OMP-Pre-mix mod Write-up
07-05-03, 04:55 PM
#121
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
2 points
#1 The 4 rotor Ted mentions, doesn't use a MOP simple for the KISS reason. One less part to fail in a race designed vehicle that didn't have to travel 100K miles before rebuild.
#2 The oil injectors (or dribblers as mentioned above) on the 13BT-REW have higher flow both through the MOP and the orifices than the ones found in the 13B in the FC.
#1 The 4 rotor Ted mentions, doesn't use a MOP simple for the KISS reason. One less part to fail in a race designed vehicle that didn't have to travel 100K miles before rebuild.
#2 The oil injectors (or dribblers as mentioned above) on the 13BT-REW have higher flow both through the MOP and the orifices than the ones found in the 13B in the FC.
07-14-03, 10:46 PM
#124
Jesus is the Messiah
Some interesting points that have come up, and are still kinda in the air about this thread:
1) The true cause of the carbon-biuld up, is it only the MOP, or just regular combustion prossess? Does revving the engine up really help blast the carbon out, to the point of preventing carbon-lock?
2) Premix, with the engines named here, (even the four rotor race engines) aparently does work on its own, but is it really nessisary? Many times the MOP has been claimed to be a reliable unit. (Specially on the S5, aparently) I will, however, have to add periodic checking of the MOP injectors to my tune up list.
1) The true cause of the carbon-biuld up, is it only the MOP, or just regular combustion prossess? Does revving the engine up really help blast the carbon out, to the point of preventing carbon-lock?
2) Premix, with the engines named here, (even the four rotor race engines) aparently does work on its own, but is it really nessisary? Many times the MOP has been claimed to be a reliable unit. (Specially on the S5, aparently) I will, however, have to add periodic checking of the MOP injectors to my tune up list.
07-14-03, 11:00 PM
#125
Originally posted by Tofuball
Some interesting points that have come up, and are still kinda in the air about this thread:
1) The true cause of the carbon-biuld up, is it only the MOP, or just regular combustion prossess? Does revving the engine up really help blast the carbon out, to the point of preventing carbon-lock?
2) Premix, with the engines named here, (even the four rotor race engines) aparently does work on its own, but is it really nessisary? Many times the MOP has been claimed to be a reliable unit. (Specially on the S5, aparently) I will, however, have to add periodic checking of the MOP injectors to my tune up list.
Some interesting points that have come up, and are still kinda in the air about this thread:
1) The true cause of the carbon-biuld up, is it only the MOP, or just regular combustion prossess? Does revving the engine up really help blast the carbon out, to the point of preventing carbon-lock?
2) Premix, with the engines named here, (even the four rotor race engines) aparently does work on its own, but is it really nessisary? Many times the MOP has been claimed to be a reliable unit. (Specially on the S5, aparently) I will, however, have to add periodic checking of the MOP injectors to my tune up list.
1) Carbon build up is comming from BOTH fuel I.E. gasoline and four stroke oil.
2) Pre-mix is NOT necessary. But what got ME to switch is three main points: a) The reliability of the MOP and its injectors and lines. There are just about no ways to know if the S4 pump is working or not unless you check the lines for oil movement and test the injectors which involves removing the lines which will probably break costing you about 100 dollars to replace the set more if you need to buy an injector. b) The issue of the ability of four stroke oil to properly burn and not leave too much bad stuff behind(chemical or otherwise) c) The MOST SIMPLE reason: LOOK at your oil when you change it after 2-3k miles. I don't like that on the inside of my engine.
That last one is the BIG reason for me.
Santiago
PS- I too wait for Aaron's respond to Ted.
07-15-03, 06:24 AM
#127
Jesus is the Messiah
Actually, I might switch soon! I dont know if the MOP is operating at all, I check my oil and its at the same spot on the dipstick as 1000 miles ago!
I know on a normal piston engine, people will usually kill for that kind of oil retention
I know on a normal piston engine, people will usually kill for that kind of oil retention
07-15-03, 05:57 PM
#128
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
I'm still typing up the response. I don't have a lot of time to write this stuff....Really, no one here is right or wrong because it's all based on opinion anyway....
07-15-03, 06:43 PM
#129
Displacement > Boost
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RetedIf you keep using the stock oil "injection" your engine's internal components will look like this:
Notice the huge crater in the housing where the carbon build-up on the rotor dug into it. This engine had only 128K miles. My Acura's B16 engine was much cleaner inside when I rebuilt it at 205k. Cranckase oil does not belong in the combustion chamber!
07-15-03, 07:22 PM
#130
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
So I took some time and replied...
I have not read your findings, but unless they are based on controlled testing, they are not very helpful when comparing premix vs. the stock system. This is the basic flaw in all "premix rules" arguments. No one has done any scientific testing to prove that it is any better then the stock system. That's my entire point.
I would personally love to conduct a premix vs. metering oil pump test. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the considerable financial resources it would take. Luckily, Mazda has already done this for us.
I'm not regurgitating anything. I am stating my opinion. I heard a piece of information (ie. premix is inferior) and then I started my mental examination process:
1. Does this idea logically and scientifically make sense? This is most important.
2. Is the source an authority?
3. How much experience does the source have in said topic?
4. Does it fit into my own observations?
Thus is the process of forming an opinion. Unfortunately, I have not been working with rotary engines for 25+ years, so there is some information that I have to look to a higher authority to obtain.
As for the Earth being round, you can easily see the curvature of the Earth at Bonneville. Many pictures exist of the Earth that clearly proves that it is basically round (actually it is more of a slight oval)..But this is silliness and really has nothing to do with. The point is that all of us cannot personally fly around the world in a spacecraft, so we must submit to a higher authority.
Is this not due to the combustion process in a rotary? The piston engine has a relativly even combustion chamber which has gone through years and years of development to produce optimal burn. The long combustion chamber of a rotary has none of these advantages. And let's not forget about how rich the stock EFI system runs the engine, especially during warmup. Pull the plugs on less sophisticated piston engine (ie. lawnmower) and you will see the same carbon deposit.
Sorry, clean spot on the rotor, not the housing. Should have been more clear. But as you know, almost all rotor housings have a shiney spot at the oil dribbler because that is where lubrication is best.
I'm aware of the tumbling intake charge, but it still seems to me that in my opinion this is significantly less lubrication then a big drop of oil directly hitting the apex. You make a good point about the side seals though. This is something that I have not put any thought into. But is it not true that most engines show relativly little side seal wear when torn apart? I can certainly speak from experience that in Tina's 250,000 KM engine, the side seals were easily within spec (don't remember the actual numbers as I don't plan on reusing the seals).
True, but I'm not sure how blow-by will effect things. Doesn't it remain that two stroke oil is designed to lubricate bearings and cylinders, not combustion surfaces? Of course, this is standard 2-stroke oil, not necessarily any of the "special" oils people use in a rotary.
How many miles does the typical snowmobile or watercraft go through in an average season? Probably not a lot. However, many of my customers (I work at a computer shop, we sell satellite Internet systems for rural installations) repair snowmobiles and related equipment at their tractor/farm equipment shops. These vehicles are often in for "fuel system maintenance". Not sure what the exact meaning of that is though. Could just be from sitting. I will have to ask next time I am around.
All the plugs I have seen have been pretty bad, but that could easily be because there is too much premix being used.
Well, "injector safe/certified" oils should then be excluded from this discussion.
It seems that you have agreed with my statement that too much premix causes smoke, etc. So I'm not sure if there's anything to prove.
That is true, and makes perfect sense to me. However, two stroke owners have been trusted for years to premix. Also, a separate oil tank with all the usual warnings, gauges and bells could have been used. They could have also built a system to premix engine oil for you. There are a lot of two stroke cars out there (Eurpoe, Korea, etc.) that are humming (and smoking) right along...But this really doesn't matter as it is a moot point for any enthusiast willing to premix.
Premix is going to make me more power? That's one I've never heard before. My entire point of all my premix posts is that it has not been proven that premix is neither better nor worse then the stock metering oil system. There's just no real scientific data. Lots of opinions of course (we all know how long the premix debate has been going on), but no hard facts.
As far as engine longevity, we all know that there tonnes of high mileage 13Bs around without the benefit of premix.
Re: Misconceptions/misinformation
What does this have to do with anything? Tina has been running fine from the moment I fired her up, until the moment I tore the engine apart in December. Save for a worn out clutch, of course. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.
Well, when I have an extra three million dollars, I will be happy to make a scientific study of it. Until then, all we can do is offer opinions. No where have I tried to offer "proof" to anything. I have simply presented things that support my opinion.
I firmly believe that it is very easy to have a bad reputation when dealing with FDs. I have heard horror stories of all the major vendors, but since I only deal with buying parts from them, I cannot speak from personal experience. However, of all the vendors that I have personally spoken with, Atkins seems most informed. I can't see any financial gains for Atkins if they don't like premix.
Last-ditched effort? Hardly. It was exactly what I said it was, just something randomly thrown in. Yes, aviation is completely different from on-road applications. So is racing.
