I think I'll pass on a rotary engine too.
Oil related failure in the Renesis rotary engine
- Thread starter OMCWankel
- Start date
- Status
My cousin owns a 90's RX7(last year of production can't remember? 94/95?).
He's also a mechanic, and when we took it for a spin(bought it used with 20k on the odo) he said the engines can get very hot and need to be cooled quite a bit. He had oil coolers installed and would definitely drive the car hard(high rpm's). He still has it but its a weekend/summer time driver only taken out once in awhile.
The rotories from what I had read are notorious for the amount of heat and stress that they can put out, the only oil I know of that Mazda somewhat recommends is RedLine.
Mazda ran synthetic from an "unknown/unnammed" company and during one of their race events the engine failed. Thats why they are vocal about not running synthetic. But again take it with a grain of salt as all information is contradictory. Funny though look at the below:
Mazda USA doesn't allow the use of synthetic oil for warranty support on rotary engines, it will void the warranty.
Japan, Europe and all other countries suggest synthetic oil.
Mazda's rotary racing teams run synthetic oil.
He's also a mechanic, and when we took it for a spin(bought it used with 20k on the odo) he said the engines can get very hot and need to be cooled quite a bit. He had oil coolers installed and would definitely drive the car hard(high rpm's). He still has it but its a weekend/summer time driver only taken out once in awhile.
The rotories from what I had read are notorious for the amount of heat and stress that they can put out, the only oil I know of that Mazda somewhat recommends is RedLine.
Mazda ran synthetic from an "unknown/unnammed" company and during one of their race events the engine failed. Thats why they are vocal about not running synthetic. But again take it with a grain of salt as all information is contradictory. Funny though look at the below:
Mazda USA doesn't allow the use of synthetic oil for warranty support on rotary engines, it will void the warranty.
Japan, Europe and all other countries suggest synthetic oil.
Mazda's rotary racing teams run synthetic oil.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Great picture! (Story?)
Yeah, I was driving home and the car stalled. I took out the engine, thinking I tossed an apex seal, and found that I had dropped a valve instead on the number 7 rotor.
While rebuilding it, I put in larger pistons, h-beam connecting rods, bigger valves (with better keepers, haha), and shaved the head. I think I make about 550HP with the stock bottom end now!
Great picture! (Story?)
Yeah, I was driving home and the car stalled. I took out the engine, thinking I tossed an apex seal, and found that I had dropped a valve instead on the number 7 rotor.
While rebuilding it, I put in larger pistons, h-beam connecting rods, bigger valves (with better keepers, haha), and shaved the head. I think I make about 550HP with the stock bottom end now!
Originally Posted By: KLowD9x
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Great picture! (Story?)
Yeah, I was driving home and the car stalled. I took out the engine, thinking I tossed an apex seal, and found that I had dropped a valve instead on the number 7 rotor.
While rebuilding it, I put in larger pistons, h-beam connecting rods, bigger valves (with better keepers, haha), and shaved the head. I think I make about 550HP with the stock bottom end now!
You forgot a stroker crank to give the rotor more displacement!
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Great picture! (Story?)
Yeah, I was driving home and the car stalled. I took out the engine, thinking I tossed an apex seal, and found that I had dropped a valve instead on the number 7 rotor.
While rebuilding it, I put in larger pistons, h-beam connecting rods, bigger valves (with better keepers, haha), and shaved the head. I think I make about 550HP with the stock bottom end now!
You forgot a stroker crank to give the rotor more displacement!
You did all that with a Swiss Army knife? Impressed.
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Let me be pedantic and technical just for a moment. Technically, the term "rotary engine" refers to those aircraft engines where the pistons actually rotate around the crankshaft, while a Wankel engine is what Mazda uses.
Wankel is the man who made the Rotary Engine. Mazda's engine has rotors that rotate around the crankshaft.
It is a Rotary engine.
I humbly disagree. Yes, Wankel invented the engine. However, in technical engine terminology, "rotary" refers to rotating pistons, not rotors, and is used on aircraft. "Wankel engine" refers to rotating rotors, not pistons.
Caveat...
