Crate Motor Break In Procedure

MaverickZ71 · September 28, 2017

The oil consumption issues with these trucks is primarily driven by the AFM system, not poor break-in.

I have two non-AFM trucks, and neither has any oil consumption issues, even after a 5,000-mile trip pulling an 8,600-lb trailer running the engine at 3,000+ RPM with occasional spins over 5500 when ascending/descending steep grades in the Rockies.

I totally agree. Today the manufacturers have the rings so loose in the bores compared to what they used to; they are desperate for anything to gain a fraction of a mpg for CAFE purposes. Even if you get an engine with good tolerances/assembly, there is a better-than-average chance that the AFM system will end up making it eat oil. In an effort to save a few minutes and therefore a little money, GM has even told its dealers' service departments not to re-cross-hone any engine bores after installing new rings/pistons!

Grumpy Bear · September 28, 2017

Which is why the proper break-in method is all done in 20 min. or so. Not 500 miles.

Glazing has nothing to do with a proper breakin process, but can definitely result from a too-slow break-in.

You missed the real points of my last post. Perhaps you should read it again, more thoroughly. You're also cluttering your arguments up with a whole bunch of unrelated stuff, Same as your earlier post.

I built my fair share of motors as well. You're not the only one out there that's been inside an engine. I'm definitely not who you think I might be. Perhaps, you're not the expert you think you are. And no, the break-in for rings hasn't changed in the way you think it has. Just because you think and believe something doesn't make it real, or true.

Perhaps you should do some real research into why those rings need proper seating & the difference it makes. If the rings seated & broke in like you claim, there'd never be anyone complaining about oil usage problems on here, or on any of the other boards. But alas........

Nuff said

Actually what's missing is you mistaking your perception of beliefs with results. I've posted them twice.

I don't actually care who you are. The world thought itself flat for thousands of years on the base of such experts. Of which I've made no claim too be an expert. What I have made claim to are my results and my method for getting them.

Another irrational discourse I'm done with.

Nanotech Environmental · September 28, 2017

The oil consumption issues with these trucks is primarily driven by the AFM system, not poor break-in.

I have two non-AFM trucks, and neither has any oil consumption issues, even after a 5,000-mile trip pulling an 8,600-lb trailer running the engine at 3,000+ RPM with occasional spins over 5500 when ascending/descending steep grades in the Rockies.

Yes AFM is what it is commonly blamed on. However I'd suggest that it is both. Rings that aren't seated will increase, or be the sole source of oil usage during cyl shutdown.

Nanotech Environmental · September 28, 2017

I totally agree. Today the manufacturers have the rings so loose in the bores compared to what they used to; they are desperate for anything to gain a fraction of a mpg for CAFE purposes. Even if you get an engine with good tolerances/assembly, there is a better-than-average chance that the AFM system will end up making it eat oil. In an effort to save a few minutes and therefore a little money, GM has even told its dealers' service departments not to re-cross-hone any engine bores after installing new rings/pistons!

Yes, AFM is what it is commonly blamed on. However I'd suggest that it is both. Rings that aren't seated will increase, or be the sole source of oil usage during cyl shutdown.