Quote:
Originally Posted by Legion5
You're confusing the information I posed. Running the engine hard with multiple fluid changes in the first few dozen miles will improve the engine in every way. Running the engine consistently hard for the full 1200 miles without fluid changes will risk issues, due to the fluids being bad, this is what BMW doesn't want you to do and what basically constitutes their break in, avoiding bad fluids being run. Running the engine somewhat hard for the first few dozen miles in a very specific way and then running it as mildly as possible until the 1200 mile fluid change will improve performance, without significantly increasing the risk of running on bad fluids.
There are a few different ways to construct an engine that causes it to require a special break in oil. The 04 STI definitely require a special break in oil. The M3 based on my conversation with an M3 racing team that frequently rebuilds our engines, and researching the engine specs and consulting a few other people does not have any of the special conditions that require a special break in oil. It's just unlikely BMW made these engines require special additives.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a professional engine builder, I just KNOW some of the world's top engine builders, and have built a few engines, and made an atempt at a fair post that I fact checked but don't make off base points with only the most basic information.
Anyway I hope all this helps set some people straight.
|
I'm not confused at all. I think that breaking-in the engine hard *can* produce more power on certain engines. I also know that none of the people you have mentioned have tried the BMW method vs. theirs to see the difference in power - that is a fact based on the fact that they believe their method to be superior.
I think that the amount of power difference based on break-in philosophy of production motors is negligible in most cases, and the hard break-in could actually lead to a reduction in the life of the engine, vs the inverse you are suggesting. The main issues I have with you is calling the BMW procedure "terrible" - which clearly it is not. Suboptimal for max power by a couple of percent? Perhaps. Terrible? Clearly not...