Respectfully recommend you retreat quickly and quietly before this gets any worse. They're correct. A radial engine involves reciprocating pistons in cylinders, arranged effectively in a circle. See the illustration the other member posted, above. A rotary engine involves one or more turning rotors (a/k/a Wankel engine).
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Let me be pedantic and technical just for a moment. Technically, the term "rotary engine" refers to those aircraft engines where the pistons actually rotate around the crankshaft, while a Wankel engine is what Mazda uses.
Wankel is the man who made the Rotary Engine. Mazda's engine has rotors that rotate around the crankshaft.
It is a Rotary engine.
I humbly disagree. Yes, Wankel invented the engine. However, in technical engine terminology, "rotary" refers to rotating pistons, not rotors, and is used on aircraft. "Wankel engine" refers to rotating rotors, not pistons.
Caveat...
Respectfully recommend you retreat quickly and quietly before this gets any worse. They're correct. A radial engine involves reciprocating pistons in cylinders, arranged effectively in a circle. See the illustration the other member posted, above. A rotary engine involves one or more turning rotors (a/k/a Wankel engine).
My rotary is still running strong. Then again, I didn't buy the well known unreliable 04 models.
Also, not being bashful, but why would anyone buy an automatic RX8 is beyond me. Steel driveshaft, 4 speed, less HP, and 2k less rpm. It's not even the same car in any aspect.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Let me be pedantic and technical just for a moment. Technically, the term "rotary engine" refers to those aircraft engines where the pistons actually rotate around the crankshaft, while a Wankel engine is what Mazda uses.
Wankel is the man who made the Rotary Engine. Mazda's engine has rotors that rotate around the crankshaft.
It is a Rotary engine.
I humbly disagree. Yes, Wankel invented the engine. However, in technical engine terminology, "rotary" refers to rotating pistons, not rotors, and is used on aircraft. "Wankel engine" refers to rotating rotors, not pistons.
Caveat...
Respectfully recommend you retreat quickly and quietly before this gets any worse. They're correct. A radial engine involves reciprocating pistons in cylinders, arranged effectively in a circle. See the illustration the other member posted, above. A rotary engine involves one or more turning rotors (a/k/a Wankel engine).
Yep. It may be somewhat oversimplifying but it's one of the piston configurations like inline, V, and flat configurations. Perfect shape for aviation use and I've heard as far as aircooled engines go, they're much easier to cool.
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Let me be pedantic and technical just for a moment. Technically, the term "rotary engine" refers to those aircraft engines where the pistons actually rotate around the crankshaft, while a Wankel engine is what Mazda uses.
Wankel is the man who made the Rotary Engine. Mazda's engine has rotors that rotate around the crankshaft.
It is a Rotary engine.
I humbly disagree. Yes, Wankel invented the engine. However, in technical engine terminology, "rotary" refers to rotating pistons, not rotors, and is used on aircraft. "Wankel engine" refers to rotating rotors, not pistons.
Caveat...
Respectfully recommend you retreat quickly and quietly before this gets any worse. They're correct. A radial engine involves reciprocating pistons in cylinders, arranged effectively in a circle. See the illustration the other member posted, above. A rotary engine involves one or more turning rotors (a/k/a Wankel engine).
Yep. It may be somewhat oversimplifying but it's one of the piston configurations like inline, V, and flat configurations. Perfect shape for aviation use and I've heard as far as aircooled engines go, they're much easier to cool.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
. . .
Yep. It may be somewhat oversimplifying but it's one of the piston configurations like inline, V, and flat configurations. Perfect shape for aviation use and I've heard as far as aircooled engines go, they're much easier to cool.
True. The Navy/Marines strongly preferred the radial design during the heyday of aircraft piston engines. The Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Bearcat, etc. were all radial piston driven. Cooling was mostly easier (some designs had problems, both from cowling design and the multi-row designs). They were not subject to failure, as were the water-cooled V and H engines were, with even slight cooling system damage. And they saved the weight from all that plumbing, radiators, and coolant itself. I'm lucky to live very close to the National Museum of Naval Aviation. They've got some really neat engine cutaway exhibits. It's boggling how complex these old piston engines were, and how they ran reliably anyway (fairly reliably anyway...).
. . .
