you need to know about REFORMULATED OIL!!!!
 

the June issue of Hot Rod magazine (p 125) contains an article entitled: "When Good Cams Go Bad." while the report discusses an alarming 3 year trend in camshaft/lifter failures the significance of the primary culprit probably should be considered by all rotary owners. Anti wear is at least as important if not more so for the rotary.

a major engine builder is quoted as seeing more camshaft/lifter failures in the last 3 years than the prior 30.

while a number of reasons are considered one of the key conclusions is the recently reformulated standards for motor oil.

unfortunately i wasn't able to copy the article but here's an executive summary:

approx 4 years ago the auto manufactures, oil companies and the government (always bad to get them together) met to discuss an issue the regulators had re the effects of the PRIMARY ANTI-WEAR ADDITIVES in oil and their effects on catalytic convertor life.

the additives are primarily zinc and phosphorus (referred to as ZDDP) they act as sacrificial items and take the mechanical wear in lieu of the engines components.

due to the fact that todays motors use roller rockers the industry didn't need as much wear protection as in the past and capitulated.

the article features a table showing % of the 2 elements going from .13% in 1996 to .087 in 05 (Zinc) and .12 (Phosphorus) to .08 in 05.

rotary engines NEED these additives. the law going forward removes more ZDDP until there is almost no remaining ZDDP.

Racing Oil does not fall under the restrictions.

Quaker State Q Racing, for example, contains .2 of Z and .18 of P. Over the road trucks are exempt until 07. you can buy Shell Rotella T at Walmart (Truck oil) and it contains .14 and .13. Pennzoil Racing oil is .196 and .18.

i have used Mobil One since 1983 and will be checking w them tuesday to find out what the specs are.

you can tell which oils have reduced wear additives.... a Gold Starburst label and designation ILSAC GF-4. it is safe to conclude all non racing ex-trucks oils now fall into the no no category.

rotary owner had best steer clear of street legal oils.

another option is to add GM Camshaft and Lifter Prelube PN12345501 4 ounces about $6 at the time of your oil change.

i pass this info on, knowing it's importance to the rotary community and of course looking for additional input.

there is perhaps no subject w more written about it than oil. i hope that there will be no posts on this thread about loving some type of oil. let's focus on ZDDP and add additional info here as rotaries need all the antiwear they can get .

going forward i will make my choice of oils based on ZDDP content.

howard coleman

Where/how do you find out your oils ZDDP level? like you use Mobil 1, I have been using Red line but where do I find Red lines levels.....

i was sponsored by Mobil One and have some contacts. i will be calling them.

howard coleman

Give them a call

Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation
6100 Egret Court
Benicia, CA 94510
PHONE: (707) 745-6100 or (800) 624-7958
FAX: (707) 745-3214

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

we need most of our anti wear oils in the combustion chamber, correct? So If it really becomes a problem I forsee those adapter plates that let you inject 2 stroke oil into the combustion chamber becoming much more popular.

I run Idetitsu in my FD, which is a synthetic specifically formulated for the 787B and the rotary engine. I only drive my FD on weekends, so the higher price isn't really an issue for me.

Thanks for the heads up Howard!

Yeah, let us know what you find out about Mobil 1. I still prefer dino juice for my rotary, but I run Mobil 1 Extended Performance in my Jag V8 and I love it. It takes an already smooth engine and makes it super-smooth and rev happy. The claim is this oil can go as long as 15,000 miles without a change, and you would think that would be at odds with reduced anti-wear protection, but who knows what the reality is?

Interesting info. Nobody considers the rotaries when making decisions like this :(

Just to clarify here (not sure if you're quoting the Hot Rod article, I haven't seen it yet), the reason for the ILSAC GF-4 standard was NOT that the "industry didn't need as much wear protection as in the past and capitulated", it's that the DOT is now requiring new autos to have catalytic converter warranties extend to 100,000 miles, and phosphorous had been found to be one of the main reasons for long-term catalyzer failure. Also contributing to the GF-4 standard (which is basically now part of the API SM standard) are the increasingly stricter minimum MPG requirements being mandated by the DOT, which is forcing the adoption of increasingly lighter weight viscosity oils in order to reduce low-rpm drag as much as possible. Which is why many manufacturers are using roller cam followers-- reducing mechanical frictional losses.

Calling them "anti-wear" is a slight misnomer; all oils are basically "anti-wear". A more accurate description is "extreme pressure" additive. Meaning where there is enough metal-to-metal pressure in a small enough gap that a sufficient oil film cannot be built up for protection, these additives are the last line of defense to prevent wear.

ZDDP is not the only anti-wear additive in many motor oils; there are some that include various molybdenum derivatives. However, moly is obviously a costly additive, so it's not nearly as commonly used as ZDDP.

