How to break in a new Bike properly?

[victor]

I cant find the old post i saw how to break in a new engine. How do u break it in. I have a brand new 600cc and i dont know how to break it in properly

[bobs]

What does the owner's manual have to say about it?

[WildKat]

Follow what the owners manual says. Your manufacturer is the one who made it and since they ultimately decide with your dealer whether or not to honor warranty work if a questionable situation comes up..IMO its better to be safe than sorry.

A quick search of the forums yielded this thread with some infor. in on it too..

http://www.katriders.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6902&highlight=breaking

[Teh_K]

I think this link was in another thread in the past, but I'm not sure if there was a consensus on the board on whether the methods in the link are... wise.

[md86]

A few people I know who I'm sure know better have said the quick break-in method was better . I'd probably do that if I ever had to .

[freight dog]

I am hearing more and more from knowledgeable sources that the quick break in method will give you better ring seating, and a stronger engine. I am aware of what the manufacturers recommend, but I would like to know why every manufacturer takes each brand new shiny bike off the assembly line, plops it on a dyno and after warming it up, immediately beats the living sh!t out of it by running through the gears at redline. Yes, that's right, your bike that you so carefully, gently, painstakingly broke in was thrashed mercilessly like a cheap whore at the factory before you ever got your paws on it. It can't be that bad for the engine!

I plan on doing the "quick break in" the next time I have a new engine. http://mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm

[WildKat]

Its a never ending debate.. it's really 6-1 1/2 dozen the other. There's pros and cons to both so do what you feel is right and keep all your maintenance records even on work you do on your own.

[SweetLou]

Oh boy, here we go!!!

Lots of people argue about the proper way to break in a engine. Some people say Ride it like you plan on riding it, others say baby it.

This is what I beleive from doing a lot of research, and also how I broke in my Gixxer engine...

Rode the bike for 20 miles somewhat hard (Didn't baby it at all, but also did not red line it by anymeans).

After 20 miles, change the oil and filter as in the first 20 miles, the rings have set, and you have lots ot metal shavings floating through your oil, and with our engines, the engine oil is shared with the tranny. Do you really want them metal shavings floating around in your tranny gears?

After the oil and filter change is done, ride your bike respectable, don't be afraid to get on it. Don't red-line it, that is just asking fro trouble.

150 Miles, do another oil change, don't worry about the filter this time.

After that, follow your regular mainteance schedule.

[The CyberPoet]

I am still of the belief that the original manufacturer's instructions are the best possible instructions. The majority of ring and cylinder wall wear will occur during the first 100 miles, and while that difference may not make any difference in the first 20k of ownership, it can make a serious difference in whether your engine makes it to 50k, 100k in the long run, IMHO. Especially with the nikasil-equivilent coating used in the newest engines (which you really don't want to degrade if possible).

Additionally, there is always the small possibility that something will seize; that possibility increases in probability the faster the engine is beaten, IMHO.

Engine rebuilders/builders have an entirely different mentality than OEM engine manufacturers. When an engine remanufacturer takes a freshly rebuild engine and whales on it immediately, (IMHO) he is trying to create a worst-case scenario, so that the engine will be more likely to fail on him on the spot (as verses to failing in the field 100 miles later and giving him a bad name). He doesn't care about cylinder wall wear in that sense, because he doesn't offer a 4 year extended warrantee and doesn't care what happens 50k miles down the road; he cares about his own reputation in the short term. A firm like Suzuki wants you to get serious mileage out of the bike without serious issues (so you'll want to buy their product again in the future), and thus their instructions are different.

I'm also of the belief that the lower RPM break-in tends to leave the pressure in the combustion chamber longer, resulting in longer, smoother pushing of the rings into the walls to bed them in than super-high RPMs which may cause additional shearing and wear. Increasing the RPM ceilings as the engine gains miles adds more and more pressure onto the rings, honing even further once the hone is already fairly smooth...

Yes, this debate will rage for as long as there are combustion engines on the market.

NO MATTER WHICH METHODS YOU FOLLOW, KNOW THIS:

During break-in, the engine needs to come up to temp fully and kept there for a while. Always let the engine run for at least two-to-four minutes before putting it in gear during the break-in, and try to stick to making longer trips (a couple 150 to 300 mile trips is better for the break-in of an engine than a couple dozen runs over to the local grocery, blockbuster, etc). I always break in bikes by simply taking a series of progressively longer mini-road-trips, putting along while varying the RPM, so the piston rings hone in tightly to the cylinder walls...

I also believe in changing the oil far more frequently during the break-in period (for the reasons SweetLou mentioned; I advised him to), and even go as far as to drop the oil pan at the 600 mile mark (you wouldn't believe just how much metal is in the honey-comb pattern at the bottom of your oil pan at that point unless you've seen it -- it's a serious amount and because of the pattern of the pan, it won't come out through the drain).

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[freight dog]

I wish people wouldn't get so bent out of shape regarding a debate. Debate is good and helps people think about old problems in new ways.

That said, I have a couple of issues with Cybers conclusions.

there is always the small possibility that something will seize; that possibility increases in probability the faster the engine is beaten, IMHO.

If the engine didn't seize when the factory thrashed it, the possibility of it seizing during a hard break in are small as long as you follow the protocol. (ie. warm it up, change oil at 20 miles, don't use synthetic oil, if using a dyno, let it cool after 3 dyno runs, etc...)

A firm like Suzuki wants you to get serious mileage out of the bike without serious issues (so you'll want to buy their product again in the future), and thus their instructions are different.

Not to be rude, but that flies in the face of logic. Suzuki wants the engine to last until the warrantee expires and that's it. Endlessly reliable bikes would cut into future bike sales and parts sales. If the bike survives the warrantee period without serious issues, most people would be satisfied that it exhibited adequate reliability.

I'm also of the belief that the lower RPM break-in tends to leave the pressure in the combustion chamber longer, resulting in longer, smoother pushing of the rings into the walls to bed them in than super-high RPMs which may cause additional shearing and wear. Increasing the RPM ceilings as the engine gains miles adds more and more pressure onto the rings, honing even further once the hone is already fairly smooth...

It is the high pressure of running hard that seats the rings, which is why the manufacturer recommends that you vary rpms during break in. Changing rpms while in gear increases pressure on the rings, helping them to seat properly.

Let me ask intuitively, if you have two identical engines with similar amounts of mileage, cut on the same CNC controlled machinery, yet one produces 10% more power, which engine would you say is running "better"? Would you agree that perhaps the lower power engine is not up to par, and may not be as reliable as the higher power engine? Because I would assume that an engine producing more power has better matching tolerances.

So why is it that Suzuki claims 72 hp for a 600cc Katana, but nearly everyone who dynos theirs shows about 67 hp? However, every once in a while you hear about a Kat that does indeed dyno about 72 hp box stock? Are production tolerances that bad? With modern CNC machinery...not bloody likely! My guess is that the 72 hp bikes were "thrashed" during the first 20 miles they were ridden.

The traditional method was only valid prior to the last twenty years when manufacturing tolerances were not so excellent. With modern computer controlled machinery, parts fit very well and are far less likely to wear excessively during break in.

If you haven't read Moto Man's website, I urge you to. You mey not agree with everything he says, ( I don't) but it is a real eye opener and will definitely give you a new perspective on engines.

[The CyberPoet]

A firm like Suzuki wants you to get serious mileage out of the bike without serious issues (so you'll want to buy their product again in the future), and thus their instructions are different.

Not to be rude, but that flies in the face of logic. Suzuki wants the engine to last until the warrantee expires and that's it. Endlessly reliable bikes would cut into future bike sales and parts sales. If the bike survives the warrantee period without serious issues, most people would be satisfied that it exhibited adequate reliability.