Yep. It may be somewhat oversimplifying but it's one of the piston configurations like inline, V, and flat configurations. Perfect shape for aviation use and I've heard as far as aircooled engines go, they're much easier to cool.
True. The Navy/Marines strongly preferred the radial design during the heyday of aircraft piston engines. The Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Bearcat, etc. were all radial piston driven. Cooling was mostly easier (some designs had problems, both from cowling design and the multi-row designs). They were not subject to failure, as were the water-cooled V and H engines were, with even slight cooling system damage. And they saved the weight from all that plumbing, radiators, and coolant itself. I'm lucky to live very close to the National Museum of Naval Aviation. They've got some really neat engine cutaway exhibits. It's boggling how complex these old piston engines were, and how they ran reliably anyway (fairly reliably anyway...).
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Let me be pedantic and technical just for a moment. Technically, the term "rotary engine" refers to those aircraft engines where the pistons actually rotate around the crankshaft, while a Wankel engine is what Mazda uses.
Wankel is the man who made the Rotary Engine. Mazda's engine has rotors that rotate around the crankshaft.
It is a Rotary engine.
I humbly disagree. Yes, Wankel invented the engine. However, in technical engine terminology, "rotary" refers to rotating pistons, not rotors, and is used on aircraft. "Wankel engine" refers to rotating rotors, not pistons.
Caveat...
Respectfully recommend you retreat quickly and quietly before this gets any worse. They're correct. A radial engine involves reciprocating pistons in cylinders, arranged effectively in a circle. See the illustration the other member posted, above. A rotary engine involves one or more turning rotors (a/k/a Wankel engine).
Ekpolk, before you tell him to back off, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
I think this is what he is referring to....
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Let me be pedantic and technical just for a moment. Technically, the term "rotary engine" refers to those aircraft engines where the pistons actually rotate around the crankshaft, while a Wankel engine is what Mazda uses.
Wankel is the man who made the Rotary Engine. Mazda's engine has rotors that rotate around the crankshaft.
It is a Rotary engine.
I humbly disagree. Yes, Wankel invented the engine. However, in technical engine terminology, "rotary" refers to rotating pistons, not rotors, and is used on aircraft. "Wankel engine" refers to rotating rotors, not pistons.
Caveat...
Respectfully recommend you retreat quickly and quietly before this gets any worse. They're correct. A radial engine involves reciprocating pistons in cylinders, arranged effectively in a circle. See the illustration the other member posted, above. A rotary engine involves one or more turning rotors (a/k/a Wankel engine).
Ekpolk, before you tell him to back off, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
I think this is what he is referring to....
And another:
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/rotary-theory.htm
Seems both sides are correct, depending on the usage of the word rotary. However, the term 'Rotary' is not exclusive to 'Mazda' or 'Wankel' type engines.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/rotary-theory.htm
Seems both sides are correct, depending on the usage of the word rotary. However, the term 'Rotary' is not exclusive to 'Mazda' or 'Wankel' type engines.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
. . .
Yep. It may be somewhat oversimplifying but it's one of the piston configurations like inline, V, and flat configurations. Perfect shape for aviation use and I've heard as far as aircooled engines go, they're much easier to cool.
True. The Navy/Marines strongly preferred the radial design during the heyday of aircraft piston engines. The Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Bearcat, etc. were all radial piston driven. Cooling was mostly easier (some designs had problems, both from cowling design and the multi-row designs). They were not subject to failure, as were the water-cooled V and H engines were, with even slight cooling system damage. And they saved the weight from all that plumbing, radiators, and coolant itself. I'm lucky to live very close to the National Museum of Naval Aviation. They've got some really neat engine cutaway exhibits. It's boggling how complex these old piston engines were, and how they ran reliably anyway (fairly reliably anyway...).
If these engines were made with today's alloys they would be indestructable.
It wasn't uncommon for these engines to have 1 or 2 cylinders shot off, and they were still operating at enough power to bring the crew safaley home.
These engines were literally "bullet proof" especially by today's standards, where a sensor failure can grind the whole engine to a complete stop.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
. . .
Yep. It may be somewhat oversimplifying but it's one of the piston configurations like inline, V, and flat configurations. Perfect shape for aviation use and I've heard as far as aircooled engines go, they're much easier to cool.
