is it necessary Shimming Eccentric Shaft Thermowax Pellet
i was browsing fc3spro.com and came upon Shimming Eccentric Shaft Thermowax Pellet in stage 1 in this link http://fc3spro.com/TECH/FM2W/power.htm is this something you should do for less of a chance of breaking something ior is it something you dont really need to do how many of you did this any advise is wanted thanks
|
If you're doing a rebuild/port you should definitely just do this. If you're worried about it you can do it also, but personally I wouldn't worry about it. It's a bit harder to do if you're leaving the engine in than with it out, just fyi.
|
Basically what he said. Anytime the engine is pulled apart, you should replace the thermal pellet with a solid pellet (available from all rotary shops) or shim the existing one.
|
thanks for the replys my engine only got 60,000 on it and its in my s5 t2 so you's wouldnt worry about it until i rebuild it also should i remove the air pump and acv/egr valve once i get a racing beat dp pre silencer or should i leave it in
|
I dropped in a solid pellet in about five minutes with a handy-dandy clutch holder (friend.) It's pretty easy.
I'd say rip out the airpump and all if you don't have to pass any tests. We're mostly anti-emissions around here, unlike some other boards. |
you run a risk of dropping the front bearing(which will tear the whole engine to pieces if not caught) when replacing it so i would say no, not unless you do it during an overhaul.
|
i do have emmisions i dont know how ill pass once i get my exhaust finished up so id already be screwed with or without the airpump
|
keep all your old emissions parts, most people just swap them in/out when it's time to smog.
|
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
Anytime the engine is pulled apart, you should replace the thermal pellet with a solid pellet (available from all rotary shops) or shim the existing one.
|
Originally Posted by Karack
you run a risk of dropping the front bearing(which will tear the whole engine to pieces if not caught) when replacing it so i would say no, not unless you do it during an overhaul.
|
Why is it better for the car to warm up faster NZ? Just off the hip the only reason I could think Mazda would want that is so that the main cat gets to opp temp faster and lowers the cars emmissions?
James |
i always thought the front/front bearing was the one that dropped... i haven't had the displeasure of dropping a bearing while removing the front hub so i couldn't say which is more prone to drop down. pushing on the clutch may keep the shaft forward but doesnt mean that oil suction from pulling the hub off won't pull the CAS gear/front balancer forward and allow the front bearing to slip. you could keep either of these from slipping by holding the clutch in and using a screwdriver on the CAS gear to hold it rearward while pulling the hub off, this is what i did when i resealed my front oil galley o-ring.
|
I think what NZ is trying to say is that the engine needs to warm up in a specific order. If you alter this order by putting the pellet in, certain parts of the engine remain cold while others get hot. Metal expands when its hot, so this could cause some unwanted wear im sure over time.
That is what you were trying to say nz, right? ;) |
My opinion: Swap it out.
As near as I've been able to tell, the thermal pellet is one of those "Crap, we have to make this damn thing pass emissions" devices... sort of like the 3k RPM startup. The thermal pellet restricts oil flow to the rear rotor during cold startup. There's still lots of combustion going on, and the rotor will get plenty hot without oil flowing to it. Strangely enough, these engines almost ALWAYS blow the rear rotor first. I prefer my engine parts oiled. -=Russ=- |
^^^
I agree, how is it a good idea to restrict oil flow to half the engine basically? Just because Mazda manufactured it doesn't mean it's good. Remember they also manufactured the sub zero start assist that they later said to get rid of. |
The question is....did the 787B have one?
|
i'm pretty sure it restricts oil to both rotors, not just the rear.
|
Originally Posted by Wankel7
The question is....did the 787B have one?
-=Russ=- |
Originally Posted by Syonyk
That's actually a really good question to ask about various engine things. Near as I can tell, the Mazda engineers had a great, simple, reliable engine... and then the bean counters & emissions people got in the way. Look at how many "goofy things" the engine has for emissions & cost savings (iron endplates, anyone?). I suspect the 787B engine was pure Mazda Engineer Joy.
