break-in flames

[Mike Arman]

>
>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'm the "another lister" above.


I re-read my somewhat heated comments from 1997, and I still stand by them.

Here's the crux of it - Udo Gietl needed to have his engines broken in NOW,
not in a few hundred or thousand miles, because once the race starts,
there's no time to baby an engine in order to break it in. He also had an
unlimited supply of replacement parts, and some kind of budget to pay for
them. His engines only had to last a few hundred miles, and if it blew up
just one inch after crossing the finish line, that was OK.


Our needs are different. We don't need to have our engines broken in NOW,
instead we want the longest possible service life at the lowest net cost
out of them. If that cost includes a period of more than usually frequent
oil changes and running the engine gently for a while, then so be it. That
was what I was trying to teach the students at AMI - if it doesn't stay
fixed, it will come back, and YOU will pay for the repair this time. You
want long-term reliability, and you trade off having peak horsepower NOW to
get it.


Personally, I would be more than glad to trade a few quarts of oil
consumption in the first 2,000 miles for an additional 50,000 miles of
engine life.


Further back on this thread, it was mentioned that manufacturers are now
having to do the break-in sequence because the customers are not willing to
or don't understand it or are just plain too ignorant of the hardware to
bother. From a marketing viewpoint, that's great - something the customer
doesn't have to trouble themselves about, and if the engine blows up (or
more likely develops premature excessive oil consumption), it is an
opportunity to get them to trade that old (three years old) oil burning
clunker in on a new one.



I subscribe to the older school of thought on this - fix it right, take
care of it, and then you can keep it as long as you want to. Just because
some car maker's marketing department thinks I need a new car is not
sufficient reason for me to buy one.


In addition, a boxer twin BMW can be re-ringed somewhat more easily than an
A-8. How would you feel about carefully rebuilding an Audi V-8 engine with
lots and lots of expensive, hard to get parts, installing it in your
customer's car, and then, with the cylinder walls dry, winding it up to
half of redline and leaving it there for 30 seconds? (Look DEEP into your
heart before you answer this somewhat loaded question . . . )


You are always going to have differences of opinion, especially when people
are as emotionally involved with their vehicles as we are. I know for a
fact that you know far more about Audis than I do, and there are other
listers out there who also do. Nevertheless, from time to time, we get
flame wars between people who are known authorities, and yet who seem to
totally disagree, loudly, if not violently.


Anyway, I have other (non-Audi) issues affecting my blood pressure, so at
least that part of the problem is solved ;-)

With best regards,

Mike Arman



>
>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
>