Running in new engine

[master_hayabusa]

Damn straight! I've read a few forums where the staff have been discussing what fun they had in driving it from the compound. So I asked one dealer if I could drive it from the compound to the dealership, or at least sit with the driver to ensure he behaves himself. Dealer said I could . From the port they are loaded on to a transporter so that's not a problem.

Also, can you imagine the very first GTI's with PP being driven for the first time by the driver from compound to the dealership and in the PDI? The driver is gonna be pretty keen on testing that baby out to the max. Now who wants their GTI first?

Forgive my ignorance but what is this compound you refer to?

I had assumed, naively perhaps, that the car would be shipped all the way to the dealer on a transporter of some description.

I assume it's the place where they deliver a dealership's batch of cars. A central point for that area. let's say for example, West London. Then each dealership of that network, e.g. Citygate vw would pick up the cars from there. Well that's what my dealer told me anyway. He said the driver would drive it from Greenford to Watford, about 13-20 miles depending on route.

[AAddict]

For many kinds of equipment (with automotive engines being the prime example), the time it takes to complete break-in procedures has decreased significantly from a number of days to a few hours, for several reasons.
The main reason is that the factories in which they are produced are now capable of better machining and assembly. For example, it is easier to hold tighter tolerances now, and the average surface finish of a new cylinder wall has improved. Manufacturers decades ago were capable of such accuracy and precision, but not with as low a unit cost or with as much ease. Therefore, the average engine made today resembles, in some technical respects, the top-end custom work of back then.[5] For some equipment, break-in is now done at the factory, obviating end-user break-in. This is advantageous for several reasons. It is a selling point with customers who don't want to have to worry about break-in and want full performance "right out of the box". And it also aligns with the fact that compliance rates are always uncertain in the hands of end users. As with medical compliance or regulatory compliance, an authority can give all the instructions it wants, but there is no guarantee that the end user will follow them.
The other reason for shorter break-in regimens today is that a greater amount of science has been applied to the understanding of break-in, and this has led to the realization that some of the old, long, painstaking break-in regimens were based on specious reasoning[citation needed]. People developed elaborate theories on what was needed and why, and it was hard to sift the empirical evidence in trying to test or confirm the theories. Anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias definitely played at least some part. Today engineers can confidently advise users not to put too much stock in old theories of long, elaborate break-in regimens

Some users will not give credence to the engineers and will stick to their own ideas anyway; but their careful break-in beliefs are still harmless and serve roughly like a placebo in allowing them to assure themselves that they've maximized the equipment's working lifespan through their due diligence.

[Hawaii-Five-O]

For many kinds of equipment (with automotive engines being the prime example), the time it takes to complete break-in procedures has decreased significantly from a number of days to a few hours, for several reasons.
The main reason is that the factories in which they are produced are now capable of better machining and assembly. For example, it is easier to hold tighter tolerances now, and the average surface finish of a new cylinder wall has improved. Manufacturers decades ago were capable of such accuracy and precision, but not with as low a unit cost or with as much ease. Therefore, the average engine made today resembles, in some technical respects, the top-end custom work of back then.[5] For some equipment, break-in is now done at the factory, obviating end-user break-in. This is advantageous for several reasons. It is a selling point with customers who don't want to have to worry about break-in and want full performance "right out of the box". And it also aligns with the fact that compliance rates are always uncertain in the hands of end users. As with medical compliance or regulatory compliance, an authority can give all the instructions it wants, but there is no guarantee that the end user will follow them.
The other reason for shorter break-in regimens today is that a greater amount of science has been applied to the understanding of break-in, and this has led to the realization that some of the old, long, painstaking break-in regimens were based on specious reasoning[citation needed]. People developed elaborate theories on what was needed and why, and it was hard to sift the empirical evidence in trying to test or confirm the theories. Anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias definitely played at least some part. Today engineers can confidently advise users not to put too much stock in old theories of long, elaborate break-in regimens

Some users will not give credence to the engineers and will stick to their own ideas anyway; but their careful break-in beliefs are still harmless and serve roughly like a placebo in allowing them to assure themselves that they've maximized the equipment's working lifespan through their due diligence.

Sources?

[Hawaii-Five-O]

Maybe a better question to pose in this thread is;

"What happens if I drive my car like its already been run in from new?"

What damage would/may be caused?

[AAddict]

For many kinds of equipment (with automotive engines being the prime example), the time it takes to complete break-in procedures has decreased significantly from a number of days to a few hours, for several reasons.
The main reason is that the factories in which they are produced are now capable of better machining and assembly. For example, it is easier to hold tighter tolerances now, and the average surface finish of a new cylinder wall has improved. Manufacturers decades ago were capable of such accuracy and precision, but not with as low a unit cost or with as much ease. Therefore, the average engine made today resembles, in some technical respects, the top-end custom work of back then.[5] For some equipment, break-in is now done at the factory, obviating end-user break-in. This is advantageous for several reasons. It is a selling point with customers who don't want to have to worry about break-in and want full performance "right out of the box". And it also aligns with the fact that compliance rates are always uncertain in the hands of end users. As with medical compliance or regulatory compliance, an authority can give all the instructions it wants, but there is no guarantee that the end user will follow them.
The other reason for shorter break-in regimens today is that a greater amount of science has been applied to the understanding of break-in, and this has led to the realization that some of the old, long, painstaking break-in regimens were based on specious reasoning[citation needed]. People developed elaborate theories on what was needed and why, and it was hard to sift the empirical evidence in trying to test or confirm the theories. Anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias definitely played at least some part. Today engineers can confidently advise users not to put too much stock in old theories of long, elaborate break-in regimens

Some users will not give credence to the engineers and will stick to their own ideas anyway; but their careful break-in beliefs are still harmless and serve roughly like a placebo in allowing them to assure themselves that they've maximized the equipment's working lifespan through their due diligence.

Sources?

Sorry, I hate to quote this place as a source (wikipedia  )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-in_(mechanical_run-in)

[dippy_x]

I guess I wold just err on the side of caution and do the break-in procedure as I guess it will not cause any harm.  It will be an interesting / scenic / slower drive back home 

[Bill_the_Bear]

I guess I wold just err on the side of caution and do the break-in procedure as I guess it will not cause any harm.  It will be an interesting / scenic / slower drive back home 

Yes.  But with some revs!  Don't forget the revs!

More importantly how do we keep the compound cretin drivers greasy fingers off our cars before they do their own form of break-in???

[matchboy]

I think that happens once in a blue moon Bear.  And no point worrying about something that you won't see nor have any control over!  There's scumbags everywhere unfortunately.

[Hawaii-Five-O]

This may have been touched upon before but I'm a tad concerned about my first drive home in my GTD. (Something which should be enjoyed)

I've got 230 odd miles to drive it home, 90% of which will be on motorway. I've read on here, can't remember where, that's it bad for running the car in if the first few hundred miles are at a constant speed and completed on motorways. Is this true? If so, are there any suggestions to help avoid potential problems developing with my diesel engine. Problems such as developing a thirst for oil later on down the line etc..

Thx

[AAddict]

If the journey must be completed on motorway I would just try to avoid cruise control and vary the revs and speed as much as you can. Dropping to fifth and back to sixth etc, just try not to have too constant a speed and revs for prolonged periods.