Again - what the heck does Amsoil's recommendations for two stroke engines that have to do with rotary engines?

Nah, let's not look at some obscure cut-and-paste, let's look at what it says right on the flippin bottle of Idemitsu rotary lube: 1/2 oz per gallon!

Round and round we go. Engine longevity is impossible to prove, but the 1/2 oz per gallon ratio has been proven by empircal data as being very robust.

 

I mentioned Rich's comments as further evidence that these unnecessarily fat pre-mix ratios to lube tiny seals only contribute to loss of power. Fact. You chose to extrapolate that off on another tangent.

Pre-mix with the OMP is completely unncessary. Fact.

 

Obsure cut and paste... LOL!

That's the patent Idemitsu filed under "Lubricating oil composition for 2 cycle or rotary engine ".

Also, that's the way they tested their product and for Evaluation.. Not much straight forward than that..

Again, you make me laugh.. You are the one who stated that there are case study after case study. And when a company such as Idemitsu is directly comparing rotary to be 2 cycle, I think what Amsoil (a leading lubrication company) state seems to be bit more par with than your 1:256 ratio.... Unless you consider your pre-mix only for 5 year is something we should listen to by heart and we should all do this... Which I call it lack of study and lack of proof.

 

my old turbo II had 120K miles on stock engine and omp,when i took the engine apart due to an engine fire the rotors looked in good shape. Well not as good as the the rotors pictured by howard but all they needed was a good wipe down. The point is that the omp has been proven to work for long periods of time with out it being the main culprit of seal failure.
you can`t say that premixing from the OMP is unncessary.

I never premixed any of my rx7s until now and 1/2 oz for every 1 gallon )for lubrication) and stock omp (for Longevity) seems the perfect combination for me

 

It means that a ratio less than 100:1 doesn't lubricate ****, sherlock.

 

huh? is this the twilight zone? a rotary engine has essentially nothing in common with a two stroke engine, especially from a lubrication standpoint

 

lol.....sure thing, genius, the oil just vanishes into thin air!

 

Good question, as you I don't think you understand what 'science' is nor what is really going on here.. Lets look at what you said earlier:

Twilight zone, you say?? As ALL your statement so far are nothing but random speculation.

But of course you say,

So, where are these case studies after case studies? As you mention to Barban, I must be blind too. But of course when I actually provide you with some real documentation, you all the sudden becomes that blind person. Twilight Zone you say??


Bold statement there.. Nothing in common... from a lubrication standpoint?? I highly suggest you go learn bit about both engines. Because statement like this just makes you look... how can I say.. I think you said it best, "deaf and blind".

 

Couldn't be bothered to go through the whole lot.

When the Mazda guys were running them here as race cars in endurance events, metering oil pump was kept operational and premix added at a ratio of 300:1...techs from Japan involved, so you'd think there was some basis to it.....shot in the dark, probably mid 300s hp wise, add a few tens more for north of the equator.

 

in no_more_rice's defense. A 2-stroke engine and the rotary engine don't really have a whole lot in common when it comes to lubricating with a 2-stroke oil.

Rotary engine would use 2-stroke lubricant for the seals only. (benefits such as injector conditioning, carbon minimization, etc... are secondary "benefits") We're talking in the 100s:1 ballpark. Everything else is crankcase oil lubricated.

Traditionally, 2-strokes use oil to lubricate everything (pistons, crankshaft, etc..) Because of this the ratios are much higher due to the increased demands of the lubrication needs. 20-50:1

Some advanced 2-strokes today use premix and a separate reservoir. Still, however, everything is being lubricated by the 2-stroke oil. Just different delivery method.

In my book the two are only related to one another in that they would both use 2-stroke oil. The purpose is still to lubricate, I understand that, but the demands of the lubrication are greatly different. No one is even attempting to justify putting 2-stroke oil in to lubricate an eccentric shaft in a 8000rpm sports car.

 

Technically it's atomized with the fuel and then burnt off during the combustion cycle. You wear that hat well.

That's why it's important that the fuel which does land on the housings and side plates contains a sufficient amount of 2-cycle oil to lubricate something.

So, lets recap.

1) Most of the premix wont lubricate anything because it's atomized and burned with the fuel(just like it's designed to)

2) The lubricative properties of the small amount of fuel that actually makes it to the friction surface will depend on the amount of 2-cycle oil mixed in your fuel tank(not the size of the parts being lubricated)

3) A pre-mix oiling system wont deliver any lubrication when the fuel injectors arent firing(any time your decelerating). So, it's doubly important that the mixture be sufficiently rich in 2-stroke oil to promote residual lubrication.

4) Amsoil says a ratio less than 100:1 will not effectively lubricate anything.

5) 2-cycle companies recommend ratio's as high as 20:1 for 2-strokes. Generally companies recommend 40:1(we dont need that much because were not lubricating the e-shaft and rotors). But, that does show how high the ratio can be.

From just those last two statements(direct from the oil companies) we need a ratio richer than 100:1 and leaner than 40:1.

Rice,
I agree with you that there is a major difference in that we dont have to lubricate any "bottom end" components. But, the situations are very much alike. Same delivery system, same purpose, same problems.

If 2-strokes dont experience wet fouling or high-rpm ignition breakup at 40:1 it shouldnt be a problem at 100:1 for a rotary.

At 100:1 you're loosing 1% of your octane rating.
If you're worried about running 92 octane instead of 93, your tune sucks. Or, maybe you could get your car tuned while you're pre-mixing.

If your ignition is breaking up then you need to upgrade you ignition system. It's a notorious problem at higher levels of boost anyways.

 

How is that a fact exactly Mark? This thread is spiraling out of control, lol.

I can only speak to my own experience...... the duty cycle on my OMP has been jacked up (increased) by a past tuner, *and* I was using approx 1 oz per gallon. I'm talking 16-18 oz's for a fillup.

My ignition system works very well-- almost new coils, new NGK power cables, NGK 10.5 heat range race plugs. I didn't have breakup..... the damn car stopped accelerating, hard. As in, felt like I slammed on the brakes hard.

It was definitely the premix. Switched to a lower ratio and the car was happy. No other changes.

Personally, I like the stock oil metering system supplemented with a bit of premix. Tore down my old motor not long ago and there was minimal carbon.... very clean. This was no doubt due to the Aquamist/windshield wiper fluid injection coupled with a prolific right foot

 

Ive been reading this thread over and again as this subject has been something I have been going over in my head for my own 3 rotor build. Can we at least come to an agreement to as whether or not the MOP is necessary/helpful at all if one is going to premix? Anyone who has ever torn down an engine can see that only the center of the apex is getting lubed from the MOP. Now I myself have owned a Turbo2 with ~160k on the factory engine and MOP, non premix. Yes it ran, yes it ran well, so I do still have some faith in that system, but as we also know crankcase oil wasnt designed to burn and does/will lead to carbon buildup. Is there any proof that removing it and running a decent premix ratio has any negative effects? Im thinking the answer will be no.

 

I am no expert on this field but i my self have been reading,searching and getting very confused about what to do......For some reason I feel very conferable keeping the Stock OMP intact and running 1/2oz premix in tank. I would like to have premix feed my stock OMP but the R.A adapter i have wont fit. ether way the better combo i think will works fine is stock OMP,1/2 premix,water injection. This is just my speculation as i have not ran this on my rotary as of yet.

 

Tangent? I think not.

Let's state a few facts.

1. Your experience with pre-mixing a rotary starts and stops with you pouring oil into the gas tank. Attempting to portray yourself as some sort of pre-mixing expert in this thread got old a long time ago.

2. You have no idea what the current state of your engine internals are. You have never seen them, you did not even build the engine yourself, so you really do not have a clue as to how clean/dirty the rotors were when they went into the engine.

3. Your 5 years of "experience" means nothing. You can pre-mix for 25years, it is not the elapsed time, it is how often and how hard the car is driven.

4. Rich is running his OMP and pre-mixing 1/2 oz/ga, the same ratio that you are stating should be run without the OMP.

Now on to more recent findings:

Here are the rotors from an FD engine that I disassembled on Friday. It has about 10K miles on it since it was rebuilt by a west coast builder in 2002. Car has a GT35R and Haltech. It has been premixed from Day 1. Owner has been using 1/2 oz/ga Idemitsu. Car was tuned rich, by a well know traveling tuner. Main failure chipped Apex seal.

Same amount of Carbon build up as higher mileage, less modified engines with the OMP intact. As you can see the carbon build up is far beyond the level of being able to "just wipe off" and reuse.

 

If the car was tuned rich (or lugged), that's not a good example.

Again, Idemitsu are the guys who sell a rotary lube pre-mix and have been for many years. Why would they want to underestimate the volume of lube required, when they could sell more product (and decrease the risk of bad marketing) - can someone answer that one? One of their representatives specifically told me he knows of roadracers running 400:1 for years, with no issues.

http://www.idemitsu-usa.com/page_210.htm

That recommendation is with or without the OMP btw (although I still have no idea why you would bother with the OMP if you're going to pre-mix).

 

You know definitively that the representative was referring to turbo charged rotary FD road racers? You are absolutely positive and you have proof that they were not talking about Spec 7 class carb'ed N/A 12a motors?

How can a company make a blanket statement that all rotary engine require the same mix ratio? This is irresponsible.

Mazda designed the S4 N/A and Turbo pumps to flow at different rates:
Turbo 5.2-6.6cc (x2) in 5 min @ 2000 rpm
N/A 4.2- 5.6cc (x2) in 5 min @2000 rpm

This in itself dictates a 20% higher flow for turbocharged vehicles.

Page 2-7 (8 in the PDF) http://www.teamfc3s.org/main/factory...ION_SYSTEM.pdf

 

Based on how clean the rotors are from having water/meth injection, is alt injection also stripping away the oil were adding for proper lubrication?

 

I use and will continue to use what my builder (Dave at KDR) and tuner recommends. He is also one of the few Mazda Certified Master Rotary Technicians that is still around and running his own shop so I think his experience speaks for something.

You may now resume the fighting and name calling...

 

So are you going to tell us what he recommends or do we have to beat it out of you???

 

I didn't read every post, so I don't know if this has already been discussed. Amsoil recommends leaner ratio's due to the fact it is a 30wt oil, vs typical 2 stoke oil being 5wt. Starting out with a thicker oil allows for leaner ratio while still maintaining lubrication. With that being said I inject Amsoil through the mop and premix 1oz pr gallon. Without premix I warped two set of Mazda 3mm seals, with premix 450+ hp and happy seals.

 

54k just tore it down, car was 100% stock. just a little bit of carbon not really much. wipes right off.

 

What the *&#?!! Are you serious?? So, are you now saying premix doesn't do **** unless its tuned perfectly?? Or if the car was lugged around?? So what would you say to Howard's initial post? Would you now say comparing stock ECU ran vs. Howard's tuned car can't be compared?

Ahh.. Did you ask them if Idemitsu reps read the patent for their own pre-mix lube?? I'm sorry to say this but I've met TONS of reps in my work who had NO IDEA what they are talking about. Usually, I have to talk to someone high up in order to get a straight answer... Just because you talked to some rep means nothing... because they themselves could be miss leading people, like you are on this thread. Also, did you read the link and the pdf file they linked? Just in case, here it is:





If you read it, no where they suggest removing the OMP and just run 1/2 oz per gallon.

I totally agree!! No company would be making such statement. And no where I read where JUST pre-mix was used... it actually says, "additional protection".... LOL! And we all know why company will say such thing as "additional protection"... Hell, I could say "additional protection" for pretty much anything

 

*shakes head* Where does this kind of random stuff come from? It certainly has nothing to do with the facts. Modern two stroke synthetics can be mixed leaner because they lubricate better, pure and simple. With that said, I still pre-mix at 40:1 in my big bore GP1500R waverunner.

Anyhow, again, Amsoil's recommendations for two cycle engines have exactly nothing to do with apex seal lubrication in a rotary, so trying to extrapolate ratios between the two is plainly moronic! The relative surface areas aren't even close between a two stroke crankshaft/pistons and the tiny seals in a rotary!

way, way, way too much oil....no doubt you're losing power on top end...I also run 3 mm seals and I've been doing it for five years and 30k miles - I follow Idemitsu's recommendation, which trumps anyone else's opinion

 

Mega rich tuning and/or lugging can also contribute to deposits.

Of course they aren't going to tell you to remove the OMP because they don't want the liability. The same ratio is recommended regardless.