Team-BHP - Is break-in really required for modern bikes?

I always religiously followed company specified break-in methods and they worked ok for me.
2013 KTM Duke 390's limit was the most crazy one for me: 7500 rpm till first 1000 kms, oil change, and you're done. You could drag-beat a CBR 250 back then right in the break in period. :D

Anyhow, way before all this, in the 00's decade, there was this guy, 'Motoman' or so, and he propagated his own method for break in.
Summary of Motoman method is: Letting the bike warm up, take off ripping and run it hard, reving up and letting the engine decelerate back down, back up, back down for 35 kms, take it home, change oil and filters and then fill her up with car oil, but avoid synthetic oil for the first 1500 miles.

Apparently, Motoman claimed with proof that his pistons were cleaner after this method, than with a regular break in.
That said, I don't recall if he said something about engine life, and piston rings.

Can you connect cleaner piston on the top side, to longer engine life? I don't know for sure.
Few more online videos connect high revs to cleaner burning, but to longer engine life? I really don't know.

Some points to note:-

1. I'm 90% confident that his advice about NOT using synthetic oil early, is spot on. Many a guys getting white smoke too early in engine life are those who used fully-synthetic oils too early. I've heard this from senior bikers too, use mineral first, semi synthetic next and fully synthetic after 5-10 thousand kms or so.

2. Early oil change is recommended too. Its time with most engine wear, you get a really squishy muck anyways, so you know early oil change is good.

But what about the Motoman method for life of the engine? No idea yet.
I guess we will need an extensive, similar test on at least 4 motorcycles, two broken-in with motoman's method, two without. Then, see if a pattern can be established.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BullettuPaandi (Post 5794934)

I haven't heard about using mineral oil instead of synthetic early on. Is it better simply because it is cheaper & good-enough for the short oil change interval? Or is there any other rationale that I'm not aware of? ...regardless of whether this is still the case or just used to be. I'm just curious to know, so kindly share.

Thanks.

Even I've heard this, I think this is part of the the Mototune method.

This is what I found after some quick skimming through, what I believe is, the original website that explains this method. Quoting from the website:

Quote:

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

...So basically, the claim is that the better lubrication from the synthetic oil, hinders 'breaking-in' by not allowing 'the necessary friction'.

I don't think using mineral instead of synthetic oil would make the claimed difference; don't think it ever did either.

For a given 'weight' of the oil, the synthetic oil does have better lubrication performance, but is mostly because of something (we never really get to know) called 'viscosity index' - a rating system for how consistent the 'slipperiness' of the oil is over different operating temperatures. Besides additives, this is because synthesising oil results in a more orderly liquid, than refining from crude (mineral oil). I don't know what the appropriate terms are in liquid dynamics, but if synthetic oil is analogous to crystalline solids, mineral would be to amorphous. Remember that we're comparing oils of the same weight/viscosity rating after all; meaning for a given operating temperature - max in this case, as full throttle is what is advised - the viscosity of the oils should be identical. So, the difference at this point, is down to the individual particles in these oils. Also remember that I'm no Fluid Dynamics Engineer, or whatever it is that people who know in detail about this call themselves. Point is, this is too complicated of a subject, with a multitude of factors at play, where the fact that the reasoning is an all of "Synthetic oil is so slippery" itself is an evidence for the lack of thought put into. It just can't be that simple.

I don't think this, quite literally, microscopic difference between mineral & synthetic oil would add just the amount of 'friction that the synthetic oil wouldn't allow', which is an unsubstantial claim in the first place.

I for one have always treated and ridden my vehicles as if they were too delicate for road usage; not for 500 or 1000 kms but for at least 2000 kms. While this might sound overkill, it has translated into all the vehicles in my ownership needing either bare basic or no maintenance at all. We're talking about lower tyre wear rate, longer brake life, better working suspension, longer life of critically loaded bearings, zero issues in the actual engine and transmission whatsoever and so on. Of course, this might also be attributed to dumb luck and a placebo effect but I really like to think it's the bike/car's way of saying thanks for the gentle treatment. After all, I'm not going to use my bullet or WagonR or Scorpio for track racing so there's no point in revving high or driving hard IMO.
On another topic, since the talk of engine oils and their change necessity was being brought up in some earlier posts, here's something my Bullet service centre guy told me.
"Sir we change the engine oil in the first service only because the owner's manual says so. We've tried filtering it looking for any impurities but have found none. Modern engines are not crudely made. For example, engine bores are not just bored to the necessary diameter. They're honed afterwards so the old thinking of burr and metal chips coming in the first service oil has become so rare that it happens only in one or two defect vehicles. We actually reuse the first service oils in the bikes used by our mechanics. We use fresh oil for the customers but for our own usage, it is much more economical to reuse such good oil otherwise recommended to be thrown away"
Interesting thought on the wear and tear behaviour. Still, it's not a gamble I would take because if the manufacturer says change it, I change it. A dealer or sales guy recommending something is a different story and I take that advice with a heap of salt.

