man my brain hurts from all this info... the arguments will continue but hopefully it will be archived someday...
|
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 :D |
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....
|
:bowdown: Reted
If you keep using the stock oil "injection" your engine's internal components will look like this: http://home.att.net/~jeff.g.quinn/badrotor.jpg http://home.att.net/~jeff.g.quinn/goodhousing.jpg 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! |
So I took some time and replied...
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? 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. 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? 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. 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... 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). |
you seem to have a lot of time on your hands.
I guess you had no negative views on my post. Thats a good thing I guess |
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.
|
I see that
|
*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.. |
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.
|
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.. |
Bizzump to the hizzump (lame, I know)
Anymore opinions? :D |
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. :D Santiago |
You just don't give up, do you? Care to find me some info on running chicken diesel as premix? :)
|
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ :) |
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. http://www.nmma.org/certification/lo...ges/nmmac3.jpg |
Good stuff. I do look at your posts once in a great while 87.
|
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. |
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.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/...9/fa82012f.jpg 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 |
wow! Thanks for taking the time to show us these pics!
|
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 |
Woah, you weren't kidding! Maybe the mop is the reason rotaries have to change their plugs more often than pist-on motors.
|
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 |
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...
|
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. :D |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands