5:1 and about 8° of ignition timing, on turtle-**** AZ 91 octane with no xylene, I got a monster ping as I passed a Mustang over the double-yellow and took out a seal. I was asking for it.
Drove it 40 miles back home on one rotor! Zero PSI of total compression on #1. #2 was on its way out the door as well at 90 PSI.
Yet, no noise, no lockup and no over-heat in those 40 miles. No power, either - I had to stay in boost to get to highway speeds. That was one tough beast.
I'll tear it down and re-build it later when I feel like spending the time (probably around X-Mas).
Dropped in a 5k mile motor from a rear-ender.
Two weeks ago, at the end of a 4.5 mile, 12%+ grade hill climb with the A/C blasting in 117°F ambient (6% humidity at 2200 feet or so), 12 PSI in third with engine coolant temps around 240°F, A/F of 10.5:1 and about 8° of ignition timing, on turtle-**** AZ 91 octane with no xylene, I got a monster ping as I passed a Mustang over the double-yellow and took out a seal. I was asking for it.
Drove it 40 miles back home on one rotor! Zero PSI of total compression on #1. #2 was on its way out the door as well at 90 PSI.
Yet, no noise, no lockup and no over-heat in those 40 miles. No power, either - I had to stay in boost to get to highway speeds. That was one tough beast.
I'll tear it down and re-build it later when I feel like spending the time (probably around X-Mas).
Dropped in a 5k mile motor from a rear-ender.
09-05-2006, 12:03 AM
#200
Go Texas Longhorns!
holy **** man, I'm trying to think of how else you could have abused the engine more than that. when did you start pushing 12psi?
I feel alot better now about my NA engine on track days
I feel alot better now about my NA engine on track days