The RX-7's rotary engine injects oil into the combustion chamber as a
part of normal operation, for lubrication purposes. As a result of this,
synthetic oils should not be used. When they burn, they give off more ash
than conventional oils, clogging the cats, causing buildup, etc. Also,
additives such as Slick 50 are not advised. Any good quality oil that
meets the manufacturer's recommendations should do.
Check out the Mazdatrix FAQ
on the use of synthetic oil in rotary engines.
Personally, I prefer Valvoline, for the simple reason that I put about
60,000 hard miles on a '69 Firebird (mostly a quarter mile at a time), and
did not have a single problem with the car related to oil. In fact, when I
opened up the engine to do a valve job, it looked like the day I bolted it
together.
Valvoline has a good Web site -
SAE acronym definitions, ASE information, etc.
Pennzoil has a nice site with more
info on
choosing oils.
Check out the other resources on the 'net:
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 97 08:57:32 -0500 > I'm still confused about one point. The "Street" mix 1. It will NOT foul plugs. Use a high quality synthetic 2 cycle premix oil
(like for motorcycles) like Pettit Racing's, Amsoil, etc. This ensures
the seals always have lubrication. Put it in before you put in the gas
so it will be mixed. You will use more like 4oz per 12-15 gallons unless
you intend to run out of gas before filling. I double or triple this to 8-
12 oz per tank when at the track (drivers schools) and have never had any
trouble with the plugs, even thought I run 9's all arround (colder than the
stock setup).
2. The oil injection/meter pump takes a while to get going, leaving the apex
seals marginally lubes (or unlubed) on initial startup. This is
particularly bad if you do not defeat the fast rpm idle on startup (just
start the car in gear to defeat this, starting it in neutral will cause fast
idle). Look on Pettit racings web site www.pettitracing.com for more info.
_______________
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:45:50 -0500 The "street mix" the previous owner suggested is for use with the stock oil
injection system functioning. He was adding a little oil to be safe. The
"race mix" on the bottle refers to the mixture needed when all the oil for
the engine comes in the gas (standard on 2 stroke engines).
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 00:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Thanks to all who responded to my poll concerning what type of oil/filter
were being used in your RX7's. I have compiled the results as follows:
Thanks Again for your help. I hope this info can help others.
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 20:14:57 EST Cameron Worth, President and Racer-Tuner of Pettit Racing and Excellence
PerformanceCorp. suggested that I use Valvoline 20-50 Motor Oil in the engine,
and add 4 oz. of Protek Fuel Lubricant to each tank of gas (His own private
label - I don't know who makes it for him). He also suggested using Amsoil
Synthetic Gear Lube in the differential, and Redline MTL Synthetic in the
manual transmission. As for gas, the BEST HI-OCTANE (Preferably 93 Octane for
the street) you can find (For Turbo applications).
When he is racing his car, he does use synthetic oil in the engine, with an
even higher Protek Fuel Lubricant ratio. In his catalog, it states "We have
experienced NO oil related mechanical failures to date". His company has been
repairing, racing and tuning rotary engines for the past 20 years!
_________________
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:54:06 -0700 "Motor Oils" Copyright 1996 by Consumers union of U.S., Inc., Yonkers,
NY 10703-1057. Reprinted and electronically posted to this mailing list
ONLY by permission from CONSUMER REPORTS, July 1996. Further
distribution of this article, via print or electronic means, is strictly
prohibited.
A Mobil commercial claims its oil "has been in more Indy 500 winners
than any other oil." Quaker State shows an engine with a terminally
corroded inside ---- what they imply could happen when you use another
oil. Exxon's commercial for its Superflo oil urges motorists to "rely on
the tiger."
Oil companies spend millions of advertising dollars each year to
convince you that their oil can make your car's engine perform better
and last longer. And purveyors of motor oil and engine "treatments"
assert that their products offer engine protection that oil alone can't
provide. In our most ambitious test project ever, we set out to discover
whether such claims are fact or fancy.
One way to gauge the performance of motor oils is to test them on the
road. We did just that, using a fleet of 75 New York City taxicabs.
Indeed, the oil industry itself tests its oils in New York City taxis.
For 22 months, we tested the performance of 20 popular motor oils. Each
of those oils met the industry's latest standards, as certified by a
starburst symbol on the container. (See "It's not just oil," page 14.)
We also tested Slick 50 Engine Treatment and STP Engine and Oil
Treatments.
In addition to the taxicab tests, we had the oils' chemical and physical
properties analyzed by an independent lab. We also surveyed our
subscribers about their oil changing experiences and preferences, and we
sent shoppers to quick lube centers across the country to assess the
service (see page 17.) Finally, because changing the oil is just one
part of car care, we've reviewed some other ways you can help keep your
car running longer. That report begins on page 18.
We put identical rebuilt engines with precisely measured parts into the
cabs at the beginning of the test, and we changed their oil every 6000
miles. That's about twice as long as the automakers recommend for the
severe service that taxicabs see, but we chose that interval to
accelerate the test results and provide worst-case conditions. After
60,000 miles, we disassembled each engine and checked for wear and
harmful deposits.
Our test conditions were grueling, to say the least. The typical Big
Apple cab is driven day and night, in traffic that is legendary for its
perversity, by cabbies who are just as legendary for their driving
abandon.
When the cabs aren't on the go, they're typically standing at curbside
with the engine idling ---- far tougher on motor oil than highway
driving. What's more, the cabs accumulate lots of miles very quickly
making them ideal for our purposes. Big-city cabs don't see many cold
start-ups or long periods of highspeed driving in extreme heat. But our
test results relate to the most common type of severe service ----
stop-and-go city driving.
Each of the 20 oils we studied was tested in three cabs to provide
meaningful test results even if a few cabs fell out with mechanical
problems or because of accidents. (Six of the 75 engines did, in fact,
have problems, none apparently related to the oil's performance.) For a
detailed description of our test procedures, see "Testing in the Big
Apple," page 12.
Our shoppers all across the country bought hundreds of quart containers
of oil. Some brands had slightly different formulations in different
areas, but all the oils included a full package of additives.
The independent lab helped us identify the most representative
formulations of each brand. Our engineers transferred containers of that
oil to coded 55-gallon drums and hauled them to the fleet garage for
testing.
Ideally, oil should be thin enough to flow easily when the engine is
cold and remain thick enough to protect the engine when it's hot. The
lab analyses of each oil's viscosity characteristics ---- its ability to
flow ---- indicate that motor oils have improved since 1987, when we
last tested them. This time, far fewer test samples failed to meet the
viscosity standards for their grade ---- and those were typically
outside the limits by only a slight amount. No brand stood out as having
a significant problem.
We tested oils of the two most commonly recommended viscosity grades
- ---- 10W-30 and 5W-30. Automakers specify grades according to the
temperature range expected over the oil-change period. The lower the
number, the thinner the oil and the more easily it flows.
In 5W-30 oil, for example, the two numbers mean it's a "multiviscosity"
or "multigrade" oil that's effective over a range of temperatures. The
first number, 5, is an index that refers to how the oil flows at low
temperatures. The second number, 30, refers to how it flows at high
temperatures. The W designation means the oil can be used in winter.
A popular belief is that 5W-30 oils, despite their designation, are too
thin to protect vital engine parts when they get hot. However, one of
our laboratory tests measured the viscosity of oils under
high-temperature, high-stress conditions and found essentially no
difference between 5W-30 oils and their 10W-30 brand mates. But at low
temperatures, the 5W-30 oil flowed more easily.
Viscosity grade is important, so be careful. Recommendations vary with
the make, engine, and model year of the car, so check your owner's
manual and ask the mechanic for the proper grade of oil.
Of the 20 oils we tested, nine were conventional 10W-30 oils, and eight
were 5W-30. We also tested two synthetic oils, Mobil 1 and Pennzoil
Performax, and one synthetic-and-conventional blend, Valvoline
Dura-Blend; all three were 10W-30 oils.
If you've been loyal to one brand, you may be surprised to learn that
every oil we tested was good at doing what motor oil is supposed to do.
More extensive tests, under other driving conditions, might have
revealed minor differences. But thorough statistical analysis of our
data showed no brand ---- not even the expensive synthetics ---- to be
meaningfully better or worse in our tests.
After each engine ran about 60,000 miles (and through 10 months of
seasonal changes), we disassembled it and measured the wear on the
camshaft, valvefters, and connecting-rod bearings. We used a tool
precise to within 0.00001 inch to measure wear on the key surfaces of
the camshaft, and a tool precise to within 0.0001 inch on the valve
lifters. The combined wear for both parts averaged only 0.0026 inch,
about the thickness of this page. Generally, we noted as much variation
between engines using the same oil as between those using different
oils. Even the engines with the most wear didn't reach a level where we
could detect operational problems.
We measured wear on connectingrod bearings by weighing them to the
nearest 0.0001 gram. Wear on the key surface of each bearing averaged
0.240 gram ---- about the weight of seven staples. Again, all the tested
oils provided adequate protection.
Our engineers also used industry methods to evaluate sludge and varnish
deposits in the engine. Sludge is a mucky sediment that can prevent oil
from circulating freely and make the engine run hotter. Varnish is a
hard deposit that would remain on engine parts if you wiped off the
sludge. It can make moving parts stick.
All the oils proved excellent at preventing sludge. At least part of the
reason may be that sludge is more apt to form during cold startups and
short trips, and the cabs were rarely out of service long enough for
their engine to get cold. Even so, the accumulations in our engines were
so light that we wouldn't expect sludge to be a problem with any of
these oils under most conditions.
Variations in the buildup of varnish may have been due to differences in
operating temperature and not to the oils. Some varnish deposits were
heavy enough to lead to problems eventually, but no brand consistently
produced more varnish than any other.
The bottom line. In our tests, brand didn't matter much as long as the
oil carried the industry's starburst symbol (see "It's not just oil,"
page 14.) Beware of oils without the starburst; they may lack the full
complement of additives needed to keep modern engines running reliably.
One distinction: According to the laboratory tests, Mobil 1 and Pennzoil
Performax synthetics flow exceptionally easily at low temperatures ----
a condition our taxi tests didn't simulate effectively. They also had
the highest viscosity under high-temperature, high-stress conditions,
when a thick oil protects the engine. Thus, these oils may be a good
choice for hard driving in extreme temperatures.
Note, too, that a few automakers recommend specific brands of motor oil
in the owner's manual. You may need to follow those recommendations to
keep a new car in warranty.
The long-time mantra of auto mechanics has been to change your oil every
3000 miles. Most automakers recommend an oil change every 7500 miles
(and a specific time interval) for "normal" driving, and every 3000
miles for "severe" driving ---- frequent trips of less than four or five
miles, stop-and-go traffic, extended idling, towing a trailer, or dusty
or extremely cold conditions. Many motorists' driving falls into one or
more of those "severe" categories.
In our survey, almost two-thirds of our readers said they had their oil
changed every 3000 miles or less. They may be following the thinking
expressed by one of our staffers: "I have my oil changed every 3000
miles because that's what my father did, and all his cars lasted for
many years."
To determine whether frequent oil changes really help, we changed the
oil in three cabs every 3000 miles, using Pennzoil 10W-30. After 60,000
miles, we compared those engines with the engines from our base tests of
the same oil, changed every 6000 miles. We saw no meaningful
differences.
When Mobil 1 synthetic oil came out, Mobil presented it as an oil that,
while expensive, could go 25,000 miles between changes. That claim is no
longer being made. But Mobil 1 is still on the market, selling at a
premium (along with pricey synthetic competitors from several other
companies). And synthetic oil's residual reputation as a long-lasting
product may still prompt some people to stretch their oil changes longer
than the automaker recommends.
Determining whether synthetic oils last longer than conventional ones
would require a separate test project. To try to get some indication, we
put Mobil 1 synthetic into three cabs and changed their oil every 12,000
miles. We intended to compare the results of these tests with those from
the three taxicabs whose Mobil 1 was changed at our normal interval,
every 6000 miles. Unfortunately, two of the three engines using the
12,000-mile interval developed problems. (We couldn't attribute those
problems to the oil.) The third engine fared no worse than the three
whose oil had been changed at 6000-mile intervals.
The bottom line. Modern motor oils needn't be changed as often as oils
did years ago. More frequent oil changes won't hurt your car, but you
could be spending money unnecessarily and adding to the nation's energy
and oil-disposal problems.
Even in the severe driving conditions that a New York City taxi endures,
we noted no benefit from changing the oil every 3000 miles rather than
eve Determining whether synthetic oils last longer than conventional ones
would require a separate test project. To try to get some indication, we
put Mobil 1 synthetic into three cabs and changed their oil every 12,000
miles. We intended to compare the results of these tests with those from
the three taxicabs whose Mobil 1 was changed at our normal interval,
every 6000 miles. Unfortunately, two of the three engines using the
12,000-mile interval developed problems. (We couldn't attribute those
problems to the oil.) The third engine fared no worse than the three
whose oil had been changed at 6000-mile intervals.
The bottom line. Modern motor oils needn't be changed as often as oils
did years ago. More frequent oil changes won't hurt your car, but you
could be spending money unnecessarily and adding to the nation's energy
and oil-disposal problems.
Even in the severe driving conditions that a New York City taxi endures,
we noted no benefit from changing the oil every 3000 miles rather than
f your driving falls into the "normal" service category,
changing the oil every 7500 miles (or at the automaker's suggested
intervals) should certainly provide adequate protection. (We recommend
changing the oil filter with each oil change.)
We don't recommend leaving any oil, synthetic or regular, in an engine
for 12,000 miles, because accumulating contaminants ---- solids, acids,
fuel, and water ---- could eventually harm the engine. What's more,
stretching the oil-change interval may void the warranty on most new
cars.
We also tested Slick 50 and STP Engine Treatments and STP Oil Treatment,
each in three cabs. (Slick 50 costs $17.79 per container; STP Engine
Treatment has been discontinued.) All three boast that they reduce
engine friction and wear.
The engine treatments are added with the oil (we used Pennzoil 10W-30).
They claim they bond to engine parts and provide protection for 25,000
miles or more. We used each according to instructions.
The STP Oil Treatment is supposed to be added with each oil change. It
comes in one formulation (black bottle, $4.32) for cars with up to
36,000 miles, another (blue bottle, $3.17) for cars that have more than
36,000 miles or are more than four years old. We used the first version
for the first 36,000 miles, the second for the rest of the test ----
again, with Pennzoil 10W-30.
When we disassembled the engines and checked for wear and deposits, we
found no discernible benefits from any of these products.
The bottom line: We see little reason why anyone using one of
today's high-quality motor oils would need these engine/oil treatments.
One notable effect of STP Oil Treatment was an increase in oil
viscosity; it made our 10W-30 oil act more like a 15W-40, a grade not
often recommended. In very cold weather, that might pose a risk of
engine damage.
None of the tested oils proved better than the others in our tests.
There may be small differences that our tests didn't reveal, but unless
you typically drive under more severe conditions than a New York cab
does, you won't go wrong if you shop strictly by price or availability.
Buy the viscosity grade recommended in your owner's manual, and look for
the starburst emblem. Even the expensive synthetics (typically, $3 or $4
a quart) worked no better than conventional motor oils in our taxi
tests, but they're worth considering for extreme driving conditions ----
high ambient temperatures and high engine load or very cold
temperatures.
On the basis of our test results, we think that the commonly recommended
3000-mile oil-change interval is conservative. For "normal" service,
7500-mile intervals (or the recommendation in your owner's manual)
should be fine. Change the oil at least that often to protect your
engine and maintain your warranty. Even for the severe service
experiened by the taxis in our tests, a 6000-mile interval was
adequate. But some severe service ---- frequent cold starts and short
trips, dusty conditions, trailer towing ---- may require a shorter
interval. Note, too, that special engines such as diesels and turbos,
which we didn't test, may need more frequent oil changes.
We don't recommend stretching the change interval beyond the automaker's
recommendations, no matter what oil you use. Engine combustion
contaminants could eventually build up and harm engine parts.
As for STP Oil Treatment, STP Engine Treatment, and Slick 50 Engine
Treatment, our advice is simple: If you use an oil with the starburst
symbol, you don't need them.
(End - Ed.)
(reference to 'description of test procedures on page 12' shown below -
Ed.)
New York City taxicabs played a key role in our massive test project to
evaluate motor oils. For consistency, we used only 1992-93 Chevrolet
Caprice cabs. Each received a precisely rebuilt 4.3-liter V6 at the
beginning of its 60,000-mile test. We started with six rebuilt engines;
after each engine was installed in a cab, the six engines that were
removed were rebuilt and installed in six other cabs ---- and so on.
Using that rotation, we monitored 75 cabs over 4.5 million miles of
driving in New York City and its environs. Each oil was tested in three
engines.
A local shop completely machined each engine block and crankshaft,
rebuilt the cylinder heads, and installed new bearings, pistons, rings,
seals, gaskets, and oil pump. Though the engines originally had roller
lifters and camshafts, a design that reduces friction, we installed
conventional sliding lifters and camshafts to accelerate wear.
Before the engines were assembled, we measured or weighed the parts most
likely to show wear if the oil wasn't doing its job ---- the camshafts,
valve lifters, and connecting-rod bearings. Each cab went through a
break-in procedure before hitting the road. During testing, two engine
timers measured the time the engine was running and the time it was in
gear.
Over the next 22 months, our engineers paid more than 100 calls ----
usually without notice ---- on the fleet garage. They dropped off test
oil and picked up used-oil samples for ongoing analysis. They also made
sure that oil was being added to the engines when necessary and changed
as scheduled.
After each 60,000-mile test, we remeasured the key engine parts. We also
examined combustion-chamber deposits, the color of the valves, scoring
of cylinder walls, and valvedeck deposits for any sign of engine
problems.
(reference to 'description of standards and symbols on page 14' shown
below - Ed.)
Certainly, motor oil is slippery. That's what helps protect an engine's
moving parts. But motor oil does much more than lubricate. It helps cool
the engine, keep it clean, prevent corrosion, and reduce friction to
improve fuel economy To do all that refiners blend in various additives,
which account for 10 to 25 percent of the product you buy.
The oil industry has devised a starburst symbol to certify that a
particular motor oil meets the latest industry requirements for
protection against deposits, wear, oxidation, and corrosion. The
starburst on the label means the oil meets API (American Petroleum
Institute) Service SH requirements-the latest most advanced formulation.
(Service SH supplants SG the previous top category.) The CD designation
on most of the oils we tested refers to diesel performance. The
starburst also indicates that the oil passes ILSAC/GF-1 standards
developed by the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval
Committee, a U.S.-Japanese group. And it means the oil meets Energy
Conserving II requirements---- it improves fuel economy by reducing
engine friction. All the oils we tested carry the starburst-and all
performed well in our test. But note that oils without that symbol may
not perform as well.
(Below -Ed.) are some of the additives found in modern oils.
Viscosity-index improvers modify the oil so its viscosity is more
consistent over a wide temperature range.
Antioxidants prevent the oil from thickening when it runs hot for
extended periods.
Dispersants keep contaminants suspended so they don't form deposits in
engine.
Detergents help prevent varnish and sludge on engine parts and
neutralize acid formed in engine.
Rust and corrosion inhibitors protect metal parts from acids and water
formed in engine.
Pour-point depressants help the oil flow in a cold engine, especially in
cold weather.
Friction modifiers strengthen the oil film and prevent unlubricated
contact between moving parts.
Foam inhibitors collapse the bubbles churned up by engine crankshaft.
(Foam reduces lubricating effectiveness.)
Antiwear agents provide lubrication when oil is squeezed out from
between moving engine parts.
Discount stores are generally the least expensive place to buy oil. Look
for sales and buy by price ---- but make sure the container has the
starburst symbol.
Details (listed alphabetically)
All the tested oils performed well in our tests, and all claim to meet
the latest (API-SH and ILSAC/GF-1) industry standards (see "It's not
just oil," (above - Ed.)). Prices are the average for one quart, based
on a national survey of discount stores.
Castrol GTX $1.21 Exxon Superflo Fire & Ice All-Season (Shell) * $0.93 Havoline Formula 3 (Texaco) $1.11 Mobil * $0.95
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container with window.
Pennzoil $1.16 Quaker State Deluxe * $1.20 Valvoline All-Climate $1.14 Castol GTX $1.18 Exxon Superflo $1.13 Fire & Ice All-Season (Shell) * $0.99 Havoline Formula 3 (Texaco) * $1.13 Kendall Superb 100 * $1.23 Mobil 1 synthetic $3.76 Mobil $0.95 Pennzoil $1.16 Pennzoil Performax synthetic $2.97 Quaker State Super Blend * $1.20 Valvoline All-Climate $1.13 Valvoline Semi-Synthetic DuraBlend conventionl/synthetic blend * $2.12 * - One or more samples differed from viscosity-grade requirement by a
small amount.
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 19:13:16 -0700 The following report was published in the October 1997 issue of Consumer
Reports magazine. It is a quick follow up to the full report on engine
oils and additives they gave in July 1996.
-----------
Slick 50 stops making slippery claims
Anyone using one of today's high-quality motor oils shouldn't need an
additional engine or oil treatment. We reached that conclusion in our
July 1996 report on motor oils after we tested Slick 50 Engine Formula
and STP Oil Treatment in New York City taxis. The same month that we
published our report, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint
charging that Slick 50 ads claiming improved engine performance and
reduced engine wear were deceptive. The FTC alleged that Slick 50 test
data don't prove that the product reduces engine wear at start-up, that
it reduces engine wear by 50 percent, or that one treatment reduces
engine wear for 50,000 miles. In fact, most car engines are adequately
protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended
in the car owner's manual.
This summer, the companies that manufacture and market Slick 50 settled
with the FTC, agreeing to stop saying that engines lack protection from
wear at start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50, that
engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they
are treated with Slick 50, and that Slick 50 coats engine parts with a
layer of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The agreement bars claims about
the performance, benefits, or attributes of engine lubricants without
"competent and reliable evidence."
This is not the first time a motor-oil-additive maker has come under FTC
scrutiny. A 1976 FTC order prohibited STP Corp. from making
unsubstantiated claims about its motor-oil additives. STP violated the
order twice, in 1978 and 1995, and had to pay civil penalties that were
among the largest sums the FTC has ever obtained for a
consumer-protection-order violation.
________________
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 13:19:13 -0400 Quoted from http://home.earthlink.net/~jamesdavis/TIP043.html :In a statement issued about ten
years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said,
"Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal
combustion engines."
They went on and REFUSED to sell PTFE to anyone that intended to do so!
Naturally, they were sued by, guess who, on grounds of 'restraint of trade'. DuPont lost and
have changed their position as follows: DuPont now states
that though they sell PTFE to oil additive producers, they have "no proof of the validity of
the additive makers' claims." They further state that they
have "no knowledge of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in engine oil."
NASA Lewis Research also ran tests on PTFE additives and they concluded that:
"In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In
some cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids in
the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from
entering. Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of
lubricant."
Chief Chemist of Redline Synthetic Oil Company, Roy Howell, says:
"... to plate Teflon on a metal needs an absolutely clean, high temperature surface, in a
vacuum. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Teflon
in Slick 50 actually plates the metal surface. In addition the Cf (Coefficient of friction) of
Teflon is actually greater than the Cf of an Oil Film on
Steel. Also, if the Teflon did fill in 'craters' in the steel, than it would fill in the honing
of the cylinder, and the oil would not seal the piston
rings."
__________________
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 13:26:47 -0400 See this.
For a complete rundown on filters, see the
Filter Study.
--Steve
_________________
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:55:44 EDT Standard Fram, Purolator, and other mass marketed filters generally
do not have the "anti-drainback" valve that the Mazda OE filter has.
However, Purolator has recently introduced a line of filters called "Pure One" which
does have the anti-drainback feature. Pep Boys has them for around $6 ea.
That's just about what I was paying for the Mazda filter. Also, the Pure One
line supposedly has more filter media in it than most other filters.
________________
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:25:35 +0000 Cork Sport got me a CUSCO catch tank kit for the FD3S, I haven't
recieved it yet, but I will let you know how it works.
________________
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:10:44 -0400 I have a catch can setup (that was recommended by Cam). It has two lines
one that comes from the side port on the oil filler tube and another from
the oil return line for the lst turbo. The port to the PCV valve (the valve
is trashed) is plugged as is the original return line to the intake before
the turbo. You must make sure the catch can is vented as this is now your
engine ventilation system. Once the oil is in the catch
can it will not drain back although I suppose you could have a return line.
The idea with the current setup is that oil that goes up into the lines
(before the catch can) will drain back into the sump.
Even with this setup I run 1/2 quart low otherwise I will get the oil back
in the catch can. At most tracks I will see very
little oil in the catch can. It's important that the can is as high as
possible and not to have the lines level or pointing down to the can to
prevent a siphoning effect.
_________________
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:39:51 -0400 I simply added an oil separator to the vapor return line from the filler
neck. It is compact, and must be emptied after each 20 min track session.
Bought a purolator F54498 fuel filter, cut it above the lower nipple, gutted
the filter out, and jointed back together with both nipples in the same
direction. For the joint, used a metal ring (a piece of 1-3/4 exhaust pipe
adaptor?) that pressed in on the inside, and a band segment of mountain bike
tube on the outside, with hose clamp around the rubber. Could use the same
technique to expand the capacity. Used clear hose pieces, and mounted it
hanging off the left strut brace anchor. Easy to pull and empty.
Only shows oil when at the track, near the limit at high rpm. Took some
kadiddeling, but works for me. I have most stock stuff still uner hood, and
little room for a normal catch tank. I put mine together when they were
clear, but now it seems they are a white plastic.
_________________
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:44:22 -0400 You could also splice a non-vented catch can into the vent line that runs
from the oil filler pipe to the primary turbo inlet. Attach the bottom of
the can to the filler pipe side of the vacuum line and the top of the can to
the turbo inlet side. Then remove the PCV valve and plug it's vacuum line
nipples.
With this setup you would still have positive ventilation of the crankcase
and you wouldn't be venting oily crankcase gasses in the engine compartment.
You would have to disconnect the lower vacuum hose to drain the can. A
better setup would be a three outlet can, out on top, in in the middle, and
the drain on the bottom. Most catch cans use NPT threaded hose connections
so it's easy to install vacuum hose nipples that fit the PCV line.
_______________
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:10:03 -0400 It seems to me the correct setup that would eliminate having to drain the catch
can would be running a line from the oil filler tube to a vented catch can
where a second hose runs from the catch can drain to join the oil return line
that runs from the 1st turbo into the oil pan. What do you think?
________________
From: Sandro LaRosa" (Sandro.LaRosa@tcgny.com) Please see my correspondence with the SCCA (below) regarding the PCV routing in stock
class. As I am planning to install a sealed catch can (not a breather) in between the
oil filler neck and the return to the intake, I asked if I could eliminate the return
line to the intake manifold (and the PVC check valve) and make my '93 design current
with the '95 on - see Rob Robinettte's site for details. Howard reply is basically
that this can only be done if there is a Service Bulletin issued by Mazda which would
allow a dealer to address this issue retroactively for '93 model cars. The issue
being that if the PVC check valve fails while the turbos are on, air is lost from
the intake manifold and recirculated through the intercooler. Are you aware of
the existence of such a Service Bulletin or do you know how to check this with
Mazda?
(here is Sandro's original message, as well as the SCCA's response)
From: Howard Duncan [xxxxxxxx@scca.org] Sandro,
The only way around Section 13.10.g that I can see is if Mazda issued a Service
Bulletin which would allow a dealer to address this issue retroactively for 93 model
cars. Otherwise what you are suggesting would seem to violate the requirement of the
PCV staying in place. By way of background, this rule was put into place well over
ten years before your RX7 was built, and therefore the rule was originally addressing
issues of cars from the sixties and seventies.
I have copied Guy Ankeny of the SEB on this reply to see if he has any other thoughts
about this. Guy has a lot of experience with Mazda turbos.
From: Guy Ankeny [xxxxxxx@firstautogroup.com] I talked with Craig Nagler (ed.'s note: Guy used to work for Craig at Tri-Point Engr.)
re: the PCV system. He isn't aware of any update in PCV
system, for any 3rd gen RX7's. Craig stated this "problem" generally is caused by
running the oil too high, and also when the apex and side seals on the engine rotors,
become warn. Just like piston rings being warn-blowby increases. On the RX7, in stock
class, this pressure is routed to the front of the turbo. This pressure (oil vapor) is
then blown all through the intercooler, vacuum hoses--making a big mess. Thanks-Guy
From: Sandro LaRosa" (Sandro.LaRosa@tcgny.com) Guy, Thank you for forwarding your message to Howard. However, as I already
indicated to Howard, there seems to be a misunderstanding in interpreting my original
questions. There are two issues.
1. The first, which does not appear to be mentioned in your conversation with Craig,
is that under prolonged hard right-hand cornering liquid oil can reach the oil filler
neck and eventually get sucked into the turbo compressor inlet. Big white smoke and
big mess... I have experienced this personally and I know many other people who have
experienced this problem as well. In order to minimize/solve this, I intend to install
a sealed catch can (not a breather) and, possibly, an inline oil trap/filter. The catch
can/oil trap to be installed between the oil filler neck and the return to the turbo
inlet and (if so dictated by the rules - see next issue below) to the intake manifold
as well. This would in no way impair the operation of the PVC system. As I read
Section 13.10 G, it appears that installation of an oil catch can (and trap/filter?)
is legal in Stock Class, provided that the PVC is maintained operable. Still, I would
appreciate it receiving a confirmation from either you or Howard that this is indeed
the case.
2. Historically, in normally aspirated cars, the PVC system is routed to the engine
intake manifold. When Mazda initially designed the 3rd gen Rx7, they did so but also
realized they needed to interrupt this path when the turbos were on, as the intake would
become pressurized and - through this path - the crankcase as well. They inserted a
check valve, which would close on delta pressure between the intake manifold and the oil
filler neck and added a new path to vent the oil vapor to the turbo compressor inlet.
