Skye
Well-Known Member
My comments are opinion and perception only. I have no statistical data to support my statements.
With respect to burning oil, I believe the primary driver is how the piston rings are meeting the cylinder walls. I do think it is in the best interest of the owner/operator to perform a moderate and progressive engine break-in quickly, within the first 100 mi / 160 km or so.
Very early on, stress the engine in a progressively harder fashion. Stress it a little, a little more, more still etc, on each drive, while not hitting the rev limiter or going WOT. Internal engine air and mechanical pressures need to press the rings against the walls soon, to seat the rings. Not doing so runs the risk of glazing the walls, setting the stage for oil burning.
Ford's break-in process for the mechanicals is 1,000 mi / 1,600 km. Oil consumption is expected to stabilize in the first 3,000 mi / 4830 km.
"Your vehicle requires a break-in period. For the first 1,000 mi (1,600 km)..."
"Note: The oil consumption of new engines reaches its normal level after approximately 3,000 mi (5,000 km)."
Why would an F-150 experience greater rates of oil consumption? Look at what they are used for. Most trucks are work trucks, tow trucks, hauling, 4x4, etc. These engines are most often placed in high-load, low RPM operating environments, exactly what you do not want for a new engine of any kind.
Regarding break-in, what to do and all that, there are tons of threads and comments within this forum alone. You can also read through what several engine builders do on their dynos. I've read great procedures on GM and Ford crate engine break-ins. Variable, moderate RPMs, not being shy towards revving high, very early, including acceleration and deceleration of the engine. IMO, deceleration, letting the engine take the load of slowing the vehicle down, is just as important.
Some failures are obvious: stuck PCV valves allowing oil to be sucked into the engine, not following Ford's break-in process, installing parts not designed for the engine, operating out of acceptable limits, not adhering to the maintenance schedule, etc.
But some failures are never known. Ford and suppliers build millions of these engines every year. Some are going to go bad. Even if the acceptable failure rate is a fraction of 1%, that's still a lot of engines. 1M engines, .1% failure rate is 1,000 engines.
Is there something inherently wrong with these engines? Something systemic? I don't think so.
With respect to burning oil, I believe the primary driver is how the piston rings are meeting the cylinder walls. I do think it is in the best interest of the owner/operator to perform a moderate and progressive engine break-in quickly, within the first 100 mi / 160 km or so.
Very early on, stress the engine in a progressively harder fashion. Stress it a little, a little more, more still etc, on each drive, while not hitting the rev limiter or going WOT. Internal engine air and mechanical pressures need to press the rings against the walls soon, to seat the rings. Not doing so runs the risk of glazing the walls, setting the stage for oil burning.
Ford's break-in process for the mechanicals is 1,000 mi / 1,600 km. Oil consumption is expected to stabilize in the first 3,000 mi / 4830 km.
"Your vehicle requires a break-in period. For the first 1,000 mi (1,600 km)..."
"Note: The oil consumption of new engines reaches its normal level after approximately 3,000 mi (5,000 km)."
Why would an F-150 experience greater rates of oil consumption? Look at what they are used for. Most trucks are work trucks, tow trucks, hauling, 4x4, etc. These engines are most often placed in high-load, low RPM operating environments, exactly what you do not want for a new engine of any kind.
Regarding break-in, what to do and all that, there are tons of threads and comments within this forum alone. You can also read through what several engine builders do on their dynos. I've read great procedures on GM and Ford crate engine break-ins. Variable, moderate RPMs, not being shy towards revving high, very early, including acceleration and deceleration of the engine. IMO, deceleration, letting the engine take the load of slowing the vehicle down, is just as important.
^ This is a really good statement. The overwhelming majority of Members here have 0 issues with their engines. Some do. Most of us do any number of things to our cars and never experience a problem.
Some failures are obvious: stuck PCV valves allowing oil to be sucked into the engine, not following Ford's break-in process, installing parts not designed for the engine, operating out of acceptable limits, not adhering to the maintenance schedule, etc.
But some failures are never known. Ford and suppliers build millions of these engines every year. Some are going to go bad. Even if the acceptable failure rate is a fraction of 1%, that's still a lot of engines. 1M engines, .1% failure rate is 1,000 engines.
Is there something inherently wrong with these engines? Something systemic? I don't think so.
Sponsored
Last edited:
