Okay, what's the truth about engine break-in?

There seem to be two camps. I've seen those that advocate stomping on
the engine to high revs and backing off in the initial break-in
because of some alleged benefit.

Then there's a more traditional school of thought, such as this post:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source

Both claim scientific reasons for their method. It seems the "flog
the engine" guys say to change the oil soon after an initial run
period of say 20 miles to get rid of initial metal particles, the
above quoted appears to say those metal particles are beneficial.

Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs another?

Doc wrote:
> There seem to be two camps. I've seen those that advocate stomping on
> the engine to high revs and backing off in the initial break-in
> because of some alleged benefit.
>
> Then there's a more traditional school of thought, such as this post:
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source
>
> Both claim scientific reasons for their method. It seems the "flog
> the engine" guys say to change the oil soon after an initial run
> period of say 20 miles to get rid of initial metal particles, the
> above quoted appears to say those metal particles are beneficial.
>
> Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs another?
Just drive it as you normally would. Check your owners manual as well.
Change the oil at the manufacturer recommended intervals.

Doc wrote:
> There seem to be two camps. I've seen those that advocate stomping on
> the engine to high revs and backing off in the initial break-in
> because of some alleged benefit.
>
> Then there's a more traditional school of thought, such as this post:
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source
>
> Both claim scientific reasons for their method.

What scientific reasons?

Conjecture is more like it.

There are no studies offered to back up the claims made in the post.

> It seems the "flog
> the engine" guys say to change the oil soon after an initial run
> period of say 20 miles to get rid of initial metal particles, the
> above quoted appears to say those metal particles are beneficial.
>
> Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs another?

Such real-world tests, unless done with the proper controls and done
with several trials would be anecdotes. The plural of anecdotes is not data.

The best advice would be to follow the break-in procedures recommended
by the vehicle manufacturer, the people who know the engines the best,
and the people who employ people with real expertise.

Jeff

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Doc > wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs another?
>
> The Corvette manual says to just drive the damn thing hard, no special
> oil change required.
>
> In fact, the Corvette engineers say that if you baby it initially, you
> won't be happy in the long run with the engine's performance.
>

Reference for this, please.

However, even if this is true, this may not apply to say a Civic or a Prius.

Jeff

Jeff > wrote in article
<GjW1j.3925$Mr.615@trnddc04>...
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Doc > wrote:
> >
> >> Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs
another?
> >
> > The Corvette manual says to just drive the damn thing hard, no special
> > oil change required.
> >
> > In fact, the Corvette engineers say that if you baby it initially, you
> > won't be happy in the long run with the engine's performance.
> >
>
> Reference for this, please.
>


His brother-in-law's uncle, whose sister dated a guy who once washed a
Corvette at his gas station told him this.

I mean, THAT's right from the auto expert's mouth.

On Nov 24, 7:23 am, "Ph@Boy" > wrote:
>
> Just drive it as you normally would. Check your owners manual as well.
> Change the oil at the manufacturer recommended intervals.

Indeed. The manufacturer's engineering staff know what is best for
braking in that engine. If you do not trust the manufacturer, why buy
his product? If you trust him enough to buy the car, believe the
manual.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:43:49 -0800 (PST), Doc >
wrote:

>There seem to be two camps. I've seen those that advocate stomping on
>the engine to high revs and backing off in the initial break-in
>because of some alleged benefit.
>
>Then there's a more traditional school of thought, such as this post:
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source
>
>Both claim scientific reasons for their method. It seems the "flog
>the engine" guys say to change the oil soon after an initial run
>period of say 20 miles to get rid of initial metal particles, the
>above quoted appears to say those metal particles are beneficial.
>
>Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs another?

When in doubt, the procedures in the owners manual take precedence.

That said, I *still* think that you need to be overall gentle on the
car for the first 1,000 miles or so, and vary speeds deliberately on
the freeway rather than nail the Cruise Control at 70 and stay there.
If you need to stand on the gas for accident avoidance feel free, just
don't do a drag strip launch at every green light.

And even though they keep insisting it isn't necessary, do the first
oil and filter change early, say 1,000 miles. They may not be using
straight-30 non-detergent "break in oil" anymore, but the engine is
still going to spit out more friction products as the final bedding in
process happens.

And don't switch to synthetic oil till you have enough mileage to
determine the rings are bedded in and it isn't burning oil - 5,000
miles minimum.