I stick by my original assertion. If I bought any vehicle and it proved reliable only as long as the warrantee coverage (or only a short while after that), I would never buy that brand again. Period. And I would advise just about everyone I know to do the same (avoid that brand).
Engendering brand loyalty requires more than meeting minimums and pays significant rewards because these are people you will sell to again without significant advertising budgeting involved. Suzuki and the other major players know that bikes wear out with time and distance no matter how fine they build them, and that -- combined with the desire for something newer, slicker, or fitting a different need -- will drive repeat customers, but only if they are happy with the brand, which past reliability plays heavily into. Otherwise they are effectively cutting their own throats, in a long-term business perspective.

Let me ask intuitively, if you have two identical engines with similar amounts of mileage, cut on the same CNC controlled machinery, yet one produces 10% more power, which engine would you say is running "better"?

The one with less blow-by and better compression ratios. Less perfect a seal at the rings will net me some more power (because I can change RPM's faster due to lower drag, more than making up for the loss through blow-by), but the one with less wear will last longer, and sooner or later will reach that same level of wear and simulatenously the power-output in general. Do I want to reach that level in 500 miles or in 10k miles, and what's the price in the long term?

Would you agree that perhaps the lower power engine is not up to par, and may not be as reliable as the higher power engine? Because I would assume that an engine producing more power has better matching tolerances.

See above.

So why is it that Suzuki claims 72 hp for a 600cc Katana, but nearly everyone who dynos theirs shows about 67 hp? However, every once in a while you hear about a Kat that does indeed dyno about 72 hp box stock? Are production tolerances that bad? With modern CNC machinery...not bloody likely! My guess is that the 72 hp bikes were "thrashed" during the first 20 miles they were ridden.

Suzuki claims 80 HP, and claims it at the engine output sprocket. I have yet to see them claim 72 HP on the bike (anywhere). As for your question about 67 vs 72 HP as measured at the rear wheel, that I can justify very easily based on four factors:
(A) What is the condition of the chain and sprockets? A brand new chain & sprockets can make a 10% difference in transmitted power over a heavily worn chain & sprockets. At 72 HP theoretical rear wheel in peak condition, a 10% difference could net you a figure as low as 65. Since most bikes have a chain somewhere between new/mint and ready-for-replacement, a 5% reduction is reasonable to calculate in (making our 72 HP turn into 68 HP).
(B) Exhaust flow. As I've shown in numerous posts, the exhaust headers can have very sloppy welds; the difference in weld heights that I've personally seen have varied by 1.5mm, creating up to 2.4mm of blockage height. That is a serious detriment to peak values (and no CNC involvement here).
(C) Variation factors - gearing and tire diameter. Rear-wheel dynometers don't measure HP -- they measure torque and calculate HP from it. Thus anything that affects the torque ratio, including changes in sprocketing and differences in different tire brands' tire diameters (and even air pressure in the tire affecting grip on the drum) all play into the machine's perceived torque readings.
(D) Environmental differences + per-machine differences. Although dynometers can supposedly correct for air temp & density (and some even for humidity factors), the correction factors are never concrete and two identical dynometers from the same manufacturer will produce different readings from the same bike. Now add in added drag at the dyno (degree of wear on the dyno itself), and you see there is a reason that common wisdom is that you can only compare the output of a dyno to output of that same specific dyno.

I won't even go into the differences in fuel power, whether the rider is running 87 or 92 octane, and whether this brand's mix of 87 is iso-octane or some mish-mash that approximates it but doesn't deliver the same amount of power per detonation (yet still has the same predetonation resistance) -- seek out one of the fuel threads on KR.

The traditional method was only valid prior to the last twenty years when manufacturing tolerances were not so excellent. With modern computer controlled machinery, parts fit very well and are far less likely to wear excessively during break in.

If you haven't read Moto Man's website, I urge you to. You mey not agree with everything he says, ( I don't) but it is a real eye opener and will definitely give you a new perspective on engines.

I've read everything he's had to say (and previously debated his entire page point-by-point on KP, in the pre-KR days). I still do not agree with his logic as being the "best way" because I value the longevity of the motorcycle over the immediate satisfaction of maximizing the HP early in the game. If HP is a result of wear issues, then sooner or later the engine will wear the same amount and I will gain the same HP numbers, no?

