Engine Break In For New Motors
- Thread starter glider.
- Start date
diver4life
Active Member
Ok so if If I do it do I have to change the oil rigth away? or at how many miles I supose to do the 1rst oil change after doing the 30-60-30 method?
BUBBIE
Well-Known Member
Recommended oil and filter change at 100 miles From the 30/60/30,,,,, X 10......... Normal changes after that.... Go by the book or sooner.
Ride it normal after the 100 miles and I don't Baby the motor... I don't lug or keep at one speed too long until 500 miles (my way) then ride it Your Way!
signed....BUBBIE
candave650
Member
This is the way to break in a motor no matter what make
My 2003 FLHR was broken by the book ie HD and it ran slow and used oil
Since then I have broken in 3 other bikes per gliders method and wow it works
My new FXSTC will be done the same way
Thanks guys
My 2003 FLHR was broken by the book ie HD and it ran slow and used oil
Since then I have broken in 3 other bikes per gliders method and wow it works
My new FXSTC will be done the same way
Thanks guys
karlsbike
Active Member
Ok, I know this thread is old, but I'm new around here and I find this thread to be important.
That this procedure makes a bike run better immediately is no surprise; it forces a tight new engine to loosen up very quickly.
It does not necessarily mean that the engine becomes more powerful, only that it does it quicker. It certainly does not mean that it makes the engine last longer. I've read MotoMan's arguments, and I am sure he’s right when it comes to the rings - a 'normal' break-in does include the risk of not seating the piston rings fully. His point that deceleration as part of break-in improves the ring seal is probably also valid.
What I do not agree with is his claims that with modern day fine materials and tolerance machining, normal break-in is not needed (just ride it hard!): Either the engine is perfect, or so much out of tolerances that it is beyond any hope - do you really think these are the only two options?
I don't know how Harley does its engine assembly - probably part robots, part manual. Regardless, the left and right cases are just a normal, bolted connection (i.e. no interference fit), to match internal tolerances of two thousands'. Think about it - the bolting together means that the crankshaft will not sit perfectly straight relative to the bearing surfaces. The inherent variations in the assembly process coupled with production tolerances is the reason why all engine manufacturers recommend the same principles of engine break in: you could have an engine with most internal tolerances at max positive or negative clearance, angle, offset, or any combination of these – no one on this planet knows how YOUR engine is. (This is what ‘blue-printing’ an engine is all about, or what the serious standard production bike racing guys do – optimizing tolerances)
Even a robotic arm accuracy tolerances exceed the pinion bearing tolerances by far to start off with, getting worn over time...
This is normal and not dramatic, but it means that the parts need to get acquainted before receiving max load, unless you just bought the perfect one. Do you feel lucky?
I did not see any main bearings, crankshafts, connecting rods/bearings in the ‘museum’ but it would not bring anything to the table even if it did.
My point is: The normal method of breaking in an engine is a trade-off between getting all internals to work together nice and easy at the limited risk of not seating the rings fully. What would you rather replace, your piston rings or a main bearing?
I do not call MotoMan a bluff. As many of you know; race engines are built loose, while a daily rider should be tight. It is all about power and immediate readiness vs. longevity, which a race engine does not need being torn apart after every race.
30-60-30x10 fit for purpose? Yes, for race engines.
A combination of the two methods would be ideal...
That this procedure makes a bike run better immediately is no surprise; it forces a tight new engine to loosen up very quickly.
It does not necessarily mean that the engine becomes more powerful, only that it does it quicker. It certainly does not mean that it makes the engine last longer. I've read MotoMan's arguments, and I am sure he’s right when it comes to the rings - a 'normal' break-in does include the risk of not seating the piston rings fully. His point that deceleration as part of break-in improves the ring seal is probably also valid.
What I do not agree with is his claims that with modern day fine materials and tolerance machining, normal break-in is not needed (just ride it hard!): Either the engine is perfect, or so much out of tolerances that it is beyond any hope - do you really think these are the only two options?
I don't know how Harley does its engine assembly - probably part robots, part manual. Regardless, the left and right cases are just a normal, bolted connection (i.e. no interference fit), to match internal tolerances of two thousands'. Think about it - the bolting together means that the crankshaft will not sit perfectly straight relative to the bearing surfaces. The inherent variations in the assembly process coupled with production tolerances is the reason why all engine manufacturers recommend the same principles of engine break in: you could have an engine with most internal tolerances at max positive or negative clearance, angle, offset, or any combination of these – no one on this planet knows how YOUR engine is. (This is what ‘blue-printing’ an engine is all about, or what the serious standard production bike racing guys do – optimizing tolerances)
Even a robotic arm accuracy tolerances exceed the pinion bearing tolerances by far to start off with, getting worn over time...
This is normal and not dramatic, but it means that the parts need to get acquainted before receiving max load, unless you just bought the perfect one. Do you feel lucky?
I did not see any main bearings, crankshafts, connecting rods/bearings in the ‘museum’ but it would not bring anything to the table even if it did.
My point is: The normal method of breaking in an engine is a trade-off between getting all internals to work together nice and easy at the limited risk of not seating the rings fully. What would you rather replace, your piston rings or a main bearing?
I do not call MotoMan a bluff. As many of you know; race engines are built loose, while a daily rider should be tight. It is all about power and immediate readiness vs. longevity, which a race engine does not need being torn apart after every race.
30-60-30x10 fit for purpose? Yes, for race engines.
A combination of the two methods would be ideal...