That Gold Starburst label is the API label, of which the ILSAC standard is a part.

Actually, I'm not so sure you'll get the full benefits of just pouring the prelube into your engine case. Prelube is usually a high concentration of moly, and the polymers used to keep it thick enough to coat the cam/lifter components can prevent it from dispersing completely enough into your engine oil to get the benefits on other engine parts.

I've always recommended against using the latest off-the-shelf oils because of the increasingly thinner/MPG-oriented API specs and standards.

The anti-wear additives aren't really meant for the combustion chamber (as in piston ring/cylinder wall, or in rotaries, the apex seal/rotor housing walls), although that's not to say they don't help. I think where they'll play a big role in rotaries is the rotor gears/e-shaft area.

Unfortunately, that's because the rotary is basically an anomaly among auto powerplants. The numbers aren't big enough for the oil companies (API) to make any compensation for.

so mr. kk, what do you run in your FD?

idemitsu supposedly has more molybendium than most other oils from this post from someone

"There is nothing special about Idemitsu. I've seen an oil test on it that shows what it is made of. The only thing it has on an oil like Royal Purple is that it contains unusually high levels of molybdenum. That is a lubricant but it also has a tendency to settle out and gum up in low spots. I'm not going to use it in a street car but if you guys are naive enough to actually believe that it is somehow formulated for a rotary while others aren't, more power to you. Ignornace is bliss.

Did it ever occur to anyone that since Idemitsu is a sponsor of Mazda's racing program and that Mazda engineers helped in the development of it that of course they would say it is rotary formulated? There's nothing special about it. It's all the same chemicals as other good oils being applied to a group IV PAO base stock. It's the base stock that makes it a "synthetic". Did you guys ever stop to think that if an independent company had formulated the exact same oil without Mazda there that Mazda probably wouldn't endorse it? They wouldn't! Shell oil pays nearly a quarter of a billion a year to Ferrari. Where do you think their F1 team and Michael Schumacher get all of their money from? Shell Oil! Does this mean that Shell oil that is "specially formulated" for Ferrari is somehow special compared to others? I think not. Idemitsu is basically more expensive Royal Purple or any other good synthetic. There is no advantage to it. It's marketing and you guys believe it. It's not a bad oil by any means. It's good stuff. There is just nothing special about it. "-rotarygod

Motul 3004T, one of the few group V fully ester-based oils.

Sounds expensive...

It is. But the advantages of an ester-based oil are worth it, in my opinion.

Advantages... such as?

Kento,
Glad to see you post on this thread. Your input on other discussions with regard to "oil technology" have been a wealth of information. Its obvious that you are quite knowlegeable on this subject.

I would like to learn more about this subject of automotive lubricants. Where do you source your data? Are you in the industry?

thanks,
chuck

He's the editor of Sport Rider magazine.

so why do rotary engines need ZDDP so much?

where do we get this and how much is it?

The ester molecules are polar, meaning they actually attract to metals. This means they are able to "stick" to the metal and prevent cold-startup wear. Diesters also exhibit excellent lubrication properties (they actually have a lower coefficient of friction than PAOs in many instances), good thermal and shear stability, good viscosity retention, and have exceptional detergent properties.

However, they have their disadvantages as well. Some esters don't react very well with moisture, and some feel that ester-based oils are "old technology" because the first ester-based lubricants were developed during the 50s. Some oil companies-- like Amsoil and Mobil-- feel that PAO synthetics are the best for motor oil applications.

Problem is, there is no "best motor oil" for all applications, and every oil is going to have its advantages and disadvantages. Every oil company and/or chemist is going to have his/her opinion on what the best oil, and I don't claim to know everything there is about motor oil chemistry and application-- far from it. My opinion is just based on years of picking the brains of various oil company chemists/engineers/reps, plus practical experience with various racing motorcycle engines.

I'll stick with good ol Mobil 1 15w-50 for the rotary incinerator

Thanks to Howard for watching out for us and to Kento for adding to the first original discussion about oil here in a long time. Interesting.
I don't go to the Rotary Performance/Tech sections frequently...has there been any reports of unusual E-shaft wear similar to the high lift/duration cam shafts?

For those who are looking into another level of lubrication understanding...let me put my knowledge on the subject to a more practical use.

To formulate the best lubricant, it requires 1) low viscosity for minimum power loss 2)oil additives that reduces CONTACT friction/wear. 3)thermal/shear stability so that the fluid does not change it properties over a wide range of engine conditions. 4) among other things kento mentioned.

