Porsche N.A. flat six vs new turbo flat 4

rsch posted:

Dear  Cd, i can't think you are so stupid to deem a person  as above by the cars he owns or the music he  listen.

If you enquire carefully about that group  this is far from true. Moreover if you already payed attention to my collection, you can see that it varies from French Medieval to Neo Romantics, Brit Pop an so on.

About sexual attributes i can't figure out there is still people thinking that the main reason to own supecars or big cars is to compensate the size of the former. Did you ever think that it can be only for the sheer pleasure of driving or enthusiasm for fine engineering ? Btw for the record my DD car is Toyota IQ one of the smallest around, and other cars in our family  are below 4m long.

The intentions of this post was to discuss technical and behavioral aspects of engines since i thought that a few people  here shoewed an interest in automotive engineering but probably it seems that most people is more interested in football or wines.

Since the discussion is turning on politics and lifestyle polemics,  it would be better ift he administrator closed the post

Regards

Roberto

Dear Roberto,

the association between big cars and sexual attributes was made by HH, not by me. Re-read carefully the posts. As for your musical taste, I see what I see: among all the existing music you chose those Death in June and Le joyeux de la princesse; I followed the links and did some research. They are unquestionably – or they try to so appear – mid 30s, Nazi German oriented. I found this eloquent images:

and an apology of Philippe Henriot, a notorious Anti-semite, German collaborationist in the WWII.

That said, a taste for Medieval music doesn't appear to me in strict contrast with what I found, and as for Brit Pop, well it's a fact that Hitler's favourite film was King Kong