True. The Navy/Marines strongly preferred the radial design during the heyday of aircraft piston engines. The Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Bearcat, etc. were all radial piston driven. Cooling was mostly easier (some designs had problems, both from cowling design and the multi-row designs). They were not subject to failure, as were the water-cooled V and H engines were, with even slight cooling system damage. And they saved the weight from all that plumbing, radiators, and coolant itself. I'm lucky to live very close to the National Museum of Naval Aviation. They've got some really neat engine cutaway exhibits. It's boggling how complex these old piston engines were, and how they ran reliably anyway (fairly reliably anyway...).
If these engines were made with today's alloys they would be indestructable.
It wasn't uncommon for these engines to have 1 or 2 cylinders shot off, and they were still operating at enough power to bring the crew safaley home.
These engines were literally "bullet proof" especially by today's standards, where a sensor failure can grind the whole engine to a complete stop.
Originally Posted By: Tim H.
. . .
Ekpolk, before you tell him to back off, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
I think this is what he is referring to....
Yep, that's right. Quite frankly, I'd forgotten about those piston "rotary" engines, though I now recall that they were actually taught to us during "engines" part of AI (Aviation Indoctrination) here in Pensacola (I was here as a flight student from very late 83 to mid 85). We spent a couple days on the history, evolution, strengths, weaknesses, of all engine types.
Given their substantial disadvantages, noted in the article, especially the tremendous inertia from the rotating mass, the were mostly gone from use by the 1920s. Consider that when the radials (vs piston rotaries) got really big and powerful, the pilots had substantial difficulty dealing with torque effects of just the crankshaft and prop. Imagine how that would have gone if piston rotaries had for some reason stayed.
Bottom line, IMO, yes, I was too hard on caveat, but he is arguing an archaic use of the term. Time has marched on, and even the now-classic radial piston engine is almost gone, with piston rotaries long gone. I think it's fair to say that as the automotive language has evolved, the term "rotary" has come to represent the Wankel engine for most of us.
Again, caveat, my apologies, I do see what you were saying (but you need to get with the times!).
. . .
Ekpolk, before you tell him to back off, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
I think this is what he is referring to....
Yep, that's right. Quite frankly, I'd forgotten about those piston "rotary" engines, though I now recall that they were actually taught to us during "engines" part of AI (Aviation Indoctrination) here in Pensacola (I was here as a flight student from very late 83 to mid 85). We spent a couple days on the history, evolution, strengths, weaknesses, of all engine types.
Given their substantial disadvantages, noted in the article, especially the tremendous inertia from the rotating mass, the were mostly gone from use by the 1920s. Consider that when the radials (vs piston rotaries) got really big and powerful, the pilots had substantial difficulty dealing with torque effects of just the crankshaft and prop. Imagine how that would have gone if piston rotaries had for some reason stayed.
Bottom line, IMO, yes, I was too hard on caveat, but he is arguing an archaic use of the term. Time has marched on, and even the now-classic radial piston engine is almost gone, with piston rotaries long gone. I think it's fair to say that as the automotive language has evolved, the term "rotary" has come to represent the Wankel engine for most of us.
Again, caveat, my apologies, I do see what you were saying (but you need to get with the times!).
Originally Posted By: 9krpmrx8
Why are we talking about airplane engines?
Go back and read the thread and you will see....
Why are we talking about airplane engines?
Go back and read the thread and you will see....
I really hate to see these lubrication problems with such a unique engine; IMO the Mazda rotary (Wankel) engine is one of the most fun powerplants ever put in a vehicle!
Way back in the mid-70's a friend of mine bought a used Mazda and let me drive it. I distinctly remember watching the tachometer needle going quite a ways up while I was driving it and it was as if the engine was saying, "Come on, let's hit the redline"! That thing was a BLAST to drive. And it had the oddest distributor cap- the four wires were situated on a single half of the cap, not evenly distributed around its circumference.
I do hope they can fully iron out the issues that seem to be plaguing the engine with tighter emissions reg's.
Way back in the mid-70's a friend of mine bought a used Mazda and let me drive it. I distinctly remember watching the tachometer needle going quite a ways up while I was driving it and it was as if the engine was saying, "Come on, let's hit the redline"! That thing was a BLAST to drive. And it had the oddest distributor cap- the four wires were situated on a single half of the cap, not evenly distributed around its circumference.
I do hope they can fully iron out the issues that seem to be plaguing the engine with tighter emissions reg's.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Let me be pedantic and technical just for a moment. Technically, the term "rotary engine" refers to those aircraft engines where the pistons actually rotate around the crankshaft, while a Wankel engine is what Mazda uses.
Wankel is the man who made the Rotary Engine. Mazda's engine has rotors that rotate around the crankshaft.
It is a Rotary engine.
I humbly disagree. Yes, Wankel invented the engine. However, in technical engine terminology, "rotary" refers to rotating pistons, not rotors, and is used on aircraft. "Wankel engine" refers to rotating rotors, not pistons.
Caveat...
Respectfully recommend you retreat quickly and quietly before this gets any worse. They're correct. A radial engine involves reciprocating pistons in cylinders, arranged effectively in a circle. See the illustration the other member posted, above. A rotary engine involves one or more turning rotors (a/k/a Wankel engine).
Rotary is an "overloaded" term.
In the aviation world, it means how it was described in the Wikipedia article. There is a distinction between radial and rotary engines in early aviation.
I recently toured the Aviation Museum at Wright Patterson AFB and radial engines didn't have cylinders that rotated, they were fixed. Rotary engines had cylinders that rotated with the prop.
I think the proper term for the engine we find in automobiles is the Wankel Rotary. That narrows the term down being specific.
So as I said at the beginning and others have alluded to, rotary is an overloaded term and you have to understand the context.
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: caveatipse
Let me be pedantic and technical just for a moment. Technically, the term "rotary engine" refers to those aircraft engines where the pistons actually rotate around the crankshaft, while a Wankel engine is what Mazda uses.
Wankel is the man who made the Rotary Engine. Mazda's engine has rotors that rotate around the crankshaft.
It is a Rotary engine.
I humbly disagree. Yes, Wankel invented the engine. However, in technical engine terminology, "rotary" refers to rotating pistons, not rotors, and is used on aircraft. "Wankel engine" refers to rotating rotors, not pistons.
Caveat...
Respectfully recommend you retreat quickly and quietly before this gets any worse. They're correct. A radial engine involves reciprocating pistons in cylinders, arranged effectively in a circle. See the illustration the other member posted, above. A rotary engine involves one or more turning rotors (a/k/a Wankel engine).
Rotary is an "overloaded" term.
In the aviation world, it means how it was described in the Wikipedia article. There is a distinction between radial and rotary engines in early aviation.
I recently toured the Aviation Museum at Wright Patterson AFB and radial engines didn't have cylinders that rotated, they were fixed. Rotary engines had cylinders that rotated with the prop.
I think the proper term for the engine we find in automobiles is the Wankel Rotary. That narrows the term down being specific.
So as I said at the beginning and others have alluded to, rotary is an overloaded term and you have to understand the context.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Great picture! (Story?)
Photoshop?
Great picture! (Story?)
Photoshop?
The Renesis engine has been and will always be a High RPM monster. Mazda recommends dino oil because the oil is supposed to burn off as this is part of the lubrication process of the system. IF there is no burnoff you will encounter issues with the seals etc.
The use of synthetics is prohibited as they have a higher resistance to burn off and can cause seal related failure as well due to improper lubrication.
I can't fathom why Mazda would release this vehicle in an AT form unless they modified the gearing(which with an AT would probably kill it). The car needs to have the snot beat out of it daily, as in race the car, always race it with an A/T. The M/T give it a few high RPM bursts a few times a day to properly lube the internals and make sure things are warmed up properly.
The use of synthetics is prohibited as they have a higher resistance to burn off and can cause seal related failure as well due to improper lubrication.
I can't fathom why Mazda would release this vehicle in an AT form unless they modified the gearing(which with an AT would probably kill it). The car needs to have the snot beat out of it daily, as in race the car, always race it with an A/T. The M/T give it a few high RPM bursts a few times a day to properly lube the internals and make sure things are warmed up properly.
- Status