As far as the KISS concept, would running premix not be simpler then running the stock MOP system?
"Rotating" was the wrong word. Wiping is better, and what I should have put down. Just couldn't think of the right thing at the time (outside distractions).
OK...and this has what to do with premix? Obviously, cutting the number of oil injectors and further leaning out the oil mixture is going to result in less lubrication.
Certainly not. So run some premix in combination with the MOP. Just don't relace one with the other.
That's good, and if that's true, then I lose and you win as far as which surfaces are lubricated. However, it is still my opinion that the stock MOP system provides better (direct) lubrication of the apex seals and thus the housings.
Not sure if you're aware of the Rotary Aviation (?) 2-stroke MOP adapter. I quite like this, and it would be an excellent system as it would offer the advantages of 2 stroke oil (clean burning, though I am still not convinced that this is a significant advantage, nor necessarily true) with the advantages of the MOP. And regular crankcase oil could be used...
You're jumping to too many conclusions. Take what I wrote for what it says on the page, not what you are interpreting it to mean. I said the metering system is no good for constant high-RPM operation. No one can argue with this. I did not say that the S4 (and pre S4) systems are crap. Yes, electronic MOPs are a wonderful thing, IF IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY. Unfortunately, Mazda missed this last point with the S5 and (apparently, I don't like and therefore don't work on) FD.
Because you're the ones pushing premix. Mazda has already proved the stock MOP system for 30 years (well, really 23 years in it's "modern" form). If I have an abundance of money and time, I will happily perform this test.
So carbon ruins the housings, not necessarily the seals (unless a big chunk falls off, of course). See, I can nit pick too.
Well, then maybe I'll read up on modern two stroke oils. I'll add it to my very long list of things to do.
But it has such a minor impact that it's almost worth discounting.
Mazda abandoned premix.
But you just said that these engines suffer from inadequate lubrication. And what does the 13B-REW engine have to do with the 2nd gen? And for that matter, we all know how reliable the FD is? And since when does power output come into this? You "damned" me for bringing in "extra" facts.
But does higher octane fuel actually burn cleaner in an engine not specifically designed for it? I don't believe so.
So the oil is atomized. So what? If the apex seal is designed to seal atomized fuel, then it will also seal atomized oil.
Because others are. I'm trying to contrast the two as much as possible.
Because I don't have the time nor the money nor the desire. In fact, it seems that none of the vendors do...oh wait, one of them did...I believe it was Mazda. I'm not saying that Mazda is always correct, but they are the only ones who have done actual, real scientific durability testing on the rotary in long-term.
I may do this when I have time. Again, list of things to do. But honestly, I am happy with my MOP, so there isn't much motivation for me to do so. And since the premix argument is based on opinion anyway (and has been going on since the dawn of time) I don't see the point. The two camps will never agree unless real data (ie. not lube-vendor supplied) is presented.
And aren't you the one complaining that I was regurgitating info? Should listening to a lube vendor not be the same thing?
As is the entire premix "debate".
Again, not sure how this is relevant. FWIW, my Tina has been running fine on the stock MOP for 250,000KMs of abuse (including 10+ PSI and a few hard pings) and the housings are nearly mint.
Combustion temps are a lot lower here then they are in the rotary. Plus, there is no movement, friction, airflow, etc.
Continuing with Ted...
Yes, yes I am. I believe that it leaves a better film then 2 stroke.
Hehe...Fram.
Anyway, by clogged I mean those who failed the "blow" test. Most "bad" dribblers that I have tested were clogged in this fashion.
At the point where the apex seal hits the oil droplet, it should be perpendicular to the housing, correct?......I have just rotated a rotor inside a housing, and indeed it is. During the combustion, it is at a much sharper angle (trailing apex).
Of course not. And larger particles will fall much quicker and thus my hand will be less "lubricated". All this proves is that smaller droplets of water are lighter then heavy ones.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It happens to everyone. But I ask what other changes were made to that engine after it was reassembled? Unfortunately, I have not torn down enough engines to form these opinions on my own. Therefore, I must consider the opinions and experiences of others with more experience then I. I cannot believe that all that carbon is due to MOP delivered oil. I would think that the premix has made the rotor faces much less "sticky", so the carbon just doesn't settle. Again, this is my opinion. Thankfully, I don't build several engines per day.
Evidence, evidence. And a simple example showing that we cannot compare two random engines. We need controlled scientific tests.
Just proving that wear is normal. Some people seem to forget this and believe premix to be the magic bullet.
Prove to me, without a doubt and with scientific evidence that my conclusions are wrong.
Um, logic?
See above.
Where did I ever say that?
Prove I'm wrong. And it can't be the 5th time...it's just one wrong thing reiterated several times.
The same could be said for all those who replace the MOP with premix.
But I believe a "Mazda premix" method would be to build a nozzle into each intake port. Oil is injected into the middle of the nozzle. One end faces into the engine, the other end connects to an air source upstream of the throttle body. The engine's vacuum would pull the oil into the intake stream. Sort of like a carb venturi, but not quite. Of course, we can assume that Mazda already considered this if they wanted to run "factory premix".
Take a deep breath, count to ten, go to your happy place, and think of your power animal. I don't appreciate the comment that I don't think for myself, because it's entirely untrue. Just because I happen to agree with an outside source does not mean that I don't think for myself. In fact, those who know me would probably argue until death that I am one of the most indipendant thinkers they know...But they will also say that once I have formed an opinion, I am one of the most stubborn holders-onto they know. At least, until real proof comes about to prove I am wrong. However, this is all quite irrelevant.
You know, it's comments like this that are totally uncalled for, non-constructive and simply not needed. If you truly believe NA owners are cheap, then that's your opinion. But I'm sure there are many here that would argue. And if you really think this is waste of time, don't reply! I know that if I read these two comments, I certainly wouldn't have replied because it seems to me that all you're trying to do is incite hostility.
Um, weight savings? KISS? Incapable 4 rotor MOP systems? No stock parts that were suitable? Any number of reasons. Oh, and the fact that it's a race engine and therefore has nothing to do with the street.
Let me say one final thing before I abandon this topic due to hostility:
We all know that the premix debate is older then time. It's all opinion, and I know that it comes up from time to time on every RX-7 list, forum, etc. around. It will never be settled until there is undisputable proof presented. I've only been paying attention to this for 4 years, and in that time I have not seen a single shred of scientific evidence (vendor propaganda does not count).
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It happens. But no one is going to lose an engine because I'm wrong (unless their MOP is already broken).
I put my statements out there for people to read. If you don't believe it, I'm not going to get bent out of shape. "You can't please all of the people all of the time..." To dispute my finds with a bunch of BS is a whole nother ballgame. You're welcome to initiate your own long-term test; I do not have the time nor the resources to conduct a long-term mileage test at the moment.
I would personally love to conduct a premix vs. metering oil pump test. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the considerable financial resources it would take. Luckily, Mazda has already done this for us.
That very statement implies your regurgitating information - pure and simple. It can't be fact, in reference to yourself, unless it's been proven or disproven - the robustness of the proof, as defined by scientific proof. Now, we can get into an argument about the earth being round and did you prove it yourself tangent, but that's just pure silliness in my book...
1. Does this idea logically and scientifically make sense? This is most important.
2. Is the source an authority?
3. How much experience does the source have in said topic?
4. Does it fit into my own observations?
Thus is the process of forming an opinion. Unfortunately, I have not been working with rotary engines for 25+ years, so there is some information that I have to look to a higher authority to obtain.
As for the Earth being round, you can easily see the curvature of the Earth at Bonneville. Many pictures exist of the Earth that clearly proves that it is basically round (actually it is more of a slight oval)..But this is silliness and really has nothing to do with. The point is that all of us cannot personally fly around the world in a spacecraft, so we must submit to a higher authority.
Bullshit. Run a rotary engine with the same gas you run some other piston engine. Pull the spark plugs and look into the engine. The rotary engine will always significantly produce more carbon due to the stock oil injection.
I really don't understand this statement. Unless the engine is blown, the inside rotor housing surface should be super clean. I have never come across a rotary engine that produced a "clean spot" at the oil injection hole. If the inside rotor housing surface is covered with carbon, you've got larger issues than worrying about the oil injection system.
Wrong. You obviously don't know the dynamics of the intake charge when it enters the rotor housing. The intake charge is actually tumbling. Couple a tumbling intake charge with an atomized fuel delivery, and you get complete coating of all internal surfaces. The stock oil injection is primarily designed to coat the apex seal. Pre-mix (in the fuel) no oil is able to access the apex seal, but it also hits the side seals due to slight blow-by of the rotor face. Whatever the case, we are interested in the trailing apex seal anyways...due to combustion chamber "squish", the trailing apex seal gets most of the lubrication form the fuel/pre-mix charge. Since trailing apex seal turns into leading apex seal due to engine design, it's safe to say ALL apex seals are adequately lubricated.
