As my RX-8 approaches the end of its engine warranty, I'm working on a plan to use oil analysis in an ongoing, long-term way. Would love some feedback on how best to do this.
I shouldn't need to worry about the condition of the oil because OCIs will be short (3k-4k).
Wear would be good to know about for obvious reasons.
But the best thing to know about would be anything related to combustion quality -- fuel dilution, byproducts, etc. Those might point to problems with fueling, ignition, etc., most of which is much easier to fix than mechanical wear from any other source. Also, because the RX-8 consumes oil by design, it'll be important to gather any available evidence of how it's burning.
Unfortunately, nothing short of a $150 UOA provides good info on all of the above. That’s more than I’d like to spend on a whole year’s worth of oil analysis. So, it might be best to focus on a few things and use that info to make inferences about the rest.
As far as I can tell, assuming a yearly budget of $100 or so, there are three options:
A. A bare-bones UOA package at every OCI. All I'd look for would be elemental analysis and flash point. If I could skip other tests (FTIR, TBN/TAN, etc.) to save money, I would.
B. A slightly more comprehensive test package at every other or every third OCI. This might include viscosity (to back up flash point as an indication of fuel dilution), direct-read ferrography or particle quantifier, some FTIR tests to look at combustion byproducts and such, etc.
C. A Dyson Tuner analysis 1-2 times per year. Terry Dyson is tight-lipped about what this test contains, but it’s supposed to focus on “combustion dynamic and efficiency”.
Option A would yield the best trending. Flash point, maybe combined with viscosity, would allow me to infer fuel dilution; that could provide at least some insight into how the engine is running.
Option B gives more information but worse trending (fewer samples and more time/miles between them).
Option C promises to provide the most actionable info, as described above. It’d also give me access to Terry Dyson’s expertise.
I've also considered a different barebones UOA package, with just FTIR stuff and maybe GC. Doesn't seem like a good option though, just because I wouldn't know what to make of the results.
Thoughts? Anything else I should consider?
I shouldn't need to worry about the condition of the oil because OCIs will be short (3k-4k).
Wear would be good to know about for obvious reasons.
But the best thing to know about would be anything related to combustion quality -- fuel dilution, byproducts, etc. Those might point to problems with fueling, ignition, etc., most of which is much easier to fix than mechanical wear from any other source. Also, because the RX-8 consumes oil by design, it'll be important to gather any available evidence of how it's burning.
Unfortunately, nothing short of a $150 UOA provides good info on all of the above. That’s more than I’d like to spend on a whole year’s worth of oil analysis. So, it might be best to focus on a few things and use that info to make inferences about the rest.
As far as I can tell, assuming a yearly budget of $100 or so, there are three options:
A. A bare-bones UOA package at every OCI. All I'd look for would be elemental analysis and flash point. If I could skip other tests (FTIR, TBN/TAN, etc.) to save money, I would.
B. A slightly more comprehensive test package at every other or every third OCI. This might include viscosity (to back up flash point as an indication of fuel dilution), direct-read ferrography or particle quantifier, some FTIR tests to look at combustion byproducts and such, etc.
C. A Dyson Tuner analysis 1-2 times per year. Terry Dyson is tight-lipped about what this test contains, but it’s supposed to focus on “combustion dynamic and efficiency”.
Option A would yield the best trending. Flash point, maybe combined with viscosity, would allow me to infer fuel dilution; that could provide at least some insight into how the engine is running.
Option B gives more information but worse trending (fewer samples and more time/miles between them).
Option C promises to provide the most actionable info, as described above. It’d also give me access to Terry Dyson’s expertise.
I've also considered a different barebones UOA package, with just FTIR stuff and maybe GC. Doesn't seem like a good option though, just because I wouldn't know what to make of the results.
Thoughts? Anything else I should consider?