Let me explain each one

1) everyone knows cold engine oil rubs power away since the analogies is like swirling cold and warm honey. More viscous, more power needed for the same speed of swirling, hence more power loss. This type of loss usually doesn't concern you or I, it's probably 5% of the 300hp, but it's the goverment who cares. More power wasted means more bad emission. there is little wear (none according to theory) in this type of lubrication.

2) oil additives that can chemically respond (smart material) to high pressure to build up a film of protectant. this way, rubbing surfaces can effectively reduce wear by acting as a sacrificial film. Notice this form of lubrication is for low speed, high pressure contact environment. I'm guessing the cam shaft/gears area. If no additives are added, to get the same protection, it requires a high viscosity. That will result in the drawbacks of what I meantion in 1). But unlike the lubrication regime in 1), here the wear is substanstial and matters for engine longevity.

3) temperature variation causes oxidation of the chemical additives in oil. Oxidation just means any additives will transform/reacts with oxygen to form other compounds. Like raw steel reactiving with oxygen to form other shits.. therefore, the additive are lost due to high temperature - the drawbacks are listed in 2). shear also increases the temperature of a fluid so same thing there.

Kevin

Idemitsu is the only oil specifically formulated for the rotary engine, according to them. They
have gone to the expense of marketing a product specifically to a very miniscule market segment. I'm going to support them for providing this product by using it and their fuel lube too.

a decent thread so far... thanks for the contributions.

i will be calling re Mobil One tomorrow and will post whatever i learn.

GM Camshaft and Lifter Prelube interests me. if it contains ZDDP i will add it to my non reformulated oil.

might someone on the board know who to call to find out chemical content? Part Number 12345501. GM offers an Engine Assembly Lubricant PN 1052367 which is a Moly containing substance. Moly is not mentioned w the Camshaft and Lifter Prelube.

the article states, "If running API SM/GF-4 street oils, consider adding a 4 ounce bottle of GM camshaft and lifter lube at every oil change to protect in-service flat tappets."

does it contain ZDDP????

I suspect that most of us have been using the recently reformulated street oils and given the special needs of the rotary will want to recapture the ZDDP additive complex. recall that in the article a major engine builder states he has seen more friction related failures in the last 3 years than in the prior 30.

do you feel lucky? if not you'd better plan a new lube strategy.

howard coleman

Thank-you very much for your contribution and sharing this with everyone.

Can you confirm Motul type? I can't seem to find 3004T?

Reference site...
http://www.motulcanada.ca/html/produitsE.html

Thanks!
David

I know what you're thinkin' punk,
you're thinkin did he fire 6 shots or only 5?
but bein' this is a 44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world,
and will blow your head CLEAN off,

you gotta ask yourself a question....

^^^ Clint Eastwood???


And could please someone answer my queston?? What's so important about zddp for a rotary?

not entirely sure if this is the same thing but its about the closest i found

http://www.motorspot.com/dir.cfm?sec...1&end=&itemid=

so you guys are talking about using motorcycle spec oil in rotary engines?

forgive my newbness if the knowledge can be applied to both engines =p

ive always used regular mineral 20w50 penzoil in my car and have had nothing bad to say about it...however I've been told that switching to synthetic can cause unwanted removal of deposits that the mineral oil has created...is this true?

I'm always open for suggestions on how to increase the reliability of the rotary engine, and motor oil is probably one of the biggest concerns we have to deal with when considering wear and tear...so more input on this subject would be greatly appreciated about switching from mineral to synthetic or what alternatives i have if i want to stick to mineral but retain the added wear protection of ZDDP that you guys are talking about...or is that only synthetic motor oils?!? O_o

i'm interested in this follow up as well, since I am still using mineral oil in my car too.

Sorry everyone, made a mistake, it is indeed 300V, not 3004T

hehe its 300v4t i think close enuf you get the point i think its a 15w50 motor oil full synthetic but that doesnt help me with my concern still unanswered.

Zinc and phosphorous are needed anywhere there is lubrication without oil pressure, or areas where the pressure can be high enough that if the proper clearances aren't maintained, metal-to-metal contact can occur. Normally viscosity takes care of protecting in this situation by maintaining the oil film, but these extreme pressure additives form a "sacrificial final barrier" in case viscosity isn't enough. Areas where this could be the case are the rotor gears and e-shaft.

Not trying to take this in a different direction but I've read many articles that say that Castrol Syntec BLEND is best for turbocharged engines, but nothing specific to rotaries. How is ZDDP affected in a Blend formula?

Sorry, I can only answer so many questions at a time...

The majority of petroleum oils available are all abiding by the current API standards, so yes, they are also reducing zinc and phosphorous content.

The only detrimental effect from switching from petroleum to synthetic oils is your wallet gets thinner. It's not the synthetic oil that will cause "unwanted removal of deposits"; it's the detergent additive/qualities of the particular oil. Any petroleum oil deposits removed by detergents will eventually be collected by your oil filter; they won't come off in huge chunks and ruin your bearings and oil pressure, if that's what you're thinking.

Although the amount of additives vary from brand to brand, synthetic/petroleum blends-- especially a name brand like Castrol-- still abide by the API standards. If the bottle has the gold starburst with API SL or SM standard, that means they have the reduced levels of ZDDP additive.

I see no reason why Castrol Syntec blend would be "best for turbocharged engines." I would go with a full synthetic if you're going to spend the money.

just for following up:

any engine could use the benefits of an oil additive. Without going into the detail, let me just say that engine and components have different enviroments where it requires lubrication. Different environment inside an engine means the variations is contact clearance, temperature, pressure, relative speed... But for a oil at a certain viscosity value, it can only optimally lubricate in ONE environment. Therefore, these oil additives is merely trying to make the oil lubricates better when its viscosity is not working optimally. Typically under high pressure/temperature/slow moving environment. Your apex seal isn't one of those places I dont think....

Thanks for the quick reply. I see no reason for it to best either. I just left Castrol's website and although they do not say it is "best" for turbocharged engines, it does say, "Exceeds all car and light truck manufacturers' warranty requirements for the protection of gasoline and turbocharged engines where API SM, SL, SJ or SH is required."

I guess some performance tuner mags tooks this as a "best" for turbocharged engines.

Anyway, I'll be doing an oil change tomorrow and had planned on going Mobil 1 but might check into the Motul 300V. Thanks for the input

Interesting thread, interesting article (I gave it a quick scan at the newsrack) but I'm not so sure I'm willing to accept the premise. Has there been a rash of oil related rotary engine failures during the past 3 years? If so, it's news to me.

FD engines have a few other problems ;)

We're talking about zinc and phosphorous, which adhere to metal surfaces and form the "last ditch barrier" when the oil film completely breaks down and metal-to-metal contact occurs...I'd tend to call that worse than "not working optimally."
Like the rotor gears and e-shaft...
Uh...never said it was. Read my fourth reply of this post.

Ok, so the Motul 300V? I understand that it's formulated specifically for race engines and such. So if I use my FD as mostly a short tripper with maybe one long road trip every other month and a few 3rd gear roll-on races here and there, is Motul 300V still a viable option or should I just stick with any base full synthetic such as Mobil 1? I don't do track days and don't plan on the drag strip anytime soon. So, to Motul or not to Motul, that is the question :biggrin:

Theres a checkered flag on the bottle... how can you go wrong?

Kento, I know from my reading (and in no small way from your help in answering my many questions) that Group II and III products are comprised of a cocktail of various size molecules, while the Group IV base stock oils are comprised of molecules that are all exactly the same size (making them highly resistant to breaking or shearing, and thus highly resistant to forming sludge or viscosity changes, and they also hold up better in higher temperatures under all conditions). Few synthetic oils truly qualify as Group IVs (the whole Castrol vs. Mobil debate). But I never heard of Group V oils until now. Is the unique characteristic of Group V oils that they're fully ester-based (in addition to the assumption that all the molecules are exactly the same size)?

Holy smokes. I - along w/ many other forum members - have wondered for YEARS what Kento did, as he's obviously one of *the* most knowledgeable guys on the forum in many areas. No matter how many times he shoots down my posts :p: I'm always interested in what he has to say :) Kento, my hat's off to you.

Yea Kento, I was curious if you were referring to what you use in your motorcycle, or was this your recommendation overall? I have no idea what operating temps or difference in stress/strain a motorcycle engine sees, although I do know many of them rev well up to 14K rpm :bigeyes:

Really? That's news to me. I've been on the forum for hmmm...4 years now, and have yet to hear of a *single* oil-related engine failure ;) Trust me, we have MUCH bigger issues to worry about, namely those parts that the anti-wear additives aren't really meant - esp. the apex seal/rotor housing walls ;)

:rofl: That reminds me of when some guys were trying to get me to use TX-7 engine lubricant in my RX-7. They were like "TX-7 in the RX-7...how can you go wrong?!" haha.

~Ramy

welcome to what, 8 years ago? http://www.primedia.com/divisions/en...ia/sportrider/

Kent can correct me, but I believe he took over for Nick Ienatsch, who I had the pleasure of meeting while riding through the Blue Ridge Parkway

one of my fave articles from Nick http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/7304/thePace.html

again, welcome to 8 years ago ;)

Yes.
I was referring to what I use in my FD.

Below is a link to the scanned images of the article "When Good Cams Go Bad":

http://www.compcams.com/Community/Ar...p?ID=945638917

I tried uploading all of the scanned pages for our archive, but they are too big per my upload file size.

Enjoy,

:-) neil