I do no profess to have substantial knowledge of two-stroke engines, but I do know 2S engines have significant blow-by. By my previous statements, your theories are moot.
Now, this is an interesting assumption. These pre-mix chemicals have been used by water craft and snowmobiles for years now. Some of these pleasure craft are fuel injected. I don't hear them complaining about clogging fuel injectors.
As for "foul plugs", that's total nonsense. Anyone who is running pre-mix with no stock OMP can confirm their spark plugs come out CLEANER than before.
As for the fuel injector fouling issue, the TCW3 certification virtually guarantees this won't happen. Go take it up with them if you've got a problem with a TCW3 certified pre-mix is screwing up your fuel injectors.
This is a problem if you're running too rich of a mixture. We haven't seen the above mentioned problem unless you run under 100:1 pre-mix ratios. I really prefer the smell of pre-mix burning in my car - of course that's a pretty subjective statement. I'd like to see proof of those claims you've just made it.
Answer: Mazda engineers have decided that running pre-mixing was too much of a hassle for your typical automobile consumer. If a consumer forgot to add pre-mix, then your engine is gone. Why add the hassle of adding another chemical the consumer would have to worry about if they can get away burning motor oil. So it came down to convenience. That is the "unofficial" reason.
Pre-mix is an alternative to the stock system. If you're satisfied with the stock oil injection, then that's fine. I figure the majority of us are hear to listen to alternatives that might offer better performance and longevity. If you didn't want more power, then I don't know why you're reading this. After all, there are people out there who are adding turbos to non-turbo FC3S engines...right?
My entire point of all my premix posts is that it has not been proven that premix is neither better nor worse then the stock metering oil system. There's just no real scientific data. Lots of opinions of course (we all know how long the premix debate has been going on), but no hard facts.As far as engine longevity, we all know that there tonnes of high mileage 13Bs around without the benefit of premix.
Re: Misconceptions/misinformation
Sorta like turbo'ing your NA FC 13B?
You're welcome to try... Arguing against something just because it doesn't meet up with your standards as a "proof" doesn't automatically means it won't work. I'll turn around the proof of burden and ask to see your "proof" that pre-mix is inferior versus pre-mixing...
Atkins has a very bad reputation online, especially with the FD crowd. You need to be careful with vendors because they sole purpose in life is to make money by selling their products. If you can't make the connection, I'm wasting my time arguing otherwise.
That's really a last-ditched attempt to save your argument. Aviation application is a totally different ballgame versus automotive. If something fails at 10,000 feet in the air, you're in big trouble. A motor failing on the ground gets you stranded. Aviators really stress the KISS principle.
As far as the KISS concept, would running premix not be simpler then running the stock MOP system?
Rotating force? More like "wiping" force due to the spinning rotor and apex seal.
This is true. Mazda cut the number of oil injectors for the FD3S 13B-REW engines. Guess what - the Zenki FD3S engines had problems with internal oil lubrication due to inadequate lubrication.
Obviously, cutting the number of oil injectors and further leaning out the oil mixture is going to result in less lubrication.
More lubrication can't hurt.
2-stroke oil is designed to burn and lubricate internal engine parts pre and post combustion. You need to read up on this stuff; it's really amazing that a single chemical can do all of that. With that said, your above statements are wrong.
Your assumptions are wrong. See previous post...it's funny you mention running a separate reservior - I've touched on that indirectly in my previous post.
So your argument basically discounts the inferior Zenki FC3S mechanical oil injection, which injects very little oil at high RPM, high vacuum conditions. Does this mean we should retrofit all out motors with electronic OMP's?
I've invited your assistance with the testing. Why should the burden of proof be totally on our shoulders?
Mazda has already proved the stock MOP system for 30 years (well, really 23 years in it's "modern" form). If I have an abundance of money and time, I will happily perform this test.
Not true...carbon is pretty abrasive and can easily scatch and score internal metal parts. I'd rather minimize the carbon build-up than having them come loose banging around inside the engine. Even small particles can cause serious seal damage.
That just shows how ignorant you are abount the subject.
Sure, but to totally discount the burning motor oil is just dumb.
So what are you trying to say? To me, this doesn't mean jack.
Funny. Care to explain why Mazda went with just TWO oil injectors with the proceeding FD3S 13B-REW engine that puts out between 255hp and 276hp? Wow, more power and less oil injection???
Wow, talk about looking stupid. Care to explain how that applies to gasoline and octane ratings? 87 octane gasoline is "purer" in form versus higher octane stuff, i.e. 92 octane gasoline. To raise the octane rating, additive (and also detergents) are added, which also causes the gasoline to burn SLOWER. Slower flame front propogation is to direct atttribution of higher octane. Most people believe higher octane is cleaner burning.
You really need to go back to high school and learn the definition of "atomization".
Then why you are using it in your arguments?
Sure, like I said before...why don't you do it yourself and prove us wrong...
You need to read on on these pre-mix chemicals. You might want to contact tech representatives from Royal Purple and Redline Oils. I've found these two companies would be glad to explain to you how their chemicals work.
And aren't you the one complaining that I was regurgitating info? Should listening to a lube vendor not be the same thing?
Such an objective conclusion...
Sure, same as swapping turbos. It's a pain, but I'm sure people will find the time and resources to do it... Same thing with turbos slapped on NA 13B's, right?
Posted by dr0x on 07-04-03 01:17 AM:
To prove you wrong, mix a little 2 stroke (I use grandprix by castrol) and gas. Spill it onto your garage floor and put a match to it. Let it burn till it goes out. Stick your hand in the spot... Notice the nice oily film? That will cover the entire combustion chamber (housing+rotor). When the seal moves over it, it will sweep up the oil left on the housing.
To prove you wrong, mix a little 2 stroke (I use grandprix by castrol) and gas. Spill it onto your garage floor and put a match to it. Let it burn till it goes out. Stick your hand in the spot... Notice the nice oily film? That will cover the entire combustion chamber (housing+rotor). When the seal moves over it, it will sweep up the oil left on the housing.
Continuing with Ted...
So you're implying that engine oil lubricates past the combustion cycle?
I have never come across a clogged oil injectors myself. I have come across oil injectors that are bad, i.e. doesn't past the blow-only-one-way test. Modern engine oils have detergents which will dissolve most petroleum by-products. If you've got grit large enough to clog an oil injector, you've got oil filtration problems. You should really stop using those Fram oil filters.
Anyway, by clogged I mean those who failed the "blow" test. Most "bad" dribblers that I have tested were clogged in this fashion.
Wrong. There's the potential for damage, but you're not taking into account of the apex seal angle in relation to the rotor housing. You conclusion is based wrongly on your theories below.
Simple experiement - get a spray bottle and fill it with water. Spray the air and wave your hand through the "cloud". Think your hand stays dry?
You're probably going blue in the face trying to get people to listen. The reason most people don't listen is because you're wrong. I've seen carbon build-up on an engine which only had 10k miles on it - carbon build-up was significant. I've seen that same engine 10k miles later running on pre-mix. The internals was so clean, the owner though something was wrong. I can already hear the rebuttle about not enough mileage, etc. I state my experience which I have seen with my own eyes, and it's good enough for me. I claim your statement false due to my experiences. I put the burden of proof on you to prove otherwise.
Excuses, excuse...
When did this turn into a reference to piston engines? I thought it was pre-mix in a rotary engine?
Don't you just love the wrong conslusions...
Wow, and the proof is...?
Wow, and the proof for these statements is...?
Yeah, I guess carbon deposits in the apex seal groove is good for the engine then...
That makes it the 5th time you've been wrong on this particular subject.
Wow, I guess you've got more education, knowledge, and experience that all of Mazda R&D combined. You used to be an ex Mazda R&D engineer?
But I believe a "Mazda premix" method would be to build a nozzle into each intake port. Oil is injected into the middle of the nozzle. One end faces into the engine, the other end connects to an air source upstream of the throttle body. The engine's vacuum would pull the oil into the intake stream. Sort of like a carb venturi, but not quite. Of course, we can assume that Mazda already considered this if they wanted to run "factory premix".
Mixed feelings? Try more like an adamant refusal to listen to such counter arguments. I don't even understand why you stick your nose into such discussions. You offer no new evidence of your claims, and you just end up regurigating all crap from other sources. Why don't you leave this stuff to the people who can think for themselves.
No, it's more like NA owners are cheap.
One final thought I'd like to leave before I stop this waste of my time debate...
One final thought I'd like to leave before I stop this waste of my time debate...
The R26B on the famed LeMans winning Renown racer featured pre-mix fuel with no oil injection. The failed 4-rotor AutoExe racer in the 2002 LeMan was running pre-mix with no oil injection. Ask yourself why these vehicles running in one of the most famous endurance races on this earth do not inject 4-stroke engine oil into the combustion chambers...
Let me say one final thing before I abandon this topic due to hostility:
We all know that the premix debate is older then time. It's all opinion, and I know that it comes up from time to time on every RX-7 list, forum, etc. around. It will never be settled until there is undisputable proof presented. I've only been paying attention to this for 4 years, and in that time I have not seen a single shred of scientific evidence (vendor propaganda does not count).