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[chilipepper]

I`ve been breaking in my 750 for the last few weeks, and I`ve been following the advice of a few of my friends. I have read the manual, and what some of you guys have said. Many similarities. I`ve been pushing on the gears, keeping the RPMs fluctuating, been up to 8000, but usually I get up to 6000 RPMs. I`ve done a couple long trips (3-4 hours each)many shorter ones, however the engine is well warmed up prior to taking off. I`m at 1200 KMs now and I tried to schedule an oil change and check, but I was moved to next week. Told them I was concerned (long weekend in Canada, Niagara Falls trip planned) and I was told that the engine would be better off with 1500-1800 KMs on it to set everything.

[freight dog]

Sorry for the long wait for my reply. I have been out of town again.

I stick by my original assertion. If I bought any vehicle and it proved reliable only as long as the warrantee coverage (or only a short while after that), I would never buy that brand again. Period. And I would advise just about everyone I know to do the same (avoid that brand).
Engendering brand loyalty requires more than meeting minimums and pays significant rewards because these are people you will sell to again without significant advertising budgeting involved. Suzuki and the other major players know that bikes wear out with time and distance no matter how fine they build them, and that -- combined with the desire for something newer, slicker, or fitting a different need -- will drive repeat customers, but only if they are happy with the brand, which past reliability plays heavily into. Otherwise they are effectively cutting their own throats, in a long-term business perspective.

I am sure you don't believe Suzuki wants their bikes to last forever. Just a reasonable degree of reliablity. If the bike lasts long enough to satisfy the majority of customers, they aren't going to engineer it to last longer than that, although they could.

It is hyperbolae to say I meant that the bikes would fall apart shortly after the warrantee ends. They just want to approach 100% reliability for that period with an "acceptable" diminishment of reliability after that. That acceptable diminishment just might take into account that the break in procedure they suggest might not be the best for long term reliability, but good enough that a streetbike seeing normal street usage would still run well enough for a long enough time that most customers would be satisfied.

The rest of your arguments I believe, assume that Motoman is lying about the pictures he has on his site. He has posted pictures of clean pistons with zero blow-by and therefore almost no wear after using the hard break in technique followed by a season of racing, not just street riding. And he must have lied about the pictures of normal pistons with scorch marks and scoring from blow by, showing significant wear, supposedly following manufacturer break in methods. Perhaps he is trying to convince people to destroy their brand new motorcycles because he is an antisocial psychopath. It's possible.

You also haven't addressed the fact that the factory deliberately does catastrophic damage to your new engine before it leaves the production floor. Why would they do that when they could perform the same test runs using suggested rpm limitations?

Lastly, knowing your voracious appetite for information, I should have assumed you had already read Motomans website. My comment was really directed to readers who haven't researched break in methods yet.

[The CyberPoet]

I am sure you don't believe Suzuki wants their bikes to last forever. Just a reasonable degree of reliability. If the bike lasts long enough to satisfy the majority of customers, they aren't going to engineer it to last longer than that, although they could.
It is hyperbolae to say I meant that the bikes would fall apart shortly after the warrantee ends. They just want to approach 100% reliability for that period with an "acceptable" diminishment of reliability after that. That acceptable diminishment just might take into account that the break in procedure they suggest might not be the best for long term reliability, but good enough that a streetbike seeing normal street usage would still run well enough for a long enough time that most customers would be satisfied.

(note: still just for debate's sake)
The longer their brand lasts in the public perception & the less it breaks down, the higher the general perceived value, and the larger the profit margins can be across the board (for everyone from the manufacturer to the distributor to the retailer).
My guess is the fully-planned-obsolence is 100k miles specifically, or about 5 to 8 years in typical every-day service at a primary vehicle. Why 100k? Because that it is the point at which the odometer locks up and won't register any more miles on a late model Suzuki with an electronic odometer. I doubt many riders will see 100k, but a few will see more (especially if they ride a lot and can rack up that much in 6 years or less)... 120-140k miles isn't uncommon for British dispatch riders, who tend to ride through all weather and all circumstances, but who generally do their maintenance by the book religiously.

The rest of your arguments I believe, assume that Motoman is lying about the pictures he has on his site. He has posted pictures of clean pistons with zero blow-by and therefore almost no wear after using the hard break in technique followed by a season of racing, not just street riding.
And he must have lied about the pictures of normal pistons with scorch marks and scoring from blow by, showing significant wear, supposedly following manufacturer break in methods. Perhaps he is trying to convince people to destroy their brand new motorcycles because he is an antisocial psychopath. It's possible.

I think you give him too much credit -- instead of analyzing what is happening strictly empirically. I honestly believe that he thinks it really is the best way (and if power-curves are your sole criteria, I will readily agree that it really is the best way). And I don't believe that he is an antisocial psychopath. But he does make his living rebuilding & tuning other people's engines -- which would imply some level of vested financial interest, something I don't have in this.
Even in his write up of the ZX6 tear-down, he acknowledges reducing the frictional resistance at the rings by honing out the bores to open it up further, reducing reciprocating friction. Which is effectively the same thing as the hard break-in method he advocates would do to most new engines. The price for this is increased blow-by at the benefit of decreased friction to the piston sliding up and down, something ideal in a racing situation, but something which usually equates to lower total lifespan on the rings before combustion pressures drop far enough that rebuild-time rolls around.
So again, the question is simple: do you want more power now, or more lifespan later?

You also haven't addressed the fact that the factory deliberately does catastrophic damage to your new engine before it leaves the production floor. Why would they do that when they could perform the same test runs using suggested rpm limitations?

The whole factory redline / catastrophic damage issue is debatable as well.
Honda runs in most of their MC engines before they go in the bike, using automated procedures, then hits a dyno after production on the way out the door, to catch any serious defects (some markets also require that dyno output by law).
Yamaha does something very similar for many of their engines.
This why certain models of those companys' engines don't get a valve adjustment until 18k - 30k miles. They've already been through the basic break-in procedure before the customer ever sits on them; the rest of the break-in is for other subcomponents to seat and wear in.
Suzuki runs some of their engines, but not every one (seems to vary highly with which bike, which market, and what the statistical failure rate has been in the field). Triumphs runs them easily, then hits the dyno. The Italian brands are the only ones I know of that really get wailed directly from the assembly line, by hand. Then again, every Duc gets a test drive before it ships. I have no clue what happens at the various American production factories.

As for the wrench-monkey in the back of the dealership, I really don't know what to say about that. In my experience, the guy who preps the bikes isn't some highly-certified mechanic, since the final assembly from the crate is so simplistic these days when required at all (some are as simple as oil, fuel, charge battery, safety check) and dealerships don't want to pay mechanic rates when they don't have to.

Would you like me to re-debate everything motoman says?
I can pick a few things out right up front:

Use Valvoline, Halvoline, or similar 10w40 Petroleum Car Oil for at least 2 full days of hard racing or 1,500 miles of street riding / driving.

Car oils? API SJ/SL/SM included (no warning there)? Gimme a break. Obviously since he doesn't bother to differentiate, there either isn't a difference in his mind, or he hasn't bothered to share it with his readers, both of which are poor omissions.

Synthetic oil is so slippery that it actually "arrests" the break in process before the rings can seal completely.

Another misnomer. There are valid reasons that dino oils should be given preference for breaking in most engines, but the so slippery arguement is not a valid reason.

My bike comes with synthetic oil from the factory, what should I do ??
A: I recommend changing the factory installed synthetic oil back to petroleum for the break-in period.

Only two brands come from the factory with synthetics as far as I know - BMW comes to mind immediately. And their reasons for using that synthetic are valid and should not be ignored, unless you want to end up with a smoker in the long-run.

-----

In generally, I will agree that poorly seated rings can be detrimental. On the other hand, I will not agree that the factory recommended method, if followed to a T will automatically ruin the ring seating and permanently handicap a bike. I beleive that his physical examples of following the factory method are specifically worst-case scenario examples, and given that he has seen literally hundreds if not thousands of engines torn down in his professional life, finding some that reiterate his thesis shouldn't be that hard.

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet