Jump to content

New 912 spark plugs and caps


Recommended Posts

The new plugs from Rotax are Bosch plugs. The new caps are still NGK just a different model and still the same 5K resistance. Rotax went to Bosch and had their brand put on them because NGK didn't want the liability any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was just what Bosch and Rotax agreeded upon and that plug I guess fit their needs or specs. The Bosch plugs are locally available without Rotax printed on them. Rotax puts their name on them to remove liability from Bosch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

Is it legal to use the old NGK plugs with the new style boot?

I can't speak to "legal", but Rotax SI-912-027 says you can not use new plugs and old boots.  Further, if you change even one set of plugs (and of course the connector) on an engine, you must change all.  Quoted items below are from the SI.

"NOTE It is not mandatory to retrofit engines which are currently equipped with old spark plug types and old spark plug connector types. (my emphasis)

NOTE: In case of interchange/repair/maintenance it is not allowed to exchange individual parts. Mixing of spark plug types and spark plug connector types is not allowed. All spark plugs and spark plug connectors must be of the same part number for the entire engine."

"New spark plug connectors: Spark plug connectors now have a 90o angle, which have a slight influence on the outline of the engine shape and simplifies the measuring of pull-off force. See section 3.2.2."

The connector shape seems to be to be essentially BS.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jim, 

That what it used to say, but a RW, a top Rotax expert and leading authority on Rotax Owner says they can. New boots can be interchanged, but plugs can't. Old style boots can be used with new plugs. That was one of the first SB's on the subject. They seemed to have changed their mind. I was told in the beginning that boots weren't interchangeable, but they seem to be now. This was just addressed a few days ago on Rotax Owner forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rotax has no written corrections at this time just like they are  late in many correctional publications. It's verbal in classes and from top Rotax personnel right now. I just know a number of top Rotax experts. Rotax experts answer these questions on Rotax Owner many times. I've been fortunate  to get info ahead of time from some of these people before it's  in writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

1.  What is the name of the instructor in the class who gave you the updated information that is not in the Rotax manual?  When was this class and where?

2.  What is the name of the top Rotax person who gave you the updated information that is not in the Rotax manual?

3.  Please cite the Rotax-Owner discussion about this topic.  I just spent about 30 minutes on Rotax-Owner and couldn't find it.  I did find a number of rambling discussions on this topic that were not definitive.  I want to look up the discussion you are referencing so I can understand it.

I have taken a number of Rotax classes over the years and as I've said on this forum before, I have not heard even ONE thing said by an instructor that was not directly from a Rotax publication.  Among my instructors have been Ronny Smith and Brett Lawton and Brian Carpenter (back when Rainbow was allowed to give the Operators training) just off the top of my head.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Roger was pretty clear his information is pre-publication and not yet widely distributed.  Knowing Rotax they may never state compatibility between new and old style plugs/boots in writing.  Why would you ask Roger to throw his sources under the bus by "outing" them, and thus ensuring we'd never see any advance info like this again?

It sounds like you're trying to play a gotcha game here.  If you don't believe this information you can certainly disregard it or do your own research to refute it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the old Rotax Wizard, now so familiar as to be addressed as "RW."

FWIW, and it isn't worth much, I will never do anything to my engine that is not in a Rotax manual and that I know about solely because someone (not employed by Rotax) said it was OK on the internet (including Rotax Flier).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FredG said:

Ah yes, the old Rotax Wizard, now so familiar as to be addressed as "RW."

FWIW, and it isn't worth much, I will never do anything to my engine that is not in a Rotax manual and that I know about solely because someone (not employed by Rotax) said it was OK on the internet (including Rotax Flier).

But you'd like to have the information even if you don't make use of it, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Roger never addressed my observation on what is legal.  My reading of what he wrote is that he never suggested one should do what he said.  He implied that doing other than the book is OK, but he never wrote that.  People with SLSA would then ignore what he said and people with ELSA or those who operate by non-published standards may take Roger's comments under advisement in any way they wish to accept responsibility for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, can you think of one reason why Rotax, which at least by rumor is notoriously shy of US liablity laws, would ever put themselves at jeopardy by developing an unofficial network of mechanics who "know" certain practices could or should be changed before it is published?  It makes no sense to me.  And if they did develop such a network, would they give any credence to one of the super mechanics talking about it on the internet?  I don't expect so.

I'm not interested in any gotchas, I'm interested in substantive information that we can rely on and when unpublished information is promulgated it seems to me to be incumbent on the proponent to back up the information with documentation that can be cited.  Otherwise, it's just hangar talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jim Meade said:

Andy, can you think of one reason why Rotax, which at least by rumor is notoriously shy of US liablity laws, would ever put themselves at jeopardy by developing an unofficial network of mechanics who "know" certain practices could or should be changed before it is published?  It makes no sense to me.  And if they did develop such a network, would they give any credence to one of the super mechanics talking about it on the internet?  I don't expect so.

I'm not interested in any gotchas, I'm interested in substantive information that we can rely on and when unpublished information is promulgated it seems to me to be incumbent on the proponent to back up the information with documentation that can be cited.  Otherwise, it's just hangar talk.

I hear you.  I don't get Roger's statements as suggesting there's an "unofficial network of mechanics" operating with Rotax implied blessing.  It sounds more like Roger has had off the cuff discussions in which information comes out that is not official in any way.  I can easily see sitting around drinking coffee and talking about the plugs and boots and somebody intimately familiar with the engineering saying something like:

"You know, Rotax initially said these two systems are completely different, but the specs on the new wires and boots are in spec for the old plugs, so Rotax tested and it does work.  Whether Rotax will ever say that officially is anybody's guess."

That's just shop talk and happens all the time.  Look in the tech sector at all the rumors and leaks denied by various companies that turn out to be 100% accurate.  I guess my question for you would be something like:  Do you think Roger is being lied to, or that Roger is lying about these conversations?  Because if you don't believe the information, you have to think one or both of those things must be true.

I guess I look at it a little differently than you.  I'd like to hear all the opinions and information that's out there.  If something is counter to the official information, we should be able to do our own research to verify if it's accurate or not and then discard or accept it as appropriate.  I don't want to be "protected" from rumors or non-authoritative information...there are way too many examples in various domains where such information turns out to be useful.  Subject to verification of course, as I mentioned.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...