No, as much as I do not like RP oils their is no way I would blame them for an engine failure. I think most of the problem with this car is the lack of complete oil exchange when you change the oil. That can not be good no matter how you slice it. I like wankle engines a lot but hate how the RX8's oil coolers have polluted the lube system by makeing a complete oil change a real hassle.
Royal Purple 5W20 - 2133 miles - Mazda RX8
- Thread starter OMCWankel
- Start date
- Status
Wow this is starting to get me real scared. I picked up a new RX8 only last week and I'm beginning to worry about the realiability issues myself. Since then I've been using 'premix' ie 2 stroke oil into the gas to help give some extra lubrication. However a few memebrs have reported clogged fuel filters when doing so. So I'm thinking of getting some Lucas UCL, using a heavy dose and hope that'll help things along. As for the oil, I'm switching to synthetic soon as I feel due to the partial oil changing regime, the oil needs to be as good as it gets.
I have a very young friend who looked at a bunch of sports cars. When I say he "looked" I mean just that....looking, not researching or learning. He drives all short trips, very moderately and has no real car skills at all. Add to that a minimal income. I warned him about the RX8 being not so good of a 1st or 2nd car for somone under 20 years old. HE did not want to hear about it citing "wishfull thinking" type of counterpoints, mostly that he won't be putting a lot of miles on it. Also, he said that he read RX8 Forms and those guys love them. (ok,?) I even offered him my super-clean RSX for trade-in value.
He went ahead and spent a good deal of money on a very clean example. I really hope things work out for him. I just don't think he needs that type of a car, he's a dishwasher.
When I was younger, I listened carefully to older and more experienced guys. I was working on my Dad's Porsches when I was 14 years old, so yeah...I consider myself kind of experienced.
He went ahead and spent a good deal of money on a very clean example. I really hope things work out for him. I just don't think he needs that type of a car, he's a dishwasher.
When I was younger, I listened carefully to older and more experienced guys. I was working on my Dad's Porsches when I was 14 years old, so yeah...I consider myself kind of experienced.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: 02zx9r
badtlc forgot to bump this one
Funny: I noticed that too!
Nice to see some RP UOAs.
That is because the rotary's are not apples to apples. 99% on here wouldn't even understand the difference. Not to mention, less than 70% of the oil is changed at a time with the RXs. Rotary engines are never pretty compared to the standard.
Originally Posted By: 02zx9r
badtlc forgot to bump this one
Funny: I noticed that too!
Nice to see some RP UOAs.
That is because the rotary's are not apples to apples. 99% on here wouldn't even understand the difference. Not to mention, less than 70% of the oil is changed at a time with the RXs. Rotary engines are never pretty compared to the standard.
Regardless of the type of motor, there were 4 UOAs done (same motor I assume) and the last UOA was clearly the poorest. Without knowing all the specifics, you would nearly have to assume based on this data that RP did not perform well in this application if UOAs mean anything. It would have been more telling if he had stuck with RP longer, but I wouldn't have either.
Originally Posted By: Gilberttribe
Regardless of the type of motor, there were 4 UOAs done (same motor I assume) and the last UOA was clearly the poorest. Without knowing all the specifics, you would nearly have to assume based on this data that RP did not perform well in this application if UOAs mean anything. It would have been more telling if he had stuck with RP longer, but I wouldn't have either.
Without it being 100% RP, I don't see how you can make any conclusion other than what was in there wasn't working. That wasn't RP's fault or the other oil's.
Regardless of the type of motor, there were 4 UOAs done (same motor I assume) and the last UOA was clearly the poorest. Without knowing all the specifics, you would nearly have to assume based on this data that RP did not perform well in this application if UOAs mean anything. It would have been more telling if he had stuck with RP longer, but I wouldn't have either.
Without it being 100% RP, I don't see how you can make any conclusion other than what was in there wasn't working. That wasn't RP's fault or the other oil's.
The logic is fairly straight forward purely based on the results.
A x 0.3 + B x 0.7 = average result
B x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = above average result
C x 0.3 + D x 0.7 = average result
D x 0.3 + E x 0.7 = below average result
I think the obvious result you would deduce from the above is that E (RP) resulted in a poor showing. Even given that C appeared to do a good job, so C+D may have been aided by C's good performance, indicating that D is below average, E still doesn't look good. You could argue that the combination of D+E is the problem and not simply E, but that seems like grasping at straws.
I neglected to take into account all the previous mixtures since a tiny amount of A would still be present in the last analysis, but those amounts will be fairly insignificant. In other words, the second line should be
(A x 0.3 + B x 0.7) x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = A x 0.09 + B x 0.21 + C x 0.7 = above average result
A x 0.3 + B x 0.7 = average result
B x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = above average result
C x 0.3 + D x 0.7 = average result
D x 0.3 + E x 0.7 = below average result
I think the obvious result you would deduce from the above is that E (RP) resulted in a poor showing. Even given that C appeared to do a good job, so C+D may have been aided by C's good performance, indicating that D is below average, E still doesn't look good. You could argue that the combination of D+E is the problem and not simply E, but that seems like grasping at straws.
I neglected to take into account all the previous mixtures since a tiny amount of A would still be present in the last analysis, but those amounts will be fairly insignificant. In other words, the second line should be
(A x 0.3 + B x 0.7) x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = A x 0.09 + B x 0.21 + C x 0.7 = above average result
Originally Posted By: Gilberttribe
The logic is fairly straight forward purely based on the results.
A x 0.3 + B x 0.7 = average result
B x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = above average result
C x 0.3 + D x 0.7 = average result
D x 0.3 + E x 0.7 = below average result
I think the obvious result you would deduce from the above is that E (RP) resulted in a poor showing. Even given that C appeared to do a good job, so C+D may have been aided by C's good performance, indicating that D is below average, E still doesn't look good. You could argue that the combination of D+E is the problem and not simply E, but that seems like grasping at straws.
I neglected to take into account all the previous mixtures since a tiny amount of A would still be present in the last analysis, but those amounts will be fairly insignificant. In other words, the second line should be
(A x 0.3 + B x 0.7) x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = A x 0.09 + B x 0.21 + C x 0.7 = above average result
If all oils and their components played well together, why do tribologists even have a job? Unless you are one, I don't think you can make any conclusions how well different fluids react to each other. Every oil is different and should be treated as such. Trying to establish a transitive property just makes you look silly.
The logic is fairly straight forward purely based on the results.
A x 0.3 + B x 0.7 = average result
B x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = above average result
C x 0.3 + D x 0.7 = average result
D x 0.3 + E x 0.7 = below average result
I think the obvious result you would deduce from the above is that E (RP) resulted in a poor showing. Even given that C appeared to do a good job, so C+D may have been aided by C's good performance, indicating that D is below average, E still doesn't look good. You could argue that the combination of D+E is the problem and not simply E, but that seems like grasping at straws.
I neglected to take into account all the previous mixtures since a tiny amount of A would still be present in the last analysis, but those amounts will be fairly insignificant. In other words, the second line should be
(A x 0.3 + B x 0.7) x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = A x 0.09 + B x 0.21 + C x 0.7 = above average result
If all oils and their components played well together, why do tribologists even have a job? Unless you are one, I don't think you can make any conclusions how well different fluids react to each other. Every oil is different and should be treated as such. Trying to establish a transitive property just makes you look silly.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Gilberttribe
The logic is fairly straight forward purely based on the results.
A x 0.3 + B x 0.7 = average result
B x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = above average result
C x 0.3 + D x 0.7 = average result
D x 0.3 + E x 0.7 = below average result
I think the obvious result you would deduce from the above is that E (RP) resulted in a poor showing. Even given that C appeared to do a good job, so C+D may have been aided by C's good performance, indicating that D is below average, E still doesn't look good. You could argue that the combination of D+E is the problem and not simply E, but that seems like grasping at straws.
I neglected to take into account all the previous mixtures since a tiny amount of A would still be present in the last analysis, but those amounts will be fairly insignificant. In other words, the second line should be
(A x 0.3 + B x 0.7) x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = A x 0.09 + B x 0.21 + C x 0.7 = above average result
If all oils and their components played well together, why do tribologists even have a job? Unless you are one, I don't think you can make any conclusions how well different fluids react to each other. Every oil is different and should be treated as such. Trying to establish a transitive property just makes you look silly.
OK, if you prefer to grasp at some imagined hypothesis rather than the data and simple logic, then this discussion is a complete waste of time. We're not talking about mixing Clorox and motor oil here. We're talking about mixing a little of one oil that was fine with another oil with a majority of RP. You may as well take all of the other RP analysis and dump them in the trash as well because there will be points in every analysis that can be questioned.
Did you disgress from discussing the results to a personal attack. I'm not going there either, and I'm done wasting my time with you.
Originally Posted By: Gilberttribe
The logic is fairly straight forward purely based on the results.
A x 0.3 + B x 0.7 = average result
B x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = above average result
C x 0.3 + D x 0.7 = average result
D x 0.3 + E x 0.7 = below average result
I think the obvious result you would deduce from the above is that E (RP) resulted in a poor showing. Even given that C appeared to do a good job, so C+D may have been aided by C's good performance, indicating that D is below average, E still doesn't look good. You could argue that the combination of D+E is the problem and not simply E, but that seems like grasping at straws.
I neglected to take into account all the previous mixtures since a tiny amount of A would still be present in the last analysis, but those amounts will be fairly insignificant. In other words, the second line should be
(A x 0.3 + B x 0.7) x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = A x 0.09 + B x 0.21 + C x 0.7 = above average result
If all oils and their components played well together, why do tribologists even have a job? Unless you are one, I don't think you can make any conclusions how well different fluids react to each other. Every oil is different and should be treated as such. Trying to establish a transitive property just makes you look silly.
OK, if you prefer to grasp at some imagined hypothesis rather than the data and simple logic, then this discussion is a complete waste of time. We're not talking about mixing Clorox and motor oil here. We're talking about mixing a little of one oil that was fine with another oil with a majority of RP. You may as well take all of the other RP analysis and dump them in the trash as well because there will be points in every analysis that can be questioned.
Did you disgress from discussing the results to a personal attack. I'm not going there either, and I'm done wasting my time with you.
So in this example, oil analyis (in this case Dyson Analysis) was not able see the engine failure that eventually took place.
Metals did rise relative to previous UOA's, and that could be the significant part although metals are still low.
Metals did rise relative to previous UOA's, and that could be the significant part although metals are still low.
having owned 2 rotary sevens I would respectfully say time to ask ur pcp for some prozac and ambien to sleep at night.
first pls get rid of all the exotic garnishes except for the 2 cycle oil. add 4 to 6 oz of tcw3 rated every fill.
second mail me the exotic syn oil and I will mail u some castrol dino. use a good dino of the wt suggested by mfr.
third take it easy for first min or so when starting from cold.
I can point u to the roties going 200 k plus miles with only oil changes and a few fuel filter changes.
why mazda does not recomm syn cuz syns do not complete burn off when sprayed inside the engine by the oil metering pumps.
lookup chucks daily driver in the kansas city rx7 club....
first pls get rid of all the exotic garnishes except for the 2 cycle oil. add 4 to 6 oz of tcw3 rated every fill.
second mail me the exotic syn oil and I will mail u some castrol dino. use a good dino of the wt suggested by mfr.
third take it easy for first min or so when starting from cold.
I can point u to the roties going 200 k plus miles with only oil changes and a few fuel filter changes.
why mazda does not recomm syn cuz syns do not complete burn off when sprayed inside the engine by the oil metering pumps.
lookup chucks daily driver in the kansas city rx7 club....
UOA cannot predict a sudden failure from overstress, especially a stressed part with some internal inherent metallurgical flaw. UOA can predict a stressed wear part experiencing excess wear prior to failure. The oil condition was not improving with successive changes in this case.
I have no idea why this rotary engine failed but I liked the pretty purple unicorn.
I have no idea why this rotary engine failed but I liked the pretty purple unicorn.
- Status
Similar threads