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It happens. But no one is going to lose an engine because I'm wrong (unless their MOP is already broken).
07-15-03, 08:26 PM
#132
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
I didn't read your post. I only read Ted's, and just happened to see the other one in the middle...Though as I mentioned, I am pretty much done with this thread. I have literally said all I can say on the subject.
07-20-03, 11:16 PM
#134
In Full Autist Cosplay
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*bump*
OK, I had a thought.
Perhaps mazda's reasoning behind the MOP is to protect the engine from not getting enough lubrication during a coast while in gear with no foot on the throttle?
I'm aware there's alot of reasons they didn't chose premix, but would this be on their list?
Obviously the linkage (I'm familiar with S4 MOP) is connected to the throttle, and when you dont have a foot on the throttle, wether it be idle or 4k rpm, it's always injecting lubricant, right?
As with premix, it cuts the fuel entirely when your foot is of the throttle until your rpms drop to idle (at which the idle air supply and fuel begin to be injected), no?
Thoughts anyone? Just making a bump and tossing some more ideas out there..
OK, I had a thought.
Perhaps mazda's reasoning behind the MOP is to protect the engine from not getting enough lubrication during a coast while in gear with no foot on the throttle?
I'm aware there's alot of reasons they didn't chose premix, but would this be on their list?
Obviously the linkage (I'm familiar with S4 MOP) is connected to the throttle, and when you dont have a foot on the throttle, wether it be idle or 4k rpm, it's always injecting lubricant, right?
As with premix, it cuts the fuel entirely when your foot is of the throttle until your rpms drop to idle (at which the idle air supply and fuel begin to be injected), no?
Thoughts anyone? Just making a bump and tossing some more ideas out there..
07-22-03, 09:45 AM
#135
Black13B- Well based on what I have read two stroke oil does leave a lubricating film after combustion so that is what would protect the friction surfaces during decel. from high RPMs. I have let off from 7k more than once in the past days. I would wager to say that if two stroke didn't lubricate after combustion my engine would be scrap metal.
07-22-03, 09:52 AM
#136
In Full Autist Cosplay
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True.
Well I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to switch to premix.
Had an interesting day at the drag races speaking with the CEO and Team for Atchinson Racing (Atchinson = Local high performance piston engine team. Everybody in SW Ontario Knows the guys. I believe Rob Atchinson actually holds a world record for drag racing too? Gotta go get the stats..)
Regardless of being not too rotary enlightened, they knew alot about premixing. Especially the mathematical genius of the bunch..
Interesting discussions were had. I'm pretty sure I'm going to be premixing soon enough..
Well I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to switch to premix.
Had an interesting day at the drag races speaking with the CEO and Team for Atchinson Racing (Atchinson = Local high performance piston engine team. Everybody in SW Ontario Knows the guys. I believe Rob Atchinson actually holds a world record for drag racing too? Gotta go get the stats..)
Regardless of being not too rotary enlightened, they knew alot about premixing. Especially the mathematical genius of the bunch..
Interesting discussions were had. I'm pretty sure I'm going to be premixing soon enough..
08-09-03, 01:54 AM
#138
http://www.sunoco.be/uk/ProductInfo/2cycleTcw3.html
Some info on TCW-3 oil from Sunoco
http://www.ms.rodngun.com/forum/topi...=1530&ARCHIVE=
A thread on a boating forum about the equality of TCW-3 Cerified oils dispelling some myths about some brands being cheap or bad.
Although some out perform others but aslong as they are TCW-3 it should be good enough.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a nice little article from a two stroke boat guy talking about TCW oils and other things.
TCW will:
readily mix with and disperse in gas
stay suspended for as long as necessary
be able to fully atomize (through a carb or injector)
readily fall out of the gas when it contacts bearings, cylinder walls, etc.
be of the right viscosity to coat all of the bearings, etc. (flow) yet not be thrown off of the metal
be able to withstand combustion temperature and pressure (to provide wall / ring lubrication)
burn completely under combustion
protect against internal rusting
There are probably other properties the oil must have in order to work. It is plain to see that outboard oil has to do a lot. If it fails to any degree in just one of these areas the end result could be minor engine damage or a power head that is history.
All outboard oil is rated TCW. In 1988 a rating of TCW-II was introduced. This was an effort to identify which oils were doing the job and eliminate the ones that weren't. It was an effort to keep engines from blowing apart before their time. A few years later in April, 1992 a rating of TCW-3 was adopted as the standard. That action eliminated a bunch of the TCW-II oils, their formulas just couldn't make the new level. It also introduced a higher amount of detergent additives in the oil.
Over the past several years gasoline formulas have undergone a lot of change. This was due to the need for a reduction in pollution. Unfortunately one of the side effects of this change is an increase in combustion deposits in outboard engines. The new gas formulas just didn't take into account the needs of two stroke engines. Part of the reason for the TCW-3 standard was to combat this problem.
What to get
When you buy oil for your boat get TCW-3. Be sure to leave the bottles and oil tanks capped. Some of the additives can evaporate if their containers are left open. I haven't seen any TCW-II for some time but I have caught wind of some still out there. It isn't recommended for larger engines - I wouldn't use it in anything over 40 horse power. If you do use TCW-II you'll need to add a detergent to your gas (such as OMC Carbon Guard or Quick Silver QuicKleen). You will also need to use an engine cleaner every 50 hours (Engine Tuner, Power Tune, etc).
When you mix oil with the gas be sure to follow the manufactures recommendation as to gas / oil ratio. If the engine calls for a 50 to 1 ratio (2% oil) and the oil bottle says 100 to 1, mix it at 50 to 1. It is the need of the engine that dictates the amount of oil. Even if the bottle says 100 to 1, the oil is not twice as good. Best as I can figure (don't really know for sure) this labeling is a left over from several years ago when engine manufactures did call for 100 to 1 on some of their engines.
What brand to get
Oh, this opens a can of worms. I have seen some heated debates over what brand of oil to use, most of the reasoning boiling down to cost.
After all is said and done, the choice is yours.
A while back I started a search for hard information on oil formulas and how they affected outboard operation. I didn't get very far. As best as I can figure the information is kept guarded. I did manage to hear of an individual who conducted an informal test of several TCW-3 oils. He sent to me a report of his findings and I have included the report on this site.
When I first started in this business I was fortunate enough to work on the Gulf Coast in a mostly commercial fishing area. I say fortunate because the hard use the motors were put to accelerated wear and failure. I didn't realize it at the time but it gave me a great education on some things that worked and some things that didn't.
Our shop did a lot of power head rebuilds. During the summer we averaged two a week. I got to see a lot of problems from oil failure. One of the things we did was look in the guy's boat to see what brand of oil he was using (asking, most times, resulted in a vague answer!). Most of the engines with oil failure were run on off brand oils. Engines did fail on the brand names but they appeared to be the exception. This was not a "scientific study", no records were kept. I do feel the facts were quite clear though. The three best brands of oil I noted were Johnson/Evinrude, Quick Silver and Exxon. Since that time I've moved on to recreational boats and the oil has moved on to TCW-3. I no longer see as many failures due to the oil itself, probably because of both changes. Engine manufactures have reported that TCW-3 has helped in this area and I feel they are right.
They also report that all TCW-3 oils are not the same, some being better than others. A few years ago I heard a buzz of setting another new oil standard (TCW-4?) to eliminate even more of the lower quality oils.
TCW-3 is a minimum standard that must be met in order to label an oil as such. I'm sure that some of the oils just make the grade and others beat it hands down. The questions that need a truthful answer seem to be what minimum standards are needed to keep an engine from coming apart and what specifications do various oils possess.
The first question I'm not sure how to answer. I somewhat doubt an engineer can give an answer that will hold for any length of time. Gas formulas keep changing and motors keep getting bigger. I can say that a TCW-3 rating is not the full answer to engine survival. Carboning and ring sticking is still too much of a problem.
The second question is one I'll keep asking. If I manage to come across any answers I'll pass them along.
What I recommend and why
From what I've seen I personally recommend that you use oil from a major manufacturer. Preferably from an outboard manufacturer. In the past I have seen too many failures in connection with the off brand oils. There may not be as many failures today as there once were but I'm not confident that off brand oils are not heading your engine in that direction. Maybe it didn't blow up today but you are probably a little closer than you need to be. Outboard manufactures on the other hand, I feel, have a better product. They have more at stake.
One of the arguments I've heard many times is that manufactures are trying to get rich by selling you their oil. Not really the case. They are going to get rich by selling you a $12,000.00 motor, not by selling you a $10 bottle of oil. If they sell you a second, third and forth motor as time goes on they are going to get richer. If their motor gives you good performance and a long life, they feel you are more likely to buy that next motor from them. They are trying to make money, that is the name of the game in this world. The oil they provide is designed to make that motor last. It has been formulated, tested and analyzed with that end in mind. I feel that is your best bet for engine life and savings in maintenance bills.
More to come.
Santiago
Some info on TCW-3 oil from Sunoco
http://www.ms.rodngun.com/forum/topi...=1530&ARCHIVE=
A thread on a boating forum about the equality of TCW-3 Cerified oils dispelling some myths about some brands being cheap or bad.
Although some out perform others but aslong as they are TCW-3 it should be good enough.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a nice little article from a two stroke boat guy talking about TCW oils and other things.
TCW will:
readily mix with and disperse in gas
stay suspended for as long as necessary
be able to fully atomize (through a carb or injector)
readily fall out of the gas when it contacts bearings, cylinder walls, etc.
be of the right viscosity to coat all of the bearings, etc. (flow) yet not be thrown off of the metal
be able to withstand combustion temperature and pressure (to provide wall / ring lubrication)
burn completely under combustion
protect against internal rusting
There are probably other properties the oil must have in order to work. It is plain to see that outboard oil has to do a lot. If it fails to any degree in just one of these areas the end result could be minor engine damage or a power head that is history.
All outboard oil is rated TCW. In 1988 a rating of TCW-II was introduced. This was an effort to identify which oils were doing the job and eliminate the ones that weren't. It was an effort to keep engines from blowing apart before their time. A few years later in April, 1992 a rating of TCW-3 was adopted as the standard. That action eliminated a bunch of the TCW-II oils, their formulas just couldn't make the new level. It also introduced a higher amount of detergent additives in the oil.
Over the past several years gasoline formulas have undergone a lot of change. This was due to the need for a reduction in pollution. Unfortunately one of the side effects of this change is an increase in combustion deposits in outboard engines. The new gas formulas just didn't take into account the needs of two stroke engines. Part of the reason for the TCW-3 standard was to combat this problem.
What to get
When you buy oil for your boat get TCW-3. Be sure to leave the bottles and oil tanks capped. Some of the additives can evaporate if their containers are left open. I haven't seen any TCW-II for some time but I have caught wind of some still out there. It isn't recommended for larger engines - I wouldn't use it in anything over 40 horse power. If you do use TCW-II you'll need to add a detergent to your gas (such as OMC Carbon Guard or Quick Silver QuicKleen). You will also need to use an engine cleaner every 50 hours (Engine Tuner, Power Tune, etc).
When you mix oil with the gas be sure to follow the manufactures recommendation as to gas / oil ratio. If the engine calls for a 50 to 1 ratio (2% oil) and the oil bottle says 100 to 1, mix it at 50 to 1. It is the need of the engine that dictates the amount of oil. Even if the bottle says 100 to 1, the oil is not twice as good. Best as I can figure (don't really know for sure) this labeling is a left over from several years ago when engine manufactures did call for 100 to 1 on some of their engines.
What brand to get
Oh, this opens a can of worms. I have seen some heated debates over what brand of oil to use, most of the reasoning boiling down to cost.
After all is said and done, the choice is yours.
A while back I started a search for hard information on oil formulas and how they affected outboard operation. I didn't get very far. As best as I can figure the information is kept guarded. I did manage to hear of an individual who conducted an informal test of several TCW-3 oils. He sent to me a report of his findings and I have included the report on this site.
When I first started in this business I was fortunate enough to work on the Gulf Coast in a mostly commercial fishing area. I say fortunate because the hard use the motors were put to accelerated wear and failure. I didn't realize it at the time but it gave me a great education on some things that worked and some things that didn't.
Our shop did a lot of power head rebuilds. During the summer we averaged two a week. I got to see a lot of problems from oil failure. One of the things we did was look in the guy's boat to see what brand of oil he was using (asking, most times, resulted in a vague answer!). Most of the engines with oil failure were run on off brand oils. Engines did fail on the brand names but they appeared to be the exception. This was not a "scientific study", no records were kept. I do feel the facts were quite clear though. The three best brands of oil I noted were Johnson/Evinrude, Quick Silver and Exxon. Since that time I've moved on to recreational boats and the oil has moved on to TCW-3. I no longer see as many failures due to the oil itself, probably because of both changes. Engine manufactures have reported that TCW-3 has helped in this area and I feel they are right.
They also report that all TCW-3 oils are not the same, some being better than others. A few years ago I heard a buzz of setting another new oil standard (TCW-4?) to eliminate even more of the lower quality oils.
TCW-3 is a minimum standard that must be met in order to label an oil as such. I'm sure that some of the oils just make the grade and others beat it hands down. The questions that need a truthful answer seem to be what minimum standards are needed to keep an engine from coming apart and what specifications do various oils possess.
The first question I'm not sure how to answer. I somewhat doubt an engineer can give an answer that will hold for any length of time. Gas formulas keep changing and motors keep getting bigger. I can say that a TCW-3 rating is not the full answer to engine survival. Carboning and ring sticking is still too much of a problem.
The second question is one I'll keep asking. If I manage to come across any answers I'll pass them along.
What I recommend and why
From what I've seen I personally recommend that you use oil from a major manufacturer. Preferably from an outboard manufacturer. In the past I have seen too many failures in connection with the off brand oils. There may not be as many failures today as there once were but I'm not confident that off brand oils are not heading your engine in that direction. Maybe it didn't blow up today but you are probably a little closer than you need to be. Outboard manufactures on the other hand, I feel, have a better product. They have more at stake.
One of the arguments I've heard many times is that manufactures are trying to get rich by selling you their oil. Not really the case. They are going to get rich by selling you a $12,000.00 motor, not by selling you a $10 bottle of oil. If they sell you a second, third and forth motor as time goes on they are going to get richer. If their motor gives you good performance and a long life, they feel you are more likely to buy that next motor from them. They are trying to make money, that is the name of the game in this world. The oil they provide is designed to make that motor last. It has been formulated, tested and analyzed with that end in mind. I feel that is your best bet for engine life and savings in maintenance bills.
More to come.
Santiago
08-09-03, 01:59 AM
#140
Here is another little peice on boat engines that got tested with TCW-3.
I decided to include this because they talk about Amsoil, Redline synthetic 2 stroke, and Royal Purple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCW-3 OIL TEST
A short while back I came across a post on one of the local boating boards concerning a field test of TCW-3 oil I thought it good that someone acutally had the oportunity and know-how to conduct such a testing. I was more impressed that they were willing to share their findings.
I contacted the person who did the testing, Doug Ridgway, and asked if he would allow me to use a copy of that post on this site. Instead he offered to send to me a write up that expanded on his findings. Doug, I sincerely appreciate all your efforts to uncover and share this information. And I'm sure that hundreds of others will feel the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug wrote:
This last Spring I conducted an informal test on TCW III oils. This was brought about by the need to find a better oil than the contract oil we have been using. Two of our boat motors, one an OMC 32 cubic inch 70 hp and the other a OMC 115 hp cross flow, had repeated engine failures due to carbon build-up. Both of these engines had been treated with Engine Tuner at regular intervals.
We tested 5 brands of TCW III oils, OMC's, Merc's Premium Plus, Amsoil, Redline Watercraft, and Royal Purple. The lasts three are synthetics. All of the manufacturers basically told me the same thing, with their oil you probably didn't need to use Engine Tuner. So, for the test, I told our operators not to treat the engines with tuner. I did periodically check the engine's condition, making sure that there wasn't any damage being done.
The engines I used were all OMCs. They included:
ENGINE OIL TESTED ENGINE HOURS TEST HOURS
225 HP Ocean Pro Amsoil 735 700
200 HP Johnson OMC 1240 254
150 HP Ocean Pro Royal Purple / Redline 843 357
150 HP Ocean Pro Premium Plus 278 278
70 HP Evinrude OMC 341 341
115 HP Cross Flow Premium Plus 1498 478
All of these engines were used on research boats. With the exception of the 200 hp, they all spent the majority of their time working at low rpms pulling nets or other gear. The Royal Purple was used on one of the 150 HP. It was dropped from the test after 50 hours. It smoked badly, fouled plugs, and generally made the crews nauseous. It was replaced by the Redline Watercraft oil. The change was dramatic, the smoke was reduced to almost nothing, the plugs were lasting 200+ hours, and the crews were happy.
The Premium Plus cleaned up the Cross Flow in a dramatic manner. The engine went from huge carbon deposits in the exhaust system, to almost nothing. The other 150 hp has lived its whole life on Premium Plus, with no carbon build-up.
The OMC oil worked equally as well cleaning up the 200 hp Johnson. The 70 hp shows no sign of any carbon build-up.
The 225 hp has the most test hours on it. It has run on Amsoil for the vast majority of it's life. The Amsoil has worked very well. We were getting between 200 & 250 hours on a set of spark plugs.
I pulled the heads on all of the engines for a visual inspection. I was checking for carbon build-up in the exhaust ports and for cylinder wall scoring. I also did a compression & leak down test to check for wear. None of the engines showed any excessive wear or buildup.
To say that one oil worked better than another is probably splitting hairs. The Amsoil and Redline oils do smoke less and plugs last a little longer. But, with all things considered, I can not honestly say that one oil worked that much better than another. They all worked much better than the contract oil we had been using. With all else being somewhat equal, I decided to go with price. The OEM oils are the cheapest with Amsoil next and Redline being the most expensive.
If we were running performance engines or operating in extreme temperatures, then the synthetics would probably be worth the extra money. They tend to be better oils. But, for that vast majority of boaters, they are probably over kill.
While my test showed me that engine tuner is not critical for engine cleanliness, it is cheap insurance. It should probably be used every 50 - 100 hours or at least once a year.
Doug Ridgway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to include this because they talk about Amsoil, Redline synthetic 2 stroke, and Royal Purple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCW-3 OIL TEST
A short while back I came across a post on one of the local boating boards concerning a field test of TCW-3 oil I thought it good that someone acutally had the oportunity and know-how to conduct such a testing. I was more impressed that they were willing to share their findings.
I contacted the person who did the testing, Doug Ridgway, and asked if he would allow me to use a copy of that post on this site. Instead he offered to send to me a write up that expanded on his findings. Doug, I sincerely appreciate all your efforts to uncover and share this information. And I'm sure that hundreds of others will feel the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug wrote:
This last Spring I conducted an informal test on TCW III oils. This was brought about by the need to find a better oil than the contract oil we have been using. Two of our boat motors, one an OMC 32 cubic inch 70 hp and the other a OMC 115 hp cross flow, had repeated engine failures due to carbon build-up. Both of these engines had been treated with Engine Tuner at regular intervals.
We tested 5 brands of TCW III oils, OMC's, Merc's Premium Plus, Amsoil, Redline Watercraft, and Royal Purple. The lasts three are synthetics. All of the manufacturers basically told me the same thing, with their oil you probably didn't need to use Engine Tuner. So, for the test, I told our operators not to treat the engines with tuner. I did periodically check the engine's condition, making sure that there wasn't any damage being done.
The engines I used were all OMCs. They included:
ENGINE OIL TESTED ENGINE HOURS TEST HOURS
225 HP Ocean Pro Amsoil 735 700
200 HP Johnson OMC 1240 254
150 HP Ocean Pro Royal Purple / Redline 843 357
150 HP Ocean Pro Premium Plus 278 278
70 HP Evinrude OMC 341 341
115 HP Cross Flow Premium Plus 1498 478
All of these engines were used on research boats. With the exception of the 200 hp, they all spent the majority of their time working at low rpms pulling nets or other gear. The Royal Purple was used on one of the 150 HP. It was dropped from the test after 50 hours. It smoked badly, fouled plugs, and generally made the crews nauseous. It was replaced by the Redline Watercraft oil. The change was dramatic, the smoke was reduced to almost nothing, the plugs were lasting 200+ hours, and the crews were happy.
The Premium Plus cleaned up the Cross Flow in a dramatic manner. The engine went from huge carbon deposits in the exhaust system, to almost nothing. The other 150 hp has lived its whole life on Premium Plus, with no carbon build-up.
The OMC oil worked equally as well cleaning up the 200 hp Johnson. The 70 hp shows no sign of any carbon build-up.
The 225 hp has the most test hours on it. It has run on Amsoil for the vast majority of it's life. The Amsoil has worked very well. We were getting between 200 & 250 hours on a set of spark plugs.
I pulled the heads on all of the engines for a visual inspection. I was checking for carbon build-up in the exhaust ports and for cylinder wall scoring. I also did a compression & leak down test to check for wear. None of the engines showed any excessive wear or buildup.
To say that one oil worked better than another is probably splitting hairs. The Amsoil and Redline oils do smoke less and plugs last a little longer. But, with all things considered, I can not honestly say that one oil worked that much better than another. They all worked much better than the contract oil we had been using. With all else being somewhat equal, I decided to go with price. The OEM oils are the cheapest with Amsoil next and Redline being the most expensive.
If we were running performance engines or operating in extreme temperatures, then the synthetics would probably be worth the extra money. They tend to be better oils. But, for that vast majority of boaters, they are probably over kill.
While my test showed me that engine tuner is not critical for engine cleanliness, it is cheap insurance. It should probably be used every 50 - 100 hours or at least once a year.
Doug Ridgway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
08-09-03, 02:18 AM
#141
http://www.nmma.org/certification/programs/oils/
: TC-W3 OIL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the two cycle marine engines, fuel is mixed with oil which then lubricates the engine parts as it passes through the engine during the combustion cycle. This is in contrast to four cycle engines which have oil sumps and pumps for lubricating the engines, and the fuel is not pre mixed.
The long term objectives of the two cycle engine industry have been to reduce emissions which contain burnt and unburned oil that has passed through the engine, and to develop a quality of oil that reduces the mixture ratio to fuel while extending the life of the engine. That means significantly reduced emissions to satisfy EPA requirements, less warranty problems, and increased customer satisfaction due to engines lasting longer with less maintenance and overhauls.
TC-W3 lubricant, an NMMA owned trademark, has evolved over the years through much testing and research, and has proven to be the level of quality to satisfy the above objectives. And, going a step further, now that two cycle engines have moved towards higher cylinder temperatures and compressions to meet the EPA emissions reductions.
TC-W3 has demonstrated the necessary lubrication performance quality needed for these more demanding cylinder/engine conditions.
NMMA licenses those two cycle lubricants that meet the stringent performance tests conducted by any one of the three sanctioned laboratories approved by NMMA to conduct the tests.
The tests include varied bench tests for fluidity, lubricity, viscosity, etc., plus the oil must meet minimum ring sticking and carbon build up on pistons in engine tests. The engine tests include one OMC 40 hp, one OMC 70 hp, and two consecutive Mercury 15 hp tests. The tests are run for 100 hours each and the engines are stopped every ten hours for inspection. The chemical make up of the TC-W3 oils vary due to the various additive packages involved with each oil brand. Accordingly, it's a performance based qualifications program. The process is very involved and expensive, but worth the outcome for consumers and manufacturers.
TC-W3 oils are licensed around the world and are recommended for use by two cycle engine manufacturers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Text above is from the NMMA the authority on TCW-3 Certification.
Below are links to oils that are certified by them as TCW-3
http://www.nmma.org/certification/pr...oil.asp?y=2003
and another list of non-registered oils.
http://www.nmma.org/certification/pr...oil.asp?y=0000
Santiago
EDIT: when you go to buy your pre-mix oil look for this logo and the big TCW-3 on the bottle.
: TC-W3 OIL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the two cycle marine engines, fuel is mixed with oil which then lubricates the engine parts as it passes through the engine during the combustion cycle. This is in contrast to four cycle engines which have oil sumps and pumps for lubricating the engines, and the fuel is not pre mixed.
The long term objectives of the two cycle engine industry have been to reduce emissions which contain burnt and unburned oil that has passed through the engine, and to develop a quality of oil that reduces the mixture ratio to fuel while extending the life of the engine. That means significantly reduced emissions to satisfy EPA requirements, less warranty problems, and increased customer satisfaction due to engines lasting longer with less maintenance and overhauls.
TC-W3 lubricant, an NMMA owned trademark, has evolved over the years through much testing and research, and has proven to be the level of quality to satisfy the above objectives. And, going a step further, now that two cycle engines have moved towards higher cylinder temperatures and compressions to meet the EPA emissions reductions.
TC-W3 has demonstrated the necessary lubrication performance quality needed for these more demanding cylinder/engine conditions.
NMMA licenses those two cycle lubricants that meet the stringent performance tests conducted by any one of the three sanctioned laboratories approved by NMMA to conduct the tests.
The tests include varied bench tests for fluidity, lubricity, viscosity, etc., plus the oil must meet minimum ring sticking and carbon build up on pistons in engine tests. The engine tests include one OMC 40 hp, one OMC 70 hp, and two consecutive Mercury 15 hp tests. The tests are run for 100 hours each and the engines are stopped every ten hours for inspection. The chemical make up of the TC-W3 oils vary due to the various additive packages involved with each oil brand. Accordingly, it's a performance based qualifications program. The process is very involved and expensive, but worth the outcome for consumers and manufacturers.
TC-W3 oils are licensed around the world and are recommended for use by two cycle engine manufacturers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Text above is from the NMMA the authority on TCW-3 Certification.
Below are links to oils that are certified by them as TCW-3
http://www.nmma.org/certification/pr...oil.asp?y=2003
and another list of non-registered oils.
http://www.nmma.org/certification/pr...oil.asp?y=0000
Santiago
EDIT: when you go to buy your pre-mix oil look for this logo and the big TCW-3 on the bottle.
