I've read several members recommending checking the oil level during the break-in period. In the event that the motor requires additional oil, which oil is best to use? Synthetic? Dino? What type of oil does the car come from the factory with?

Thanks,
Mike

 

So I hate it when I see people reference this article.....whether the a hard break in is true....this article is NOT reliable. The way he structures his arguments and the way the information is presented is disturbing in the least. There are too many parallel's the the techniques and tactics that con artists have been using for centuries. The information is unsubstantiated and done in an unscientific manner and should not be considered reliable.

It'll take me a good 30minutes at least to write up what and why is wrong with the article and sleep is calling right now, but I promise to revisit examples of the flaws in the article tomorrow...

 

I like to use the term snakeoil......

 

Dino is used and recommended by Honda during break-in then many swithch to Synthetic, although it remains a matter of personal preference. I do not know the exact weight the engine ships with, your manual should be able to help you out with this.

 

He is not marketing anything, just telling it the way it is.

I have used a method similar to his on every vehicle, boats, motorcycle, automobile, airplane -- you name that I have ever broken in with zero problems.

 

http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm

OK so I promised an analysis of this article and why you shouldn't trust anything that it says.

Personal biases first. I happen to believe that there MAY be a grain of truth to this technique....BUT I have yet to see any data that supports it. Furthermore in no place does he attempt to quantify the risks of this technique nor any possible reason why the break in procedures are the way they are....

1st and most significant major warning flag.... The author is trying to sell you something. This automatically puts a question mark onto everything the author says. Why? This may no long be an article designed to educate or convey information, instead they may just be trying to sell a product and the information should not be considered unbiased. So what is the author selling? The author is trying to interest you enough to sign up for his newsletter. In fact he leaves out some of the most important and potentially most damaging information, to his point of view, to try to get you to sign up for his newsletter.

He won't tell you why the manufactures recommend the break in they do unless you sign up for his newsletter. My suspicion for this is that once you find out the reason for the recommended break-in procedure, one may realize that there are more risks to a hard break-in than presented. This would weaken his argument that a hard break-in is a good thing.

2nd major red flag. The author uses a well established technique that con artists have used for centuries. This technique is to take one fact that everyone knows to be true present it and say..."this is important". Since everyone knows this fact is true, we all nod our heads and say yes we agree. Then con-artists present a second fact one that seems related to the first. Since we believe the first statement true we are more likely to believe the second statement to be true also. The first statement was his attempt to establish credibility with us.

The author actually presents and interesting twist on this technique. In fact he presents a third statement that many people also believe is true. By sandwiching his controversial statement between two statements that are believed to be true, the casual reader will assume that his assertion is true also!

So which statements am I referring to? These three...

Q: What is the most common cause of engine problems ???
A: Failure to Warm the engine up completely before running it hard !!!

Q: What is the second most common cause of engine problems ???
A: An easy break in !!!

Q: What's the third most common cause of engine problems ???
A: Not changing the oil soon enough after the engine is first run !!

His goal is to get you to believe that if The first statement and the third statement are true then the second statement must be true also. If the three statements were related in any fashion whatsoever then that might be reasonable, but these three issued mentioned are only related in the fact that an engine and oil is involved in some fashion.

So I could go on and address other issues with his article but considering the length and the time already I'll refrain unless there is interest.

However I will mention my belief as to why an easy break-in is recommended. Caveat, this belief is based upon observed failures of other components not engine components, I have seen no data for that.

That said what we often see with component failures is that the greatest number of failures occur in the beginning or the end of a components lifespan. Most failures occur near birth or death of a component in a bell curve distribution.

It is my belief that an easy break-in is recommend because honda has data the shows that a hard break-in will increase the probability of engine failure in the initial lifespan of the engine. This is something that Honda Warranty would want to prevent. The tradeoff being that you may get a slight stronger engine in exchange for an increased risk of initial engine failure, induced by a hard break-in. Remember, it is possible for honda to recover the RPM your engine has been run at. Therefor it is possible for them to know that you aren't following the recommended break-in procedure. If your engine fails and they can show that you weren't following the break-in procedure, they could deny you warranty coverage. This is a risk you should be aware of before you attempt this technique.

One other point, I highly doubt that you will see 5-10% improvement in engine power. My opinion is that you would see at most 4hp gain... Is a 4hp gain worth potential engine failure? The risk risk may not be great but it is probably there and the risk/reward is for you to decide....

 

[QUOTE=CrazyPhuD,Jul 22 2004, 08:14 AM] http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm

OK so I promised an analysis of this article and why you shouldn't trust anything that it says.

Personal biases first.

 

Logic, how refreshing. Thank-you, CrazyPhuD.

 

There is such a thing as common sense when breaking in a motor. I reved to 6,500 rpm with 100 miles on the engine. This took place in the lower gears, meaning that the amount of time spent at 6,500 is like 2-3/10ths of a second before upshifting to the next gear. That is NOT hardly going to harm the engine. If reving to 6-6 1/2k is going to harm the engine, then there is an inherent problem from the very beginning which would surface no matter how the engine was broken in.

I don't necessarily agree with the statements presented from http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm ,but I do believe in breaking in a engine a little bit agressively. I am not suggesting an engine should be run hard for the first 500 miles, just with common sense.

 

^werd