Digressing here from brake-in.

In general use, there will not be any difference in good quality engine oil, mineral or synthetic, as long as they are of same specifications. Yet synthetic is better for high performance as it performs better in extreme temperatures and last longer. If the manufacturer has recommended mineral oil and you regularly drive long durations at high speeds or put your engine through stress by hauling loads etc, then switch to synthetic oil.

We top up and change engine oil as per service schedules which is way before the expiry on most engine oils. So there is no real advantage of switching to Synthetic oil in normal driving conditions and few weekend trips.

Back to the topic.
For Brake-in I'll recommend to drive normally, both in traffic and long ride. All moving components need to settle down and smooth out if there are any hard edges left from machining. There is nothing that you can do additional that will bring a noticeable difference. There is more heat generated during this time and it is normal. I'll not stress the engine to heat it up more that it is already doing and it is bad for your engine.

I'll not stress the engine to brake-in, thats done for race engines to get it to performance mode quickly. These engines are not long lasting either and expectations are to perform well in a few race only. The engine will go through overhaul after that.

There are some common inputs from Service Technicians and Sales folks that mileage will increase after 1st service. Having used a lot of cars historically, I have felt mileage has infact reduced and the reason was because I drove sedately before 1st/2nd service lol:

Now coming to engine run in, regardless of what the world says, I feel we should treat these new vehicles as babies which needs pampering and getting used to. Lets give them that time. And speed limit is a thing of the past when RPM meters were not present. Engine run in should be strictly be done basis a revv limit, some cars and bikes fo 100-120 kmph at 2k rpm which wont damage a new engine but doing 40kmph in 1st gear might. Mostly it will be due to overheating which might lead to seizing since pistons are new.

I havent felt run in "effects" in cars till date but last year I bought a Fz 150 and did feel the engine was so so so soft initially with very less acceleration which gradually got smooth after few 100 kms. So I think its a tricky call whether run in is really required, but for people who love their cars and bikes, why not put in that effort for a long term fuss free engine.

I just learnt about this 'Italian tune-up', and this thread was the first thing that crossed my mind, so sharing it here. This post is strictly off-topic, but I think it adds some context to some of the other posts here. So, I'm hoping it adds something to the overall conversation. I'll refrain from quoting specific posts to avoid PMs to their respective members, as this is an off-topic post on an old thread, after all.

While browsing something entirely different, I got introduced to this method called 'The Italian tune-up'. In simple words: revving the engine to higher RPMs to clean carbon deposits. Here's a screenshot of a book that I found via Wikipedia, that suggests this method, among many others, to fix engine 'run-on'- a condition where the engine continues to run even after the ignition is turned off, by picking up heat from hot spots (fouled carbon in this case) and continuing combustion.

Is break-in really required for modern bikes?-ittune.png

'The Italian tune-up' makes sense on an old carburetor-ed motorcycle, particularly 2-strokes, that have built up some carbon deposit on the piston head and valves (in case of 4-strokes). To clean the deposit, revving the engine higher to both increase temperature and burn the deposit and increase airflow and blow it off, would be the simplest way to do. I've added more on the Italian tune-up on the dedicated thread.

But for the purposes of this thread, it seems to me that, this was a major factor of influence in the Motoman method. While it does make sense to rev the motorcycle higher to clean up carbon deposits even on a new 4-stroke, doing this while breaking in is both unnecessary and potentially harmful to the engine, as the method seems to focus more on adding more pressure right away, instead of guiding the engine through all of the different pressures and heat levels it will experience in a cautious manner.

Same goes for old engine rebuilds- where if new parts are revving to red line is simply unnecessary and potentially harmful; and if the old carbon-fouled parts are reused, sure revving up makes sense, but not for breaking in.