The Lemon Fool

...just came across one of these:

https://cilisos.my/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ticker.jpg

Were they ever relevant, and, if so, why don't we see them now?

Oh dear, clearly I have reached "a certain age".

I think these were really saying, "Look at me I have got a brand new car".

John

It would be pretty pointless these days. My old Mondeo diesel could do the legal speed limit in this country at less than 2000 revs, and many/most modern cars would still be less than 3000.

Scott.

Nemo wrote:...just came across one of these:

https://cilisos.my/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ticker.jpg

Were they ever relevant, and, if so, why don't we see them now?

I think they were definitely relevant, running-in was advised for x miles at lower speeds, then a running-in service. Some drivers, like my father, would also have a shot of 'upper cylinder lubricant' added to the petrol for the first few fills. Why not now? Higher standards of manufacture and better lubricants.

RC

I seem to recall reading that the machining on the barrels is far better these days meaning the running in is no longer required. And I assume the engine lubricants are far better too.

[Edit - wot he said above

Mine said "wearing out" instead of "running in"

Agree with TedX that the need for running in faded away because cylinder boring machines got better, and so did the oils. But ISTR that the engine tuning was adjusted during the first thousand miles, and it was then reset at the first service. I imagine it's all done with software now?

Company car cowboys and other thrash merchants would cheerfully ignore the running in recommendations. After all, they weren't going to keep the cars for long enough to reap the whirlwinds they were sowing, so why bother? The next owner could sort all that out. Doesn't seem to be an issue at all these days, even for relatively high milers. None of the ex-fleet cars I've bought have had issues.

BJ

ReformedCharacter wrote:

Nemo wrote:...just came across one of these:

https://cilisos.my/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ticker.jpg

Were they ever relevant, and, if so, why don't we see them now?

I think they were definitely relevant, running-in was advised for x miles at lower speeds, then a running-in service. Some drivers, like my father, would also have a shot of 'upper cylinder lubricant' added to the petrol for the first few fills. Why not now? Higher standards of manufacture and better lubricants.

RC

The new Toyota GR86 (Subaru BRX) has a recommendation to run in for 1000 miles at up to 4000 revs. It has a naturally aspirated 2.4 Subaru boxer engine, and after run-in revs up to about 7500.

Tedx wrote:I seem to recall reading that the machining on the barrels is far better these days meaning the running in is no longer required.
[Edit - wot he said above

Sort of, but not quite

In the goode olde dayes up to and probably after the 1990s, engine tuners used to make good money 'blueprinting' an engine. They'd strip it down, check clearances, measure squish volumes, weigh pistons and conrods, balance the cranks, measure valve lift, and then make all the bits as dientical as possible and put it all back together with the optimum and minimum clearances they could to make the most power, so when the engine got warm and the clearances opened up it was spot on. However materials technology and manufacturing has leapt forwards, mass produced pistons are much closer in weight to each other than they used to be machining is more accurate, so engine component variation is much less and improements are scarce.

Sure there are some engine builders that can find that bit extra and still meet specs/regs, biuldnig engines so tight you need to heat them up before starting them like F1 cars.

And the corollary of this is that the running in, the low speed whilst the components bed together and all the little bits wear off, coupled with the short first service interval, is really no longer needed. But even in 2006 BMW 'M' engines needed an oil change at 1200-1500 miles - the 'running in service', and it is still common for motorcycles to keep the revs down.

swill453 wrote:It would be pretty pointless these days. My old Mondeo diesel could do the legal speed limit in this country at less than 2000 revs, and many/most modern cars would still be less than 3000.

Exactly - modern cars are so high performance compared to older stuff that it is hard to exceed 'running in' parameters in normal use
From BMW's site...

Experts recommend a maximum 3,500 rpm and 90 mph in diesel models and 4,500 rpm and 100 mph in gas models.

Even our 30-odd year old Toyota is under 3500 rpm at 70mph.

Paul

Modern cars no longer require a "running in" period as they did in the past. This is because advancements in engine manufacturing and materials have allowed for more precise machining and tighter tolerances, resulting in better reliability and durability of engines from the factory.

In the past, new engines needed to be run in to allow the parts to "bed in" and wear in a controlled manner. This was to ensure that the components fit together properly and that the engine would operate smoothly and efficiently over time. Failure to run the engine in correctly could result in premature wear and damage, leading to decreased performance and even engine failure.

However, with modern engines, manufacturers are able to machine parts to much tighter tolerances, and the use of synthetic lubricants has also improved engine efficiency and durability. This means that engines can now be run at high RPMs and high loads right from the start without the need for a running-in period.

It's still important to follow the manufacturer's recommended break-in procedures for other components of the car, such as the brakes and tires, to ensure optimal performance and safety. However, for the engine, the need for a running-in period is largely a thing of the past.

(ChatGPT)

Most rotating parts have "circular" shafts.

How do you make them.
Well, you attach the part to a .... rotating circular shaft, then grind a circle.

As said, the machine tools for doing so today are very significantly better than they used to be.
Back then those parts were NOT circular but had high points that rubbed away with use.

Hence, "running in".
Parts effectively are "lapped" by the mating part.

You can still buy "running in" oil, to aid this abrasive process.
https://www.morrislubricantsonline.co.u ... n-oil.html

I have a Toyota Avensis 1.8 petrol estate. Bought from new, it has now done 120,000 miles, still performs as it eventually did (more below), still gives an overall 38.x mpg.

Initially it was dead sluggish in top gear, ie press the accelerator & nothing happened! My local garage man said that it would take 20K miles before it was run in. He was wrong. At 30K it was noticeably better than at 20K, and even at 35K it was just noticeably better than at 30K.

I have been surprised at it's performance - with 2 up it climbed a 30% hill in second gear, much to my shock. And it didn't seem distressed. Even now, on the way home which involves a gentle (ish) hill, once speed reaches an indicated 41mph in 3rd and with 4 up, I can pop it into 6th and continue gently accelerating up the hill. Again no engine distress and the change up/down lights remain steadfastly off. (Below 40 it lets me know in most uncertain terms.) On the other hand, get to 70+ on the motorway and it seemingly changes character again and starts gently accelerating such that I have learned to be very careful at thos speeds otherwise I end up going too fast.

Quite a difference from my 1st petrol cars.

Ten0rman

Back in the 60s I remember my dad having to stick to 40mph on a journey from London to Glasgow
no motorways in those days though

pje16 wrote:Back in the 60s I remember my dad having to stick to 40mph on a journey from London to Glasgow
no motorways in those days though

Back in the 60s as a kid myself I remember the occasional journey involving the M1. My Dad was worse than yours, he refused to drive any faster on the motorway than the 30mph we went everywhere else at.

My sis and I used to find it deeply embarrassing sat in the back there, crawling along with the lorries... emotionally scarred for life, we was!

Mike4 wrote:

pje16 wrote:Back in the 60s I remember my dad having to stick to 40mph on a journey from London to Glasgow
no motorways in those days though

Back in the 60s as a kid myself I remember the occasional journey involving the M1. My Dad was worse than yours, he refused to drive any faster on the motorway than the 30mph we went everywhere else at.

My sis and I used to find it deeply embarrassing sat in the back there, crawling along with the lorries... emotionally scarred for life, we was!

My brother and I played a game we made up called First in sight
who could spot it quickest, when there were no cars in front of us
if we spotted one, it was a case of shouting out "catch him Dad"

Mike4 wrote:

pje16 wrote:Back in the 60s I remember my dad having to stick to 40mph on a journey from London to Glasgow
no motorways in those days though

Back in the 60s as a kid myself I remember the occasional journey involving the M1. My Dad was worse than yours, he refused to drive any faster on the motorway than the 30mph we went everywhere else at.

My sis and I used to find it deeply embarrassing sat in the back there, crawling along with the lorries... emotionally scarred for life, we was!

Crikey, that's enough to turn anyone to canals!

swill453 wrote:It would be pretty pointless these days. My old Mondeo diesel could do the legal speed limit in this country at less than 2000 revs, and many/most modern cars would still be less than 3000.

I would have thought that an engine labouring under load at low revs would do an engine more harm than at less load and higher revs.

Back when I was learning to drive (50 years ago so definitely of a certain age) I was told never to put my foot down hard at low speed in a high gear.

As I recall, my first VW Beetle in 1958 had no requirements for running in. They did have marks on the speedometer when they recommended that you changed gear, at 15, 30 and 45 mph. Maximum and cruising speed was 68 mph. Engine revs in top were 1000rpm at 20mph. I think the gear change points were at 3,000 rpm. A consistent 38mpg over 42,000 miles, but no fuel gauge, just a reserve tank activated by a foot lever under the tank after about 300 miles.

My first journey on the day I bought it new was from Gloucester to Sheffield. No motorway then but the A38 with plenty of traffic. Servicing every 1500 miles to grease the front king pins. Oil change at 3,000 miles. The second was similar but the M1 opened and the Preston bypass part of the M6. 68 was indeed the flat out speed on the level. The gear change points could easily be exceeded, particularly in first and second. That did about 55,000 miles.

The competition was the 100E Ford Anglia or the Morris Minor. Neither had a heater. I was very comfortable over 1961-3 in the winters.

TJH

Lootman wrote:I would have thought that an engine labouring under load at low revs would do an engine more harm than at less load and higher revs.

Back when I was learning to drive (50 years ago so definitely of a certain age) I was told never to put my foot down hard at low speed in a high gear.

Same here, hard on the big-end bearings IIRC.

RC

I am of a certain age and in my youth we used to joke about those of a certain age needlessly running in new cars.

FWIW My first new car in the 1980's the running in recommendation was not to restrict the RPMs but to vary them. As long as I avoided cruise control on flat motorways in the middle of the night it was pretty hard not to follow the running in instructions.