11-06-03, 05:34 PM
#143
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: directly above the center of the earth
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as I see it the main objection to using 2stroke oil is that since it is made to burn more completely that it fails to lubricate the 'combustion chamber' as well as the 'thicker' motor oil.
as in the 2S oil burns away, while motor oil leaves a residual film to lubricate.
back to looking at two stroke engines - 2Ss do not use oil scraper rings, the rings are pretty much compression rings ONLY.
the top ring rides on a cylinder surface that is exposed to combustion and is lubricated ONLY by the fuel air oil mix that gets burned. this ring is generally exposed to direct contact with combustion flame.
this ring is adequately lubricated by the 2S oil.
so, it seems obvious that 2S oil DOES provide lubrication even when exposed to combustion chamber conditions.
second - I keep seeing reference to a "drop of oil" being pumped onto the tip seal.
no way is that happening, the MOP pumps a VERY little volume of oil, what, 2 drops in 6 minutes at 4000rpm ?
{probably not exactly that but on the VERY close order}
so each rotor tip will go past the oil 'drop' a couple thousand times in the time that it takes the pump to form that 'drop'.
I feel that the 'drop' visualisation is wildly inaccurate and misleading.
I think the main difference in 2S oil is that it is designed to be used in a total loss system, it is used once and disposed of immediatly, so it has no need for any capability to deal with accumulated crud as motor oil must as it is recirculated over and over.
the 2S oil is also designed to be disposed of by burning, the motor oil is not.
I LOVE the idea of modding my OMP to feed off a 2S oil tank, but the $100 for the {very cool} adaptor is excessive considering my budget.
I saw once where someone modded their pump itself but there were no details on the mod, drat.
as in the 2S oil burns away, while motor oil leaves a residual film to lubricate.
back to looking at two stroke engines - 2Ss do not use oil scraper rings, the rings are pretty much compression rings ONLY.
the top ring rides on a cylinder surface that is exposed to combustion and is lubricated ONLY by the fuel air oil mix that gets burned. this ring is generally exposed to direct contact with combustion flame.
this ring is adequately lubricated by the 2S oil.
so, it seems obvious that 2S oil DOES provide lubrication even when exposed to combustion chamber conditions.
second - I keep seeing reference to a "drop of oil" being pumped onto the tip seal.
no way is that happening, the MOP pumps a VERY little volume of oil, what, 2 drops in 6 minutes at 4000rpm ?
{probably not exactly that but on the VERY close order}
so each rotor tip will go past the oil 'drop' a couple thousand times in the time that it takes the pump to form that 'drop'.
I feel that the 'drop' visualisation is wildly inaccurate and misleading.
I think the main difference in 2S oil is that it is designed to be used in a total loss system, it is used once and disposed of immediatly, so it has no need for any capability to deal with accumulated crud as motor oil must as it is recirculated over and over.
the 2S oil is also designed to be disposed of by burning, the motor oil is not.
I LOVE the idea of modding my OMP to feed off a 2S oil tank, but the $100 for the {very cool} adaptor is excessive considering my budget.
I saw once where someone modded their pump itself but there were no details on the mod, drat.
11-20-03, 10:57 PM
#144
Pre-mix v. MOP
Ok I Was doing my tune up on my car and I did the plugs and wires right now. The engine oil and differential lub/additive are getting done tommorow in the morning. But I wanted to step up and show a little comparison from pre-mix and MOP system. This is a picture of two leading plugs off of my car. The one on the left is using pre-mix for ~ 12k miles and the one on the right is MOP for ~10k miles.
I run 128:1 or higher ratio of pre-mix which means 1 OZ of two stroke per gallon of fuel. The MOP system uses less than that but look at what 4 stroke oil leaves behind. eww
Santiago
The engine oil and differential lub/additive are getting done tommorow in the morning. But I wanted to step up and show a little comparison from pre-mix and MOP system. This is a picture of two leading plugs off of my car. The one on the left is using pre-mix for ~ 12k miles and the one on the right is MOP for ~10k miles. I run 128:1 or higher ratio of pre-mix which means 1 OZ of two stroke per gallon of fuel. The MOP system uses less than that but look at what 4 stroke oil leaves behind. eww
Santiago
11-21-03, 12:58 AM
#146
Not a problem in the least.
If you copy and paste the link for the pic you can see the LARGER version that has more detail that will make you want to throw your MOP in the garbage.
Anyways I have school tommorow I will check on the thread then. Laters!
Santiago
EDIT! go here for the larger pic>>> http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4288532795
If you copy and paste the link for the pic you can see the LARGER version that has more detail that will make you want to throw your MOP in the garbage.
Anyways I have school tommorow I will check on the thread then. Laters!
Santiago
EDIT! go here for the larger pic>>> http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4288532795
11-21-03, 02:30 PM
#148
Well I wouldn't know about that but I thought the frequency of spark plug changes was the same(roughly) as piston powered cars. But I was extremly surprised to see this much build up on the old MOP plugs. I guess I got accustomed to seeing pre-mixed plugs.
Santiago
Santiago
11-21-03, 03:41 PM
#149
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
I really don't want to get into this again, but I have to mention this: the plugs in Tina's engine were always that clean. Of course, my engine was always in proper tune...
11-21-03, 06:20 PM
#150
Those are the plugs the car came with. They had just been changed ~200 miles before hand. I ran them for ~10k miles and then got a new set. Some time after buying the new plugs I messed up my MOP lines and switched to Pre-mix. Those plugs are the ones that I am showing here. The first set which is the crudy one and the second set which was just taken out the cleaner one. I changed the oil every 3k miles but recently switched to 2k miles for a change of motor oil. But that was only the last change and the next one will be tommorow. anyways I should talk to MAX and ask him for one of his plugs. His GXL still runs the MOP but he is going to suppliment with pre-mix at a reduced ratio.
Santiago
PS- I forgot to mention I had a bad coil for ~ 1-3k miles on the car so that means that this could be cleaner.
anyways I should talk to MAX and ask him for one of his plugs. His GXL still runs the MOP but he is going to suppliment with pre-mix at a reduced ratio. Santiago
PS- I forgot to mention I had a bad coil for ~ 1-3k miles on the car so that means that this could be cleaner.
11-21-03, 07:28 PM
#151
In Full Autist Cosplay
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 things I wanted to touch base on. Two different types of Castrol 2 stoke offered:
People generally swear by 2-stroke Outboard Motor Oil by Castrol.
Castrol also offers 2-stroke Snowmobile Motor Oil. Made for higher revving engines. I know that's a generalization, but would the works of a rotary produce the same effects of a Snowmobile or an Outboard boat motor?
IMO, it's better suited using the Snowmobile premix, but..
What do you guys think?
People generally swear by 2-stroke Outboard Motor Oil by Castrol.
Castrol also offers 2-stroke Snowmobile Motor Oil. Made for higher revving engines. I know that's a generalization, but would the works of a rotary produce the same effects of a Snowmobile or an Outboard boat motor?
IMO, it's better suited using the Snowmobile premix, but..
What do you guys think?
11-22-03, 07:13 AM
#152
Refined Valley Dude
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally posted by Black13B
2 things I wanted to touch base on. Two different types of Castrol 2 stoke offered:
People generally swear by 2-stroke Outboard Motor Oil by Castrol.
Castrol also offers 2-stroke Snowmobile Motor Oil. Made for higher revving engines. I know that's a generalization, but would the works of a rotary produce the same effects of a Snowmobile or an Outboard boat motor?
IMO, it's better suited using the Snowmobile premix, but..
What do you guys think?
2 things I wanted to touch base on. Two different types of Castrol 2 stoke offered:
People generally swear by 2-stroke Outboard Motor Oil by Castrol.
Castrol also offers 2-stroke Snowmobile Motor Oil. Made for higher revving engines. I know that's a generalization, but would the works of a rotary produce the same effects of a Snowmobile or an Outboard boat motor?
IMO, it's better suited using the Snowmobile premix, but..
What do you guys think?
And you got this info where?
I've been using the Castrol Super Outboard Motor Oil for a year. Last week I went to buy another 4 liter jug of it, but there were none on the shelf. The Castrol Super Snowmobile Oil was there, instead. I looked over the jug, and bought it.
Nowhere on the packaging, nor at the website, is there any remark about this oil being for "higher revving engines."
This stuff looks the same, pours the same and smells the same as the Super Outboard goop. The only substantial difference that I can see is the writing on the jug promises that the oil will "readily flow at temperatures to minus 40."
Where did you get "higher revving" from?
11-22-03, 09:38 AM
#153
Using a metering pump adapter may be an option for some. See link:
http://www.needfulthings.net/cgi-bin...ST;f=45;t=1213
http://www.needfulthings.net/cgi-bin...ST;f=45;t=1213
11-22-03, 09:52 AM
#154
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
But has outboard or snowmobile 2 stroke been tested for emissions???
Since both boats and snowmobiles have only the most rudimentary (if at all) emissions systems.
Since both boats and snowmobiles have only the most rudimentary (if at all) emissions systems.
11-22-03, 11:20 AM
#155
Well I have never thought of researching on that. But given that it burns cleaner and more completly than 4 stroke I could only think that is it better for emmissions. But that wouldn't be fact only my feeling about it.
Santiago
Santiago
11-22-03, 12:12 PM
#156
Originally posted by 1987RX7guy
Well I wouldn't know about that but I thought the frequency of spark plug changes was the same(roughly) as piston powered cars. But I was extremly surprised to see this much build up on the old MOP plugs. I guess I got accustomed to seeing pre-mixed plugs.