-=Russ=- Sounds like an emissions thing to me! |
with how many emissions related components these engines have on them i'm surprised they run at all..
|
so now that there are more opinions on this is it better to get a solid pellet or buy a new thermal pellet
|
That's for you to decide. Obviously there are two sides to this argument and each will think they are correct. You just have to decide what you believe or what you think is best.
|
can anyone name advantages and disadvantes for each what is everyones opinion on what one to get
|
Solid Pellet Advantanges:
Full flow of oil to engine all the time, not just after it's warmed up. Wont fail. |
Originally Posted by dDuB
Solid Pellet Advantanges:
Full flow of oil to engine all the time, not just after it's warmed up. Wont fail. same here. i shimmed mine, equivalent of using the pellet. most rotary engine builders use the thermal pellet if this helps you decide. |
Originally Posted by Wankel7
Why is it better for the car to warm up faster NZ?
Just off the hip the only reason I could think Mazda would want that is so that the main cat gets to opp temp faster and lowers the cars emmissions?
Originally Posted by BlaCkPlaGUE
I think what NZ is trying to say is that the engine needs to warm up in a specific order. If you alter this order by putting the pellet in, certain parts of the engine remain cold while others get hot. Metal expands when its hot, so this could cause some unwanted wear im sure over time.
Originally Posted by Syonyk
As near as I've been able to tell, the thermal pellet is one of those "Crap, we have to make this damn thing pass emissions" devices... sort of like the 3k RPM startup.
The thermal pellet restricts oil flow to the rear rotor during cold startup.
Originally Posted by dDuB
...how is it a good idea to restrict oil flow to half the engine basically?
Originally Posted by Wankel7
The question is....did the 787B have one?
Originally Posted by dDuB
Solid Pellet Advantanges:
Full flow of oil to engine all the time, not just after it's warmed up. Wont fail. If you don't want to use one on your engine that fine by me. Just leave the dodgy engineering excuses behind and admit you're too cheap and/or lazy to buy a replacement. ;) |
we've been over all sides of the argument, i have yet to see anyone come here and say "my engine blew up because i removed the t-stat" or "my engine blew up since i put in a thermal pellet". they may very well reduce heat transfer but the cooling capability is still high enough that it is usually a tradeoff and no short or even long term harm is being done. i would much rather have more oil on parts than less... friction or heat? i will stick with heat, not friction..
some people have driven without t-stats for ages and had no problems, when i hear or see evidence that it is doing significant damage to the engine then i will believe it. |
eh, im convinced to get one:)
|
Originally Posted by Karack
i have yet to see anyone come here and say "my engine blew up because i removed the t-stat" or "my engine blew up since i put in a thermal pellet".
i would much rather have more oil on parts than less... friction or heat? i will stick with heat, not friction. when i hear or see evidence that it is doing significant damage to the engine then i will believe it. This post is what exactly I meant by dodgy engineering excuses. :( |
"A significant percentage of the engine's overall wear takes place when the engine is cold. This has been known and understood since before you were born. It would be a little silly for you to say you didn't believe this... "
i do believe this, it is what i am trying to convey. when an engine sits oil runs off of components, oiling them as soon as possible will reduce the friction and wear. by removing the pellet it increases the flow rate which in turn reduces the ability of heat transfer to take place resulting in higher temps. i don't think it's all that confusing, i'm just replying to what was posted earlier. |
Originally Posted by Karack
when an engine sits oil runs off of components, oiling them as soon as possible will reduce the friction and wear.
by removing the pellet it increases the flow rate which in turn reduces the ability of heat transfer to take place resulting in higher temps. |
mmmf, i was thinking of a coolant thermostat which restricts flow... anyhow it just causes the rotors to take longer to heat up. in any case the t-stat can fail and provide less than adequate oiling for the rotors, a risk i would prefer to avoid, being my main concern here.
|
I'm not cheap, I just don't like the idea of oil being restricted in any way. Tell me why no prior 1986 rotary vehicles had this?
|
Originally Posted by Karack
in any case the t-stat can fail and provide less than adequate oiling for the rotors, a risk i would prefer to avoid...
Originally Posted by dDuB
I'm not cheap, I just don't like the idea of oil being restricted in any way.
Tell me why no prior 1986 rotary vehicles had this? The whole argument against the thermal bypass pellet seems to be based on the assumptions that (a) it's failure-prone and (b) it causes damage to the bearings due to lack of lubrication. Both of these points are completely untrue, and nobody has offered anything to prove otherwise. |
Maybe, maybe not. I guess we can just leave it at you (and everyone else like you) have your beliefs about it, and we have ours.
