Cycle World re: Oil Brake in Procedure Described in Detail

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

Following the thread, found this which gives more detail as to the MC
procedures.  I believe this was the actual post Tom was referring to.  All
this presented, not quite ready to zip audi motors to .5 redline, but
certainly gives credence to non synthetic new motor breakins.

FWIW.

SJ

To:  another lister
Subject: Re: Smokin somethin
From:  QSHIPQ at aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
cc:quattro at coimbra.ans.net

You write:
>Guess what - this thinking is BULLSH*T! Pure, unadulterated, 100% BS.
Anddumb.>I used to teach at American Motorcycle Institute in Daytona Beach
back then,>and I assure you, if any of my students had tried to break in a
BMW (or>anything else) in that manner, I would have taken them out and shot
them.>Promptly.>


I respectfully submit that you read the article, though I summed theprocedure
up in one sentence, I assure you, the method was as described("bottom end and
valve mechanisms pre-lubed normally, top end assembled dryexcept for a single
drop of oil on each piston skirt.  The engine is startedand instantly brought
to half of redline rpm and held there for 30seconds.This produced a good
break-in and a strong engine every time.  In effect, hewas having to get rid
of the oil to get a good break-in.").  Page 16 of CycleWorld, May 1997.  Now,
one might find your ranting, fuming and while you wererunning the classes at
the Motorcycle Institute, tempered by the source ofthat particular method of
break-in.  Udo Gietl was THE builder of motorcyclerace engines for BMW
America importer Butler & Smith. HE had the multipleengines fail the break-in
on the dyno and the track. HIS method was asdescribed in the article.  Given
his guru status, not sure ANYONE has thecredentials to call him dumb, or any
of his methods unadulterated BS.  Read the article, it addresses your blood
pressure well, and has soundengineering principles.  I personally would have
had the same reaction as youinitially Mike, I posted this article because of
it's sound presentation ofaddressing the same points you fired in your
rebuttal.  At your newstand now

Scott J