Anyone break in engine properly AND have oil consumption issues?

[rick81721]

For a street driven car, break in has everything to do with oil consumption.

Based on what?

Sponsored

 

[MAV]

Proper initial seating of the rings.

 

[rick81721]

Proper initial seating of the rings.

Then elaborate. Are you saying the Ford recommendation for break-in is incorrect and therefore the cause for most of the street driven oil consumption "failures"?

 

[Bcobb85]

Just going to throw this out there, our engines are run up to redline and "broken in" on an engine dyno at the factory before they even go into our cars. So as far as "seating the ring" goes, that is done before the car ever leaves the factory. The break in procedure in the owners manual is more for other moving parts like the trans, clutch, diff, etc. that need to be taken easy for the first few hundred miles.

 

[oldbmwfan]

I don't know that the engine test at the factory generates the load to properly seat the rings. I'm talking about doing multiple full-throttle, low-RPM "bursts" with adequate cool-down in between on a new engine. High load/low RPM generates high cylinder pressures without doing it long enough or fast enough to create "hot spots" that can lead to glazing or local overheating.

To break in a new engine on the street, I do these bursts and on each drive, I take the RPM up a few hundred clicks on each "burst." By the time I get to ~1K miles on the car, I'm using the full RPM range, again in short full throttle hits with some coast-down and gentle driving in between. Never had an engine broken in this way use oil, and my R at 5k miles also does not use oil, including 6 track days. Now, I'm not saying this is perfect because I know a lot of folks here have had oil consumption issues develop at higher mileage ... and I might as well!

All I'm saying is that I don't think proper ring seating happens in the factory run-in, and I certainly don't think "easy driving" for 500-1000 miles helps a new motor at all. It's just a safer recommendation that avoids people ragging on a new motor, which is even worse. And the comment about breaking in clutch/trans/diff is also good.

 

[rick81721]

I don't know that the engine test at the factory generates the load to properly seat the rings. I'm talking about doing multiple full-throttle, low-RPM "bursts" with adequate cool-down in between on a new engine. High load/low RPM generates high cylinder pressures without doing it long enough or fast enough to create "hot spots" that can lead to glazing or local overheating.

To break in a new engine on the street, I do these bursts and on each drive, I take the RPM up a few hundred clicks on each "burst." By the time I get to ~1K miles on the car, I'm using the full RPM range, again in short full throttle hits with some coast-down and gentle driving in between. Never had an engine broken in this way use oil, and my R at 5k miles also does not use oil, including 6 track days. Now, I'm not saying this is perfect because I know a lot of folks here have had oil consumption issues develop at higher mileage ... and I might as well!

All I'm saying is that I don't think proper ring seating happens in the factory run-in, and I certainly don't think "easy driving" for 500-1000 miles helps a new motor at all. It's just a safer recommendation that avoids people ragging on a new motor, which is even worse. And the comment about breaking in clutch/trans/diff is also good.

I will ask the question again. Do you believe this explains the experience of many of us (including me) who have a motor that consumed no oil for the first 4-5K miles, then rapidly degrading over the next few thousand miles to the point of consuming 1 qt/200-300 miles?

 

[MAV]

Then elaborate. Are you saying the Ford recommendation for break-in is incorrect and therefore the cause for most of the street driven oil consumption "failures"?

I'd invite you to elaborate. You made the initial claim that "break-in has nothing to do with oil consumption" and included no explanation. I, at least, responded and said that proper initial seating of the rings was the basis for my claim.

 

[MAV]

I will ask the question again. Do you believe this explains the experience of many of us (including me) who have a motor that consumed no oil for the first 4-5K miles, then rapidly degrading over the next few thousand miles to the point of consuming 1 qt/200-300 miles?

Yes, I believe that. For engines without flat-tappet cams, proper initial ring seating is the single most important factor in engine break-in, in my opinion. I do not believe Ford's stated procedure accomplishes this, and on most engines (higher tension rings), the only detriment is that it just takes longer to seat the rings. The 5.2 FPC is not like most engines, and because of the low-tension rings, if they don't get seated properly during initial break-in, they don't have enough tension to ever seat correctly over time, thus leading to the oil consumption problems that seem to be prevalent in the GT350s.

 

[Edward]

This is all conjecture on both sides. Since Ford has not openly addressed the issue, it's anybody's guess at to what the root cause is. In the absence of a definitive answer, everyone has adopted their own theories - none of which can be proven.

 

[MAV]

This is all conjecture on both sides. Since Ford has not openly addressed the issue, it's anybody's guess at to what the root cause is. In the absence of a definitive answer, everyone has adopted their own theories - none of which can be proven.

My "conjecture" is based on 30+ years of new or rebuilt engine break-in procedure trial-and-error, with zero oil consumption problems on any engine that was broken in with proper ring seating procedures. Though it is definitely not proof, I trust my theory and have recommended it to others who have had similar results.

 

[Edward]

My "conjecture" is based on 30+ years of new or rebuilt engine break-in procedure trial-and-error, with zero oil consumption problems on any engine that was broken in with proper ring seating procedures. Though it is definitely not proof, I trust my theory and have recommended it to others who have had similar results.

This is an anecdotal data point - nothing more. Not a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[MAV]

And yet, it works. Follow the theory, or don't - doesn't matter to me. But don't sit around and muse about logical fallacies and pretend there's not an answer to the question.

 

[rick81721]

Yes, I believe that. For engines without flat-tappet cams, proper initial ring seating is the single most important factor in engine break-in, in my opinion. I do not believe Ford's stated procedure accomplishes this, and on most engines (higher tension rings), the only detriment is that it just takes longer to seat the rings. The 5.2 FPC is not like most engines, and because of the low-tension rings, if they don't get seated properly during initial break-in, they don't have enough tension to ever seat correctly over time, thus leading to the oil consumption problems that seem to be prevalent in the GT350s.

Fair enough, here's my story. Bought the in PA with 7 miles on it. Drive home 170 miles, mostly highway but tried to vary rpm as much as possible. once home , followed oldbmwfan's break in procedure thru 1000 miles. So questions: did the first 170 miles doom my motor? if not, is oldbmwfans procedure wrong? If so, what is the correct break in procedure to prevent oil consumption failure? Very interested as i pick up my car with new motor in a few hours.

 

[Hack]

This is all conjecture on both sides. Since Ford has not openly addressed the issue, it's anybody's guess at to what the root cause is. In the absence of a definitive answer, everyone has adopted their own theories - none of which can be proven.

I agree with your first statement.

With regards to the "root cause" - many people tend to think there is always a single root cause for problems. That isn't true. And specifically on the GT350 I believe there have been / are multiple different reasons for oil consumption. For example - valve seal problems have definitely caused oil consumption for some of the "failed" engines.

 

[MAV]

Fair enough, here's my story. Bought the in PA with 7 miles on it. Drive home 170 miles, mostly highway but tried to vary rpm as much as possible. once home , followed oldbmwfan's break in procedure thru 1000 miles. So questions: did the first 170 miles doom my motor? if not, is oldbmwfans procedure wrong? If so, what is the correct break in procedure to prevent oil consumption failure? Very interested as i pick up my car with new motor in a few hours.

The key is to build high cylinder pressure with moderate heat by loading the engine. Just varying RPMs won't do this. On a low-tension ring engine, it's possible the first 170 miles could be the difference in whether the rings seat or the cylinders glaze.

I took delivery at a dealer 100 miles away from my home. It was in rural Arkansas, so there were lots of hills and turns on the trip, so I had plenty of opportunities to accelerate out of the turns or up the hills. The best way to build pressure and heat is to accelerate hard between 3000 and 6000 RPM and then let it coast back down to normal, bring it back up to 3000 and nail it again. In this way, you build tons of cylinder pressure, but don't create too much heat by extended high-RPM operation. Those numbers aren't exact, either...you can go below or above and it won't hurt anything.

When I got home, the first thing I did was to change the factory synthetic oil to a conventional, lighter weight oil. Synthetics have been known to be too "slippery" to allow the rings to seat. This step may or may not be necessary, but I've had good luck with it over the years that synthetics have been available. I drove the next 800-900 miles in much the same way, although not quite as often - just making sure the engine spent most of its time in the mid-RPM ranges with load whenever possible. I changed back to synthetic oil at 1000 miles. I've driven normally (no track time, but lots of spirited driving) since that time and with 18000 miles on it now, I have zero oil consumption issues. It might use half-a-quart between changes. I'd consider that "normal".

Someone mentioned the valve seal issue...that may be a factor in some engines, and break-in wouldn't have an effect on those, but I would also think if those were the issue, Ford would rather try to replace them under warranty than replace the whole engine or buy back the car. Just my opinion on that.

Sponsored