Drive under 80 km - Brand New GLC 300 4matic
Last edited by FinallyOwnMerz2K18; Nov 24, 2017 at 11:17 AM.
_________________
Trending Topics
2 cents,
Dave
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
[img]webkit-fake-url://d581abc0-d602-4d48-a3c8-296bf8e12d41/imagepng[/img]
It's a non-issue in any case....it isn't 1965 anymore. Do what you like with your car but break in isn't the issue it used to be in years past due to far better machining and tighter tolerances in modern engines. I would advise on varying the rpm and avoiding redlne and sustained high rpm for the first few hundred miles.....anything more than that is overkill IMO.....but it certainly won't hurt to baby it longer which is why many manufacturer's recommend it: no downside. If you want your engine to last longer, I'd suggest on an early oil change (500 - 1000 miles) over worrying as much about how to drive it.
Here's a short read on the subject:
Modern versus older break-in regimens
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[[i]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[[i]citation needed]. 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.
Dave
Here's a short read on the subject:
Modern versus older break-in regimens
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[[i]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[[i]citation needed]. 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.
Dave
Last edited by linus69; Mar 16, 2019 at 07:51 AM.