Santiago
Well I wouldn't know about that but I thought the frequency of spark plug changes was the same(roughly) as piston powered cars. But I was extremly surprised to see this much build up on the old MOP plugs. I guess I got accustomed to seeing pre-mixed plugs.
Santiago
11-22-03, 02:29 PM
#157
In Full Autist Cosplay
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Amur_
Where did you get "higher revving" from?
Where did you get "higher revving" from?
And as for the comment on how it looks and smells the same, the same method of comparison would render 5w30 and 15w40 the same, no?
You are and have used both, and I guess it doesn't make any type of difference? Otherwise you would have mentioned.
Too bad you don't still have outboard left over.. Possibly try a plug comparison or something between both types.. Even then that wouldn't be a very good means of comparison..
Meh. I'm sure it's essentially the same stuff.
Perhaps I should ask the difference between the two on a snowmobile forum or boat forum..
01-13-04, 06:41 AM
#159
Lives on the Forum
How could I have missed this one???
You sound like the type that would argue to the ends of the earth to discredit ANY proof. You sound like you want some multi million dollar testing just to prove or disprove your point of view. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have the time nor the money to comply with your satisfaction at this point in my life.
No, I think it has more to do with the fact that you don't want to give me the benefit of the doubt on this point (or any other point for that matter).
This sure sounds like a long-shot argument...
I agree, but I attribute this to:
1) Harder side iron surfaces
2) Thinner side seal surface
3) Harder side seal material
4) Softer side seal spring rate
5) Less heat from combustion
Please read how a 2stroke engine works and why it requires this special oil. If the 2stroke motor didn't need special lubrication requirements, why aren't we throwing in regular 4stroke stuff?
Sure, eliminate my theory and look for an alternate...
We've run the ratios down to about 50:1 and still no significant smoking out the exhaust is apparant. To be mixing richer ratios is either due to ignorance or stupidity.
Since when "performance" = "more power"?
You'd make a good lawyer/politician.
KDR.
That's exactly what Mazda thought.
Mazda got it right with the Kouki FD3S (99+) with just one oil injector per rotor.
Mazda has also said *on the record* that the stock OMP system was design for less hassles for the consumer versus pre-mixing, although they were aware of the superiority of pre-mixing.
If you want to run around with more carbon, be my guest. I prefer less carbon inside my engine myself.
See above.
See above - the problem with the Zenki FD3S is the bad design of the oil injectors. Engine running under (heavy) vacuum pulled oil out of the oil injector under (heavy) decel. Mazda fixed this problem by making the orifice diameter smaller and with a special rubber "plug".
It depends on your definition of "cleaner".
Go look up the definition of "blow by".
Yep, see above.
Oh gawd...
See above
I've done this several times, but you're not accepting it that way.
See above
"Stubborn" is RIGHT.
Several well-known vendors (i.e. Pettit) offer pre-mix for rotary owners. I guess they are "wrong" also.
-Ted
Originally posted by Aaron Cake
I have not read your findings, but unless they are based on controlled testing, they are not very helpful when comparing premix vs. the stock system. This is the basic flaw in all "premix rules" arguments. No one has done any scientific testing to prove that it is any better then the stock system. That's my entire point.
I have not read your findings, but unless they are based on controlled testing, they are not very helpful when comparing premix vs. the stock system. This is the basic flaw in all "premix rules" arguments. No one has done any scientific testing to prove that it is any better then the stock system. That's my entire point.
1. Does this idea logically and scientifically make sense? This is most important.
2. Is the source an authority?
3. How much experience does the source have in said topic?
4. Does it fit into my own observations?
2. Is the source an authority?
3. How much experience does the source have in said topic?
4. Does it fit into my own observations?
Is this not due to the combustion process in a rotary? The piston engine has a relativly even combustion chamber which has gone through years and years of development to produce optimal burn. The long combustion chamber of a rotary has none of these advantages. And let's not forget about how rich the stock EFI system runs the engine, especially during warmup. Pull the plugs on less sophisticated piston engine (ie. lawnmower) and you will see the same carbon deposit.
But is it not true that most engines show relativly little side seal wear when torn apart? I can certainly speak from experience that in Tina's 250,000 KM engine, the side seals were easily within spec (don't remember the actual numbers as I don't plan on reusing the seals).
1) Harder side iron surfaces
2) Thinner side seal surface
3) Harder side seal material
4) Softer side seal spring rate
5) Less heat from combustion
True, but I'm not sure how blow-by will effect things. Doesn't it remain that two stroke oil is designed to lubricate bearings and cylinders, not combustion surfaces? Of course, this is standard 2-stroke oil, not necessarily any of the "special" oils people use in a rotary.
All the plugs I have seen have been pretty bad, but that could easily be because there is too much premix being used.
It seems that you have agreed with my statement that too much premix causes smoke, etc. So I'm not sure if there's anything to prove.
Premix is going to make me more power? That's one I've never heard before. My entire point of all my premix posts is that it has not been proven that premix is neither better nor worse then the stock metering oil system. There's just no real scientific data. Lots of opinions of course (we all know how long the premix debate has been going on), but no hard facts.
My entire point of all my premix posts is that it has not been proven that premix is neither better nor worse then the stock metering oil system. There's just no real scientific data. Lots of opinions of course (we all know how long the premix debate has been going on), but no hard facts.
Well, when I have an extra three million dollars, I will be happy to make a scientific study of it. Until then, all we can do is offer opinions. No where have I tried to offer "proof" to anything. I have simply presented things that support my opinion.
I firmly believe that it is very easy to have a bad reputation when dealing with FDs. I have heard horror stories of all the major vendors, but since I only deal with buying parts from them, I cannot speak from personal experience. However, of all the vendors that I have personally spoken with, Atkins seems most informed. I can't see any financial gains for Atkins if they don't like premix.
As far as the KISS concept, would running premix not be simpler then running the stock MOP system?
OK...and this has what to do with premix? Obviously, cutting the number of oil injectors and further leaning out the oil mixture is going to result in less lubrication.
Obviously, cutting the number of oil injectors and further leaning out the oil mixture is going to result in less lubrication.
Because you're the ones pushing premix. Mazda has already proved the stock MOP system for 30 years (well, really 23 years in it's "modern" form). If I have an abundance of money and time, I will happily perform this test.
Mazda has already proved the stock MOP system for 30 years (well, really 23 years in it's "modern" form). If I have an abundance of money and time, I will happily perform this test.
So carbon ruins the housings, not necessarily the seals (unless a big chunk falls off, of course). See, I can nit pick too.
Mazda abandoned premix.
But you just said that these engines suffer from inadequate lubrication. And what does the 13B-REW engine have to do with the 2nd gen? And for that matter, we all know how reliable the FD is? And since when does power output come into this? You "damned" me for bringing in "extra" facts.
But does higher octane fuel actually burn cleaner in an engine not specifically designed for it? I don't believe so.
So the oil is atomized. So what? If the apex seal is designed to seal atomized fuel, then it will also seal atomized oil.
Because I don't have the time nor the money nor the desire. In fact, it seems that none of the vendors do...oh wait, one of them did...I believe it was Mazda. I'm not saying that Mazda is always correct, but they are the only ones who have done actual, real scientific durability testing on the rotary in long-term.
Yes, yes I am. I believe that it leaves a better film then 2 stroke.
Prove to me, without a doubt and with scientific evidence that my conclusions are wrong.
Prove I'm wrong. And it can't be the 5th time...it's just one wrong thing reiterated several times.
But I believe a "Mazda premix" method would be to build a nozzle into each intake port. Oil is injected into the middle of the nozzle. One end faces into the engine, the other end connects to an air source upstream of the throttle body. The engine's vacuum would pull the oil into the intake stream. Sort of like a carb venturi, but not quite. Of course, we can assume that Mazda already considered this if they wanted to run "factory premix".
I am one of the most stubborn holders-onto they know.
Several well-known vendors (i.e. Pettit) offer pre-mix for rotary owners. I guess they are "wrong" also.
-Ted
01-13-04, 11:11 PM
#160
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, one of the main arguements pointed out is that if "premixing" is superior to oil injection, why didn't mazda do it this way in the renesis? Honestly, do you know how many lazy people are out there that forget to check their oil when they fill up. Imagine the chaos mazda would have to encounter if they had premixing as a 'convenience' to their customers. The agruement that mazda choses to stay with oil injection because it's superior can't be based on actual facts. The reason being is simple marketing strategy of selling comfort and luxary. Do you honestly think mazda sales of 8's and past 7's would have stayed as efficient as it was if they told their consumers that they 'need to premix' every fill up? That's just my .02 cents. Seems like simple understanding fact on that point. On the other points Ted has pointed out, he has alot of facts that make alot of sense, especially if a vendor like Pettit would offer premix for rotary owners. Would they really offer something like that so it can ruin their name?
-Chris
-Chris