|
> I don't believe much has changed in my life-time for engine break-in needs.
Having some experience with the industrial control systems used in manufacturing processes, I have to agree with the manufacturers when they say it has changed. Triumph are not using the same materials nor machining them in the same way that they were during, say, the manufacture of my 1980 Bonneville. One example: back then, closed-throttle deceleration was desirable to draw some oil up into the cylinder at times during the 3000-mile (or more) run-in period. That's no longer the case.
Discounting the Indian-made Royal Enfields or some custom shops, no major motorcycle manufacturer is making engines anything like what GM produced for cars or trucks in the Seventies.
Ring seating is seldom an issue any more (though rings and cylinder walls can be impacted by prolonged constant-speed operation, which is still recommended against). Dolson is very right about run-in being about more than the rings, anyway. Abuse the bearings and journals with full throttle too early, or by lugging the engine any time during run-in, and the results will be less predictable than with the manufacturer's method. And springs--oh, the springs. Ask any Triumph race team what the weakest link is in an unseasoned engine, and "valve springs" are likely to be the first words you hear.
Dolson is also right about this topic being done to death, so I'll hush for now.
[ This message was edited by: Diego on 2005-03-04 12:56 ]
__________________
John
|