Therefore, in the '93 cars there are two lines running out of the oil filler neck: one
to the intake manifold - with an inline check valve - and one to the turbos inlet. At
low rpm the manifold is under vacuum (like in normally aspirated engines), the check
valve is open and the oil vapors are sucked into the manifold. When the turbos kick
in, the manifold is pressurized, the check valve closes, and the oil vapor is pushed
into the turbo inlet and mixes with the air compressed by the turbos. With the
'95 model, Mazda simplified the design and eliminated the path from the oil filler
neck to the intake manifold. The oil vapor gets pushed now to the turbo intake all
the time. Why did they make this change? Because, if the check valve may fails to
close when the turbos are on and the manifold is pressurized, air would be recirculated
from the intake manifold back to the crankcase and the turbo inlet. Therefore, my
second question. Could I make my 93 car current with the 95 design and eliminate the
path to the intake manifold. Again, there is no attempt to defeat the PVC operation
here but just the desire to eliminate a potential cause of PVC system failure.
Please refer to this link for a more comprehensive explanation of the proposed
modification, including a diagram. http://www.rx7turboturbo.com/robrobinette/pcv.htm
Once again, thank you and Howard for your continuous attention. I am looking forward
for your definitive answers to my questions 1. and 2. above.
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:42:15 -0600 > The total oil capacity for a dry engine is 5.7 qts for an R1 and The retained oil is due mostly to the oil coolers. Each oil cooler
holds about 0.5 Qts of oil, which doesn't drain out when the car is
turned off. Also, the oil lines to the oil coolers and between the
oil coolers themselves also retain oil. The R1/R2 models have two
coolers versus 1 cooler for all other models, hence they retain more
oil.
The only way to drain this oil is to remove the plastic covers under
each oil cooler, and disconnect the oil lines where they connect to
the oil cooler. I don't recommend this however - the C-Clips that
connect the oil lines are not meant to be re-used. And they are
relatively expensive to replace each time (sigh). All-in-all, it's a
pain in the butt!
Because of the volume of oil left in the engine/oil coolers, I have
decided to now change my oil every 1000 miles (filter every 3000
miles). Also, the fuel dilution thing scares me a bit - assuming that
the dilution is cumulative, changing every 1000 miles should keep the
dilution low. Perhaps this fuel dilution *might be* causing apex
seals to wear faster. Hence all the low compression problems and
blown motors... (no flames please - I admit that this is pure
speculation on my part with no scientific evidence to back it up).
It's really quite easy to just drain the 4 qts. of oil (that you can
get out of it) and refill it every 1000 miles - it only takes a few
minutes and only costs $4-$5 if you do it yourself. And you don't
need to replace the oil filter every time, so you save time there.
Sounds like cheap insurance to me!
__________________
I would imagine that you could disconnect the lines going into the oil
coolers and add a drain fitting of some sort in-line. This would provide
an easy means of draining the coolers every oil change. I have not gotten
under the car and looked at it yet, however. --Steve
_________________
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 15:29:17 -0600 There are pre-oilers that are essentially a pump in-line with the oil
system. Some of these advertise "one minute oil changes". I imagine they
would do a pretty good job at pumping out hard-to-reach oil.
___________________
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 09:14:04 -0600 From the Summit Racing Catalog:
"Double the life of your engine"
80% of your engine's wear and tear occurs at startup. With the Pre-Luber
from Sales Professional, Inc. you can eliminate that wear - and double the
life of your engine. The Pre-Luber sends a fresh flow of oil into the
engine before startup, giving moving parts a protective coat of oil. At
shutdown, the Pre-Luber turns on again, circulating oil up to five minutes
to prevent oil coking and reducing heat. The Pre-Luber also has a
quick-disconnect that attaches to the pump outlet, allowing you to pump out
the oil for one minute oil changes.
The Pre-Luber is ideal for engines up to 549 c.i.d. It includes the pump,
electronic control module, hose, fittings, and instructions.
LRI-2000 ..... $419.99 each
If you look past the sales claims, this device just might actually be worth
something (but $419?). It looks like a big windshield washer pump, with a
couple of oil hoses, a bunch of fittings, and the "electronic control module".
If you're interested in more info, call Summit at 800-230-3030.
__________________
Dave has some info on a device that will suck the oil out through the
dipstick tube, but this might not pull oil from the coolers. I am not
sure about this since the take off points for the lines to the coolers
may be higher than the point at which the device sucks from. But here
it is. --Steve
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:03:00 +0000 Regarding a device for sucking oil out through the dip stick hole:
I do it two to three times a year....on the sail boat.
Since you can't lift the engine to drain the oil from the bottom of
many sailboat auxiliary engines, dip stick sucking is the only
choice.
Here is the procedure:
When you are done, call Victoria British, Ltd., and order one of
their nifty little lever spigots to replace the drain plug on your
oil tank. Next time, just jack the damn car up, loosen the oil
filler cap and flip the lever.
The RX-7's rotary engine injects oil into the combustion chamber as a
part of normal operation, for lubrication purposes. So some consumption
is normal. Some people have noticed a gasoline smell in the oil when
they changed it. No official explanation, but Kevin speculated that it
was caused as a result of the higher temps in the rotary. Carl conducted
a poll on it, results below. --Steve
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 97 12:34:00 EST There were a total of 15 responses which answered at least the question
about how strong the gas smell was and what oil consumption was. I feel
these may be the two most important questions.
Granted, the smell business is very subjective. But I find the following
meaningful correlations in the data:
1. Everyone with "no oil usage" or "level increases" reported either a
"noticeable" or "strong" gasoline smell in the oil. (8 responses)
2. Everyone with "strong" gasoline smell reported "no oil usage" or
"level increases". (3 responses)
3. Everyone with "slight" gasoline smell reported measurable oil
consumption ranging from 1500 to 9000 miles per quart.(3 responses).
There was exactly one exception report of "noticeable" gasoline smell
with relatively high oil consumption (1000 miles/quart).
There were only two reports of strange noises at startup which weren't
easily explained (and one of pffft at shutdown).
There were only 8 responses to the "long" survey, which wasn't enough
data to come up with a correlation between gasoline smell/oil consumption
with driving style, oil weight, or trip length.
Question of the day:
What is it about some of these 3rd gens that they don't use oil? Is it
really gasoline dilution, or something else?
Here's the survey questions again in case you missed them.
1. Classify the smell of gasoline on your dipstick - none/slight,
noticeable, or strong. _________________
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 11:39:00 EST Update:
Since posting my survey results I've gotten about 10 more responses.
Some of those run counter to the previous trend (it figures - post a
hypothesis and people will to disprove it). I'll re-summarize when I
reach about 30 total responses, or next weekend, whichever is later.
Also in the same counter-to-previous-trend feeling, this morning I
finally did a _comparison_ sniff test. I have a 92 Mazda B2600 pickup
and it, too, NEVER uses any oil. I figured it's just a very tight
engine. Anyway both were run yesterday and both were stone cold this
morning I did the sniff test and they smelled EXACTLY THE SAME. I would
have only characterized the smell as "slight" this morning. I'll do a
warm-engine sniff comparison next. Stay tuned.
And if all this wasn't bad enough, I hesitate to point out that if winter
fuel formulations have hit the gas pump (I suspect they have), cold
weather fuel is more volatile (vaporous) than warm weather fuel.
What a pain. I need to ask my Mazda mechanic (a good one) what he thinks
about the situation.
The oil pressure sensor fails often on the 3rd gens, leading to a low
pressure reading. A lot of people have had them fail at 20K miles. Mine
started reading low immediately after an oil change (fine on the drive in,
low after pulling out of the garage - checked it and it was full). I am
going to take it to the dealer and have them replace the sender.
Many people are on their second or third sender.
--Steve
________________
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 11:24:56 EDT I have a hypothesis. Although very difficult to trace in the Shop Manual
because of its small size, the oil-flow diagram seems to show that the oil
overpressurization relief valve is at the end of a dead-leg. That is, the
oil overpressure relief valve is not in a "loop" as in a 2nd Gen engine;
rather it sits at the bottom of a "T" and drains into the oil pan.
My theory is that oil in this dead-leg gets gunked and crudded up with time
due to heat, and turns to sludge. With enough time, the oil-relief dead-leg
line would presumably become completely plugged and, therefore,
nonfunctional. If this is true, the overpressurization you are experiencing
would be due to a plugged oil relief line.
I use as evidence for my theory the fact that 3rd Gen oil-pressure-sender
switches fail almost universally, and this oil-pressure sender is also on
this same dead-leg as the overpressurization relief valve. I think the oil
in the "T" which contains the relief valve and the pressure sender switch
turns to sludge. Recall that there are 3rd Gen owners who have replaced
their oil-pressure senders several time, suggesting that something may be at
work besides a faulty sender.
Please trace the oil flow path in the Shop Manual and let me know what you
think. If if is indeed is at the end of a dead-end "T", I would consider it
a design flaw. This would beg the question: How would one blow out the
accumulated sludge in the line?
_________________
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 13:21:27 -0400 I would agree that the design of the third gen has a much longer path to the
pressure regulator than the 2nd. I suppose the other issue is that the 2nd
gen valve relief pressure is 71 psi vs 110 for the third so it might not be
exercised as often. Although the control valve in the front is the same
at 156 psi.
When I had the pan off everything was very clean and visually the regulator
relief valve looked good also, but I did not remove it to test it. I've
replaced the sender a while back and that passage looked clean as did the
tip of the sender. While I agree your theory makes sense I don't ever
recall hearing about one of these valves failing. Maybe the people that
have overhauled engine might have some direct experience with the sludge
built up in the passage and valve.
My guess is that if the passage is plugged it would be necessary to drop the
pan remove the valve and clean out the passage from the oil filter housing.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 98 09:32:37 -0500 One 4oz bottle per fill up (10-16 gallons). Pour oil in tank & then
fill, this mixes it. It will not separate unless you let it sit for months.
Guarantees seal lubrication at all times since a little oil is always in
the gas.
______________
The rotary engine injects oil into the combustion chamber as a normal
part operation. Adding it to your gas tank is extra insurance, as Sandy
said.
Pettit Racing recommends Protek-R, at the mixture Sandy mentions. Below
is an excerpt on Protek-R:
Protek-R is specially designed for use in Rotary Engines. Protek-R is an advanced high
performance synthetic lubricity system which contains precision engineered lubricating
molecules that help protect Rotary Engines from the damaging effects of molecular shearing
and metal to metal contact. Regular use of Protek-R's superior formula has the following
advantages:
DIRECTIONS:
Add Protek-R to tank before adding fuel using the following formula:
STREET: Minimum of one 4-oz bottle per full 12 gallon tank
RACE: Mix at Ratio 100:1
______________
Doing the math for Pettit, the race mixture is:
There are 128 oz per gallon, so at 100:1, the ratio would be
1.28 oz per gallon of gas. In other words, use one 4 oz bottle per
every 3.125 gallons of gas. --Steve
Several people have noticed a gasoline smell in their oil. My guess/theory is
that a fuel injector may be leaking when the car is off. (See the page
on getting injector cleaning for info
on how to get the injectors cleaned and checked out.)
Carl took a survey on the gas smell, and posted the results:
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 97 16:38:00 EST Here are the survey results with new responses since the last posting.
There were a total of 39 responses to various parts of the survey. Here
we go:
There was still no noticeable pattern as regards miles since last change,
oil weight/type, style or length of driving, mileage on the engine, and
so forth.
So there is (still) a decent correlation between gasoline smell and lack
of oil consumption. But what makes those engines which use oil as
expected, different from those that use very little or no oil? Still a
mystery.
Also interesting is the fact that 2 of 3 persons reporting negative
consumption have had major engine failures (Martin Crane, Dave Roberts).
So if you see your oil level going UP, look out!
An Excel spreadsheet with survey results is available to anyone who
wishes to look for more patterns. I won't be summarizing any further if
more results come in after this but I'll keep the messages and report
back if any further trends emerge over time.
_______________
See below for getting your oil analyzed. --Steve
_______________
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:57:43 -0700 It might be possible for fuel-air to leak past the side seals of the
rotors. That would put that blow by into the oil side of the case.
When I rebuilt and ported one, the side seals reminded me of oil control rings
in a piston engine. They are even about the same thickness. But piston
engines have two of them, separated by a spacer.
________________
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:39:40 -0700 There is reasonably clear evidence that some of
these cars have a lot of blow-by. The evidence of which I speak is that
the oil often smells strongly of gas when changed. And some people even
have their oil level INCREASE despite the fact that oil is injected
which should cause the level to decrease, which makes me think that a
lot of blow-by is going into the oil.
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but there does seem to be a
large opportunity for blow-by relative to a piston engine. On a piston
engine, gas can blow by the piston rings, which is not a lot of space
relative to the combustion chamber size. On a rotary, anything that
blows by the side seals would seem to enter the oil. The side seals are
long and present a lot of space to blow by relative to the chamber size.
Further, the turbo rotary engines we are considering run pretty rich
relative to the average piston engine. Also, I think that turbos
exacerbate blow-by on any engine. Some combination of these factors
(and/or other factors) would seem to explain the experiences that lead
me to conclude that the third gen has (or can have) a lot of blow-by.
I have nothing against running synthetic in a rotary. I have run
synthetic oil on occasion in both of the rotary cars I have owned. I did
this to see if it would last longer and/or to get the increased
performance and protection. My oil turned black quickly, as usual. I run
synthetic oil exclusively in my piston engines, transmissions, and
differentials. I firmly believe that synthetic offers advantages over
conventional oil, but not necessarily in this application when cost is
considered.
My engine shows no major wear, deposit, or oiling problems (currently
being rebuilt at 92K miles for a non-oil related failure). I regularly
run 10W-30 mineral oil (since 72K), and the previous owner ran 10W-30
semi-synthetic (a blend of mineral and synthetic oils). The first 52K
miles of my car have an unknown oiling history. For my money, I think
that I get better protection out of using mineral oil and changing it
every 1000-3000 miles depending on how I use the car. It is always thin,
black, and has a gas odor when I change it. I doubt it would be
significantly better with synthetic. Thus, extending intervals is
probably not a good strategy on this particular engine.
By 'better' in the paragraph above, I mean relative to spending the same
amount on synthetic oil, which is admittedly a comparison that is not
necessarily a good one. My turbo bearings were certainly worn a lot, but
the most significant problem with the turbos was that the housings were
cracked. This thread has me thinking more about what kind of oil I
should run in my new engine, but I am not yet convinced that synthetic
is worth the extra cost in this application. My fear is that I would do
less frequent changes with the significantly more expensive synthetic
oil. And I think frequent changes are of paramount importance for proper
oiling on these cars.
From Felix Miata's FAQ:
What's that foamy stuff under the oil fill cap & inside the filler tube?
If you look closely, you probably also see water droplets mixed in or nearby the foam. If you
find either, there is probably nothing you can do to permanently get rid of them. Luckily, you don't
need to. A change in your driving pattern to include more driving under high load and fully warmed,
and less driving of short trips or while the engine is cold, might do the job. Enough of such a change
will do the job if your car is totally stock.
What you see is an emulsion, oil mixed with water. Your oil includes emulsifiers as part of the
additive package. They cause water to actually mix into and "disappear" within the oil. To a point,
they do exactly that, preventing small amounts of water from congregating in any one place that might
result in oil starvation in a critical location. As long as the amount of water doesn't exceed the ability
of the emulsifiers to disperse them, no harm is done.
All engines are subject to condensation from the normal heatup and cooldown processes, the
same way dew forms on the grass in the morning. The oil filler tube area is subject to very little oil
flow, and very little ventilation flow, while at the same time it is one area highly subject to the forming
of condensation. The emulsifier in the little bit of oil in the area forms the foam as its limit to absorb
the oil is reached. When the engine gets hot enough, long enough, the water will boil off. Whether
this will routinely happen with yours simply depends on your driving patterns.
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:10:19 PST With all the questions about oil lately, I though the some on the net
would be interested in oil analysis. Most major metropolitan areas have
laboratories that will analyze engine oil for a nominal fee. The report
usually includes:
Plus about 20 elements such as silicon (dirt), chromium, aluminum, iron,
etc. The report I get explains the significance of each of these
measurements. The company I use charges $26.35 per sample. You need to
send them 2 oz of oil and fill out their Form 50. The best way to
collect a representative sample is to wait until you change the oil,
remove the drain plug, let the oil drain for a minute, and then collect
the sample in a small plastic screw top bottle. Below is the company I
use. I have no affiliation with this company I've just used them to
analyze my oil.
_______________
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 07:49:05 -0500 I just got my 1st Oil Analysis back (a service provided by Amsoil) and it
may be of "extreme" interest to the list that it shows 3% fuel dilution.
Oil was changed at 3000 miles, whick included two driver schools (total of
about 5 track hours since one school was partially rained out). I usually
change oil before every event but didn't this time in order to have a worst
case test.
Oil used Amsoil Series 2000 20w50 Racing.
If this is representive of other rotaries, extending oil change intervals
beyond 3000 miles would be a big mistake.
________________
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:31:38 -0400 It is an issue for the 3rd gen turbos. A year or two back, many had the oil
tested and most showed higher than normal levels (several % concentrations)
at as low as 1000 miles. FD's have more fuel in the compression stroke,
brought to higher peak and average pressures, before combustion, vs most
NA's. Also known to be set very rich in fuel maps.
Redline
MTL or MT-90 in the
transmission is said to make it easier to shift (some people have
complained about the transmission being difficult to get into certain
gears, or it just not being smooth ("notchy")). Redline can be reached
at 1-800-624-7958. Racer supply shops such as Racer Wholesale or Pegasus
are good places to buy it.
________________
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:02:26 -0500 MTL is also an option. It seems to allow smoother shitfing. I've used it
on both my 2nd and 3rd gens. Pettit also uses MTL in their 3rd gens.
_________________
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 10:24:52 -0400 The MTL should be OK for stock power levels, and limited use of it, and may
be benificial in very cold weather. But...
MTL is 75W-80 GL4 oil, that is actually close to the 70W-85 spec'ns. Mazda
calls for 75W-90 oil, and 80W-90 in warm weather. Mazda allows both GL4 and
GL5 grades. Most use MT-90, Redline's 75W-90 GL4.
High power cars should use NEO 75W-90 HD, a GL5 extreme service lubricant
with better gear and bearing protection at max loads. Wael's car shifted
better with this than with MT-90. Redline's Shockproof may be the best
high-power track oil.
_________________
This is not (I believe) Redline themselves, but someone who distributes Redline. --Steve
From: Red Line Oil Racing - Performance Products (rlracing@sgi.net) Just dropping you a line to let you know that we will be launching our
new web page offering red line oil products directly via the internet on
May 19th.
http://redlineoilracing.com
Would you please let us know if we could link to your site.
We will offer red line for $7/quart and for group purchases $6.25/ quart.
If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Ron and L.J. Rygelski _________________
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:42:21 -0400 Trans: 2.6 qts __________________
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 10:39:35 -0500 Buy Neo Synthetic HD gear oil, it wil help smooth out those shifts
especially when cold. You can but it from Mazdatrix
(http://www.mazdatrix.com) or from Neo directly,
(http://www.neosyntheticoil.com). I highly recommend it over Redline, just
personal experience with my new gearbox.
I highly recommend Neo HD gear oil, save your money and don't buy the
Racing HD. Neo didn't recommend it. Call them up and talk to them and
they'll tell you what to use for your application.
__________________
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 20:31:29 PST I thought I'd share my experience. I've used Valvoline 75w-90,Redline
MT-90 , Redline MTL and Neo 75w-90 HD in my transmission.
With Valvoline
in the transmission (and what ever Mazda originally put in there) my car
was difficult to quickly shift from 1st to 2nd and to a lesser extent
2nd to 3rd. I would have diagnosed this as bad synchronizers except down
shifting from 3rd to 2nd and 4th to 3rd was always as smooth as butter.
When the transmission was fully warmed up the notchyness (or crunch) was
better but still present.
I next switched to Redline MTL. With MTL the
notchyness was almost gone when the transmission was cold and completely
gone once warmed up. However, since MTL is a 75w-80 oil and Mazda
recommends a 75w-90 I was worried about thinning under hot conditions.
So, I switched to Redline MT-90(which is 75w-90 weight lubricant). MT90
did not reduce the notchyness as well as MTL, although it worked better
than Valvoline.
On Wael's suggestion I switched to Neo 75w-90 HD. The
Neo oil worked as well as MTL in curing the notchyness and is the
correct weight. Since it is a good guess that the transmissions out in
net land range from like new to barely serviceable your results will
probably vary, but I would recommend you give Neo oil a try. Besides
after you change the transmission oil 4 times in 6 months you'll get
really good at it. 8)
_________________
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:54:29 -0400 NEO is based in Signal Hill, CA on Gundry Ave, phone number (800)
959-7757. Their website URL
.
Redline
75W90 Gear Oil is
used by a lot people on the mailing list in their differentials. It is
safe for the Torsen LSD (limited Slip Differential). DO NOT USE the
75W90NS - that is for non-LSD cars. Redline can be reached at
1-800-624-7958. Racer supply shops such as Racer Wholesale or Pegasus
are good places to buy it.
_________________
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:42:21 -0400 Trans: 2.6 qts [Mail me]
To RX-7 Files home page]
[To my home page]
[Copyright Notice]
From: "Linthicum, Sandy"
> was 320 parts gas to 1 part oil (20 Gallons to 4 Ounces),
> while the suggested "Race" mix was 80 parts gas to 1 part oil.
> Wouldn't this decrease performance and increase plug fouling?
> This guy is a racer, so I know better, I just don't understand!
From: "Robinette, Maj Robbie D."
From: AutoArt22@aol.com
Total Responses - 47
OIL TYPE
Dino Juice - 90%
Synthetic - 10%
OIL BRAND
Castrol GTX - 50%
Valvoline - 25%
Other - 15%
Mobil - 10%
WEIGHT
10/30 - 75% of responses
20/50 - 10%
Combination of 20/50 Summer & 10/30 Winter - 15%
FILTER BRAND
Mazda Filter - 80%
Fram Filter - 16%
Other - 4%
MILEAGE BETWEEN CHANGES
3000 Miles - 33%
2500 Miles - 33%
2000 Miles - 29%
Less Than 2000 Miles - 5%
From: SLNIX
From: Scott Bell The Surprising Truth About Motor Oils
Testing the oils
No Brand Performed Best
Oil changes: How often?
Testing Slick 50 and STP
Recommendations
Testing in the Big Apple
It's not just oil
Ratings & Recommendations
Shopping strategy
5W-30 oils
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container.
Price not available; not widely found in discount stores. Appears to use
same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated container with window.
Different formulations in Florida and New York. Graduated container with
window.
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container with window.
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container.
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container with window. 10W-30 is called Super Blend.
Different formulations in California and Texas. Graduated container with
window.
10W-30 oils
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container.
Different formulation in Florida. Graduated container with window.
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container with window.
Different formulations in Illinois and Texas. Graduated container with
window.
Different formulation in Florida. 5W-30 version not tested.
Low-temperature flow characteristics were better than most. Appears to
use same formulation in all areas sampled. 5W-30 version not tested.
Graduated container with window.
Different formulation in New York. Graduated container with window.
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container.
Low-temperature flow characteristics were better than most. No 5W-30
version. Appears to use the same formulation in all areas sampled.
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container with window. 5W-30 is called Deluxe.
Different formulation in California. Graduated container with window.
Appears to use same formulation in all areas sampled. Graduated
container with window. No 5W-30 version. Flow characteristics were more
like those of a conventional oil than those of a synthetic.
Oil Additives
From: Scott Bell
From: Tom Knott
From: Tom Knott
Oil Filters
From: REDHAWKJRT
Oil Catch Can
>I am running a great deal of oil from the oil filler pipe down into the
>compressor of the primary. Have any of you put in a catch can that drains back
>into the oil pan? I know Cam Worth has made that modification. I am looking for
>any help on fittings to the oil return pipe or other pieces of the learning
>curve on this modification that you can provide. TIA
From: wael el-dasher (wael.el-dasher@efini.net)
From: "AL Beder" (albeder@earthlink.net)
From: "kevin kelleher" (kellehkj@earthlink.net)
From: "Rob Robinette" (robinette2@home.com)
From: "John Levy" (mazdarx7@ziplink.net)
Date: 10/04/2002 09:39 AM
> Section 13.10 G states: "The installation of oil catch tanks
> is allowed provided the PCV system is not altered."
>
> Background
>
> This is for a 93 Mazda RX-7
>
> Problem no. 1 - The 93 RX-7 has two paths for blow-by gasses,
> one from the oil filler neck through a Positive Crankcase
> Ventilation (PCV) valve - a one-way (check) - into the
> manifold, and one from the oil filler neck to the inlet side
> of the primary turbo (which is always under suction). When
> the manifold is pressurized (under boost) the PCV valve
> prevents pressurized air from flowing into the crankcase. A
> problem that has manifested with this arrangement is that if
> the PCV valve sticks open you will loose some boost. This
> design flaw was corrected starting with the 95 RX-7 model.
> Mazda eliminated the direct path to the manifold, including
> the PCV valve, and retained the oil filler neck to turbo
> inlet path for crankcase ventilation. By doing so Mazda
> maintained the functionality of the PCV system as the direct
> path to the manifold was indeed redundant - since all the air
> from the turbo inlet, including the air from the crankcase
> would eventually be directed into the manifold.
>
> Problem no. 2 - Another design problem that has manifested in
> the 93 Rx7 model is that under hard prolonged right hand
> cornering oil shifts to the left side of the oil pan. With
> all the oil shifted in the pan the propensity for oil to be
> drawn up the oil filler neck exists. Under such circumstance,
> oil is sucked from the two PCV taps into the intake system.
> Oil will then make its way into the intake system with the
> propensity to gum up solenoids and other sensors that are
> sensitive to mediums other than air for which they were not designed.
> Proposed modification
>
> I am planning on attempting to minimize Problem no. 2 in my
> 93 Rx-7 by installing an inline oil catch tank. The inlet of
> the catch tank will be connected to the oil filler neck, the
> outlet will then be routed to the air intake in order to
> prevent release of gases to the atmosphere. My preference
> would be to direct it to the turbo inlet connection only and
> to eliminate the path to the manifold - as done by Mazda
> starting starting with the 95 model - in order to prevent
> Problem no. 1 from happening.
>
> Question
>
> Would my proposed modification be allowed under the current
> rules, or should I retain the direct path to the manifold as well?
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:34 PM
To: Sandro LaRosa
Cc: Guy Ankeny (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Solo II rules interpretation - Section 13.10 G
To: Howard Duncan
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM
Date: 10/04/2002 04:08 PM
Changing Oil
From: "O'Dell, Mark"
> 5.2 for the standard cars. The oil pan is 4.1 qts. According to my
> 93 owners manual the change vol with filter is 3.7 qts. So it looks
> like without taking a lot of things apart we will always have around
> two quarts of oil left behind for an R1 and about 1.5 qts for non
> R1s.
From: David Liberman
From: David Liberman
From: "David Lane"
Oil Consumption
From: "Houseman, Carl W. x1323"
2. What is your oil consumption? Miles per quart, none, or level
increases?
3. What kind of oil do you use - weight especially - brand also.
4. Miles since your last oil change?
5. What kind of driving - short, medium, or long trips?
6. What driving style? Easy, Hard, Mix of easy/hard, Track?
7. Year and mileage on your car (optional)
From: "Houseman, Carl W. x1323"
Oil Pressure Low
From: KAWalanski@aol.com
From: "Alan Beder" (albeder@earthlink.net)
Oil Added to Gas (Premix)
From: "Linthicum, Sandy"
- Reduced wear on rotor housings and side housings
- Clean Burn Technology reduces carbon and residue build-up
- Ashless, No smoke formula provides cleaner exhaust than 2-stroke oil
- Anti-Oxidation protection against fuel system rust and corrosion
- Low flash point helps stop plug fouling
Gas Smell in Oil
From: "Houseman, Carl W. x1323" (CHOUSEMAN@genicom.com)
Gasoline smell:
Slight/None: 31%
Noticeable: 44%
Strong: 25%
Oil usage, miles/quart, among "Slight/None" gasoline smell:
Less than 1000: 0%
1000-3000: 36%
3001-6000: 27%
More than 6000 or no usage: 27%
Negative consumption: 0%
No answer: 9%
Oil usage, miles/quart, among "Noticeable" gasoline smell:
Less than 1000: 0%
1000-3000 miles: 12%
3001-6000 miles:18%
More than 6000 or no usage: 47%
Negative consumption: 6%
No answer: 18%
Oil usage, miles/quart among "Strong" gasoline smell:
Less than 1000: 10%
1000-3000 miles: 20%
3001-6000 miles: 10%
More than 6000 or no usage: 30%
Negative consumption: 20%
No answer: 10%
Oil usage, miles/quart among "Noticeable" or "Strong" gasoline smell:
Less than 1000: 4%
1000-3000 miles: 15%
3001-6000 miles: 15%
More than 6000 or no usage: 41%
Negative consumption: 11%
No answer: 15%
Gas smell, among those reporting less than 6000 miles/quart consumption:
Slight: 44%
Noticeable: 31%
Strong: 25%
Gas smell, among those reporting 6000+ oil consumption (including
negative):
Slight: 18%
Noticeable: 53%
Strong: 29%
From: "les" (lesd@earthlink.net)
>I don't understand why people so often compare the blow by characteristics
>of a rotary to a 2 stroke. I would expect the blow by contamination to be
>less than that of a 4 stroke.
From: Max Cooper (max@maxcooper.com)
Oil Filler Cap Gunk
Oil Analysis
From: "Mike Putnam" (mike_putnam@hotmail.com)
%Water dilution Total acid number
%Fuel dilution Total base number
% total solids Particle count
fuel soot oxidation
oxidation nitration
% glycol
Analysts Inc.
2910 Ford St.
Oakland, CA 94601
(800) 424-0099
FAX (510) 536-5994
From: "Linthicum, Sandy" (linthias@sandy-ntws.usps.gov)
From: "kevin kelleher" (kellehkj@earthlink.net)
Transmission
From: "Alan H. Beder"
From: "kevin kelleher" (kellehkj@earthlink.net)
Date: May 3, 1999
Performance Products
Red Line Synthetic Oil
From: "Houseman, Carl W. x1323"
Diff: 1.4 qts
From: Wael El-Dasher
From: "Mike Putnam"
From: Max Cooper
Differential
From: "Houseman, Carl W. x1323"
Diff: 1.4 qts