--<< Bruce >>--

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:11:07 GMT, Jeff >
wrote:

>Doc wrote:
>> There seem to be two camps. I've seen those that advocate stomping on
>> the engine to high revs and backing off in the initial break-in
>> because of some alleged benefit.
>>
>> Then there's a more traditional school of thought, such as this post:
>>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source
>>
>> Both claim scientific reasons for their method.
>
>What scientific reasons?
>
>Conjecture is more like it.
>
>There are no studies offered to back up the claims made in the post.
>
>> It seems the "flog
>> the engine" guys say to change the oil soon after an initial run
>> period of say 20 miles to get rid of initial metal particles, the
>> above quoted appears to say those metal particles are beneficial.
>>
>> Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs another?
>
>Such real-world tests, unless done with the proper controls and done
>with several trials would be anecdotes. The plural of anecdotes is not data.
>
>The best advice would be to follow the break-in procedures recommended
>by the vehicle manufacturer, the people who know the engines the best,
>and the people who employ people with real expertise.
>
>Jeff

Jeff make some good points. I have never seen any real-world,
double-blind studies examining this topic. Common sense would seem to
indicate that, with today's close manufacturing tolerances, an
extended break-in is unnecessary. But even with close manufacturing
tolerances, there are still going to be high and low spots on the
cylinder walls, ring diameters, bearing surfaces, etc. that will have
to mate in with their corresponding surfaces. This will take time and
will result in higher wear products than will show up later in the
life of the engine.

All I can do is tell you what I do with a new engine:

I drive it easily for the first 500 miles and very the engine rpm's
within reason (I don't lug the engine at low rpm's, neither do I hit
red line).

After the first 500 miles, I will run the engine up to red line, at
full throttle for brief intervals. I hold it at high rpm for just a
moment then ease off to normal engine speed.

I change the oil and filter after about 1000 miles using a name-brand
multigrade conventional oil with the weight recommended by the
manufacturer.

After the first 1000 miles, I drive normally. The second oil and
filter change is at about 3000 miles. The rest are about every 4000
to 5000 miles. I use name-brand, multiweight, conventional oils and
name brand filters, no house brand oils or filters for my cars.

This has resulted in engines with will over 100,000 miles that don't
use more than a quart of oil between changes. It works for me so I
don't see any reason to change.

Jack

"Doc" > wrote in message
...
> There seem to be two camps. I've seen those that advocate stomping on
> the engine to high revs and backing off in the initial break-in
> because of some alleged benefit.
>
> Then there's a more traditional school of thought, such as this post:
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source
>
> Both claim scientific reasons for their method. It seems the "flog
> the engine" guys say to change the oil soon after an initial run
> period of say 20 miles to get rid of initial metal particles, the
> above quoted appears to say those metal particles are beneficial.
>
> Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs another?

Automakers generally know a lot more about their engines and how they are
manufactured than the people who work in repair shops or write magazine
articles and blogs, so IMO, the safest thing to do is to follow the
automaker's break-in recommendations. I'm not sure about other automakers,
Toyota runs new engines to redline for a while after they are assembled, and
then again on a chassis dyno as the cars are coming off of the assembly
line.

I don't necessarily follow what I preach, and when got in the 200 ~ 300 new
cars I've driven, I just drove them the way I expected to use that
particular car, and experienced no engine problems.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Doc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There seem to be two camps. I've seen those that advocate stomping on
>> the engine to high revs and backing off in the initial break-in
>> because of some alleged benefit.
>>
>> Then there's a more traditional school of thought, such as this post:
>>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source
>>
>> Both claim scientific reasons for their method. It seems the "flog
>> the engine" guys say to change the oil soon after an initial run
>> period of say 20 miles to get rid of initial metal particles, the
>> above quoted appears to say those metal particles are beneficial.
>>
>> Any thoughts? Real world tests of engines broken in one way vs another?
>
> Automakers generally know a lot more about their engines and how they are
> manufactured than the people who work in repair shops or write magazine
> articles and blogs, so IMO, the safest thing to do is to follow the
> automaker's break-in recommendations. I'm not sure about other
> automakers, Toyota runs new engines to redline for a while after they are
> assembled, and then again on a chassis dyno as the cars are coming off of
> the assembly line.
>
> I don't necessarily follow what I preach, and when got in the 200 ~ 300
> new cars I've driven, I just drove them the way I expected to use that
> particular car, and experienced no engine problems.
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)

One poster said he would accelerate the engine to the redline. I'm
clearly no expert, but I've never had the engine in either of my Toyotas
within 1500 rpms of the redline, and in fact tend to back off on the
accelerator to get the trans to shift into a higher gear as soon as
warranted. I've got 140K on the older engine and 55K on the newer one
with no problems and they perform perfectly. So I'll leave the redlining to
somebody else.