Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?

In article <%JiVj.79$ll1.45@trndny06>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@m>
wrote:

> How do you know that the speeds that the cars were driven at had
> anything to do with these "strides"? And why would driving a car a
> particular speed cause this?
>
> I think you don't know what you're talking about.

Some people develop superstitions, and live their lives by those.

Car owners are especially susceptible.

Go by your owner's manual. Things do change over time, and things that
were appropriate back then don't apply now. But you'll never get over
the superstition.

Hachiroku ��ロク wrote:

>

snip

>
> Five-hundred miles is approx 8 hours. I would prbably go pretty easy for
> the first 1,000 miles, secondary roads and short stretches on the highway
> around cities. This will do two things; allow the machine to run at
> something other than wide open, and force variations in load and speed
> like the manual says to do.
>

I think that this is great advice regardless of make of vehicle. It's
how I've always done it. Of course I drive older cars...

JT

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:58:03 +0000, Jeff wrote:

>> You will hit speeds and conditions on any car, no matter how it was
>> broken in due to engine and mechanical efficiencies. On most 4 cylinder
>> Toyotas I have owned, they seem to hit their stride 70~75 MPH, since I
>> assume this is the engine's most efficient mode. I have noticed this on
>> 4 or 5 Toyotas I have owned. Always got the best economy at about 72 MPH
>> in 5th gear.
>
> How do you know that the speeds that the cars were driven at had anything
> to do with these "strides"? And why would driving a car a particular speed
> cause this?
>
> I think you don't know what you're talking about.

The cars I have had new and have broken in myself have not had this
problem. The couple of cars I bought used that do this have a tendancy to
'settle' around 45 and 65 or so. The 7 new cars I broke in didn't do this.
And two of them were identical models.

And my Supra seems to settle around 60. It's a Canadian car, and whne I
say 60 I mean 60 KmH.

But, you never think I know what I'm talking about anyway, so I just
consider the source.

Hachiroku ��ロク wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:58:03 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>
>>> You will hit speeds and conditions on any car, no matter how it was
>>> broken in due to engine and mechanical efficiencies. On most 4 cylinder
>>> Toyotas I have owned, they seem to hit their stride 70~75 MPH, since I
>>> assume this is the engine's most efficient mode. I have noticed this on
>>> 4 or 5 Toyotas I have owned. Always got the best economy at about 72 MPH
>>> in 5th gear.
>> How do you know that the speeds that the cars were driven at had anything
>> to do with these "strides"? And why would driving a car a particular speed
>> cause this?
>>
>> I think you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
> The cars I have had new and have broken in myself have not had this
> problem. The couple of cars I bought used that do this have a tendancy to
> 'settle' around 45 and 65 or so. The 7 new cars I broke in didn't do this.
> And two of them were identical models.
>
> And my Supra seems to settle around 60. It's a Canadian car, and whne I
> say 60 I mean 60 KmH.
>
> But, you never think I know what I'm talking about anyway, so I just
> consider the source.

So do I. ;-)

On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:24:18 +0000, Jeff wrote:

> Hachiroku ��ロク wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:58:03 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>>> You will hit speeds and conditions on any car, no matter how it was
>>>> broken in due to engine and mechanical efficiencies. On most 4
>>>> cylinder Toyotas I have owned, they seem to hit their stride 70~75
>>>> MPH, since I assume this is the engine's most efficient mode. I have
>>>> noticed this on 4 or 5 Toyotas I have owned. Always got the best
>>>> economy at about 72 MPH in 5th gear.
>>> How do you know that the speeds that the cars were driven at had
>>> anything to do with these "strides"? And why would driving a car a
>>> particular speed cause this?
>>>
>>> I think you don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>>
>> The cars I have had new and have broken in myself have not had this
>> problem. The couple of cars I bought used that do this have a tendancy
>> to 'settle' around 45 and 65 or so. The 7 new cars I broke in didn't do
>> this. And two of them were identical models.
>>
>> And my Supra seems to settle around 60. It's a Canadian car, and whne I
>> say 60 I mean 60 KmH.
>>
>> But, you never think I know what I'm talking about anyway, so I just
>> consider the source.
>
> So do I. ;-)

Touche!

In article <34JVj.2342$6D1.946@trndny02>,
hachiroku ?+O+A+m+/? <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:

> I think I've probably broken in more new cars than you have.

GONE in 60 seconds.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:06:41 +0000, Jeff wrote:

> hachiroku ��ロク wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:58:03 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>
>>> How do you know that the speeds that the cars were driven at had
>>> anything to do with these "strides"? And why would driving a car a
>>> particular speed cause this?
>>>
>>> I think you don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> I think I've probably broken in more new cars than you have.
>>
>> The manual also probably recommends changing the oil every 7.500 miles
>> whether it needs it or not.
>
> Seven and a half miles? Gee, my mechanic is more than 7.5 miles away.
>
>> I've had a half dozen successes with my method, and was trying to pass
>> on *experience* to the OP. Don't like it? Don't follow it! Simple!
>
> So was I, which is, follow the manual, not some guy you don't know on the
> internet.
>
> It has long been rumored that there are people who are totally clueless
> twits who write on the internet.
>
> So which makes more sense: To follow the advice of the people who actually
> build the cars or someone who may or may not know what they are talking
> about?
>
> Jeff

You just gotta argue about everything, don't you?

The guy's not talking about a gentle break in, he's talking about a coast
to coast trip with a new vehicle, presumably as quickly as possible.

I gave him the benefit of my experience. You, as usual, offer nothing.

Matter of fact, I can't for the life of me ever remember when you actually
did something other than question and obfuscate what others have said.

If you leave tomorrow, I don't think you'd be missed. Don't let the door
slap you...

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:54:15 +0000, Jeff wrote:

>
> > and as someone pointed out, they're still listed in the manual:
>> avoid abrupt starts and stops, vary the speed, etc.
>
> Actually, I don't recall anything about varying the speed. And avoiding
> the abrupt starts and stops was for the brakes.

Look at one of my posts to jim beam. I posted what I found from the Honda
owner's manual, and from a Highlander. The Honda's didn't really say a
lot, the Highlander did say not to drive the car at any one speed for a
period of time.

>
>> Basically what I told
>> the OP. With the exception of changing the oil at 1,500 miles. That's
>> the only real departure I took from the manual. Unless the engine has a
>> special 'break in' oil like a Honda, I don't see what the big deal is.
>>
>> What it really comes down to is driving the car 3,000 miles pretty much
>> at once.
>
> No reason not to with today's engines.

What's so much different? Still iron block and aluminum heads with steel
pistons and rings.

And everyone keeps throwing 'closer tolerances' at me. I would think it
would be MORE important to take it easy the first couple thousand miles if
walls are thinner, etc.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:23:49 -0700, jim beam wrote:


>> Thinner walls means replacing the block rather than boring and honing.
>
> dude, you're clueless. you can re-bore a standard honda block twice -
> +0.25mm & +0.50mm.

I haven't re-bored anything on 4 cars >240,000 miles. No need to.

They were broken in properly...

hachiroku ��ロク wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:23:49 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>> Thinner walls means replacing the block rather than boring and honing.
>> dude, you're clueless. you can re-bore a standard honda block twice -
>> +0.25mm & +0.50mm.
>
> I haven't re-bored anything on 4 cars >240,000 miles. No need to.
>
> They were broken in properly...
>

that's as logical as saying that because you've never found an elephant
in your fridge, that elephants don't like butter.

high mileage survival is not a function of your, er, "departure" from
the service schedule - hondas and toyotas ROUTINELY get 300k+ miles on a
motor, no re-bores. all that 240k proves is that [because of good
production and engineering] it has survived in spite of your behavior,
not because of it.