A running-in procedure for a new engine or car

[Ratbag]

Gidday Grump

Originally Posted by grump

Just wondering - if you always use this method on new cars, how do you know that other methods (including following the manufacturer's recommendations) don't give good results as well, given that you have not tried the methods?

Because I have had quite a bit of experience with cars that have not been run in at all; also with ones that have been run in 'fast' and run in 'slow' over the last 50 years. Not my cars, other people's.

BTW I don't disagree with your running in procedure - it seems quite reasonable.

Thanks. That's why I wrote it ...

When I bought my Outback from Subaru Docklands the cars used for demos were only used for demos, the dealership staff did not have personal use of them, so they only drove under demo conditions. The one I bought - a demo model - was the smoothest and nicest car of several Outbacks and Foresters I tried that day. At 185,000Km it is still smooth and nice, has very good off-idle response and uses no oil.

'Accidents' do happen ...

Just that they are more likely to work out well if one understands what one is doing and what the ramifications are. See Mocky's post above yours.

The 4.2 Torana I bought in the late 70's was another story - again it was a demo but had been used as the dealership runabout - it had been without doubt thrashed from new. While it had good midrange go a good Ford Laser could out-drag it up to about 60kph, but after that it would pull strongly to 150 or so. The motor was rebuilt at about 135,000 km I think. The metal mice got it eventually.

Either situation is "bad" for a new car. However, either can also be "good" for a new car. It depends on how the car will be used, and the user's expectations of the car. I prefer the middle road precisely because it gives a good balance of fuel economy, performance, maintenance and longevity.

Serendipity plays a huge role in this. With something as expensive as a new car, I would prefer not to rely on serendipity ...

Serendipity worked for you with your Outback, and against you with the Torana ...

[Robbks]

The terrible performance was a "feature" of the 253 (boat anchor) V8's :D

[ateday]

Think about the only thing I did when running in my new MY03 `way back in 2002 was vary the revs, didn`t overload motor and regularly (dealer) serviced it.
Also the first 25000 kms were with 3 passengers plus luggage on a semi circumnavigation road trip around the eastern portion of OZ.
Seemed to work as it now has about 332000 kms on original motor and uses little oil, about 1 to 2 l between routine, 12500 kms, changes although nowadays I tend to change the engine oil at 6000 km intervals. Fuel consumption, using E10, 91 (mostly) 95 and (rarely) 98 has been 8.9l/100 kms although I suspect it is consuming marginally more of late since moving to Adelaide. Possibly less highway use and more town.

[grump]

Originally Posted by Robbks

The terrible performance was a "feature" of the 253 (boat anchor) V8's :D

Come to think of it my 4.2 Torana had about the same power as my 2.5 Outback - 120kw and 115kw respectively. The V8 was strangled by the emission control equipment of the day.

[Ratbag]

^ I think that the only emission control fitted in those days was PCV - Positive Crankcase Ventilation. Hard to see this having much effect on the performance of a 4.2L V8.

My father had one of the "Bathurst" road Toranas, and it certainly didn't lack for power. More like nearly uncontrollable on the road! Rotten fuel economy too.

[grump]

I remember that

"Torque" guy Wherrett

doing a segement on the woes of the 4.2 - he did something with the cam timing (advanced it one tooth on the spline that held the cam gear?), put on a 4 barrel Holley and a set of extractors - got about 180bhp and much lower fuel use. The retarded cam timing was a significant factor in the reduction in power as I recall.

Sorry about the hijack - maybe this needs to be split from here and put in a new thread? Mods?