I have read enough recommendations and blurbs about why this is a good mod by well respected rotary builders to believe what I do. I have also read all the other sides of it, and they all make good points too. I just came to this decision because I felt it was better. Maybe I was right, maybe I wasn't, oh well :) |
Originally Posted by dDuB
I guess we can just leave it at you (and everyone else like you) have your beliefs about it, and we have ours.
Originally Posted by Syonyk
The thermal pellet restricts oil flow to the rear rotor during cold startup. There's still lots of combustion going on, and the rotor will get plenty hot without oil flowing to it. Strangely enough, these engines almost ALWAYS blow the rear rotor first.
|
Originally Posted by NZConvertible
Not to pick on Aaron, since this a common attitude here, but IMO this advice is wrong. The thermal bypass pellet is there for a good reason; to get the engine up to temp faster. The reasons for this are pretty obvious and have been discussed many times before, so they don't need to be covered here. The thermal bypass is a component that is known to fail now that these cars are 14-19 years old, and there's absolutely no reason to expect that if you replace it with a new functioning pellet that it won't last just as long again. This is not a failure-prone part, it simply fails when it gets very old. There are no good engineering reasons for not having a functioning thermal bypass valve in your engine. Shimming the old valve or using a solid pellet is just a cheap-ass way of avoiding spending money on a new part.
Of course, it's opinion. I doubt that many engines have died due to failure of this part. I am, however, of the thought that I don't like hidden and difficult to troubleshoot failure points. Also, the solid pellets are cheaper then the thermal pellet. :) |
from what i take from all this it isnt much of a worry about replacing it until you actually are rebuilding the engine does this sound right? so ill just let it how it is until i rebuild the engine then replace it but i am still undecided on getting a solid one or a thermal pellet what do you's prefer
|
Originally Posted by NZConvertible
I missed this bit earlier. Apart from the fact that both rotors are affected equally by the thermal bypass's operation, when an engine "blows", it's almost always due to apex seal failure. The only thing the thermal bypass can possibly effect is the rotor bearings, so there is absolutely no connection here. This is yet another example of dodgy engineering excuses. How can you argue against something when you don't understand what it does or how it works? :rolleyes:
-=Russ=- |
while we are on the subject about oil and eccentric shafts im about to change my oil what is a good oil to use in a s5 t2 and a s5 n/a
|
Well I'll stick with NZ on this topic. He knows his shit, he layed it all out for us, and I think the best idea is what he said.
Buy a brand new one, install it, and it will outlive the rest of the cars life. They don't fail, only after 10 years of driving do they have a chance to fail. Someone should make a guide on how to replace it. |
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
...my only issues that that is no real way to tell that the pellet has failed other then a slight change in oil pressure...
Originally Posted by Syonyk
It also affects the rotor surface temperatures, which are a known location for carbon buildup. I would tend to think that higher temperatures would leak to decreased carbon buildup...
|
thanks for all the help where would i get a new thermal bypass pellet there isn't any rotary shops around me that i know of i get all my parts online is there any web sites that sell them new also what would be a good motor oil to use on my s5 t2 and s5 n/a when i change the oil soon
|
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
Of course, it's opinion. I doubt that many engines have died due to failure of this part.
In my opinion failure of the thermovalve will lead to apex seal failure through the rotor internally heating or bearing failure and the rotor shifting position against the worn bearings (chatter at high speed). |
I personally would be inclined to believe that the rotor surface, being part of the combustion chamber, will reach operating temperature significantly faster than the oil, running through a cold engine, and having nearly 6 quarts to heat.
-=Russ=- |
Originally Posted by Syonyk
I personally would be inclined to believe that the rotor surface, being part of the combustion chamber, will reach operating temperature significantly faster than the oil, running through a cold engine, and having nearly 6 quarts to heat.
|
technical engineers or emissions engineers? write a letter to mazda and ask them for the answer.
|
Originally Posted by Karack
technical engineers or emissions engineers?
|
i got another question i dont need to rebuild my engine i only know the simple things like oil changing replacing some belts alternators exhaust ect the easy stuff i was wondering if i were to buy the video of the step by step rebuild video and watch it would i be able to gain alot of knowledge on the complete engine do you's think it would help me understand alot more then i do now
|
you're getting into this a little much, i'll let you win because you're just spinning in circles on the subject. i don't feel like arguing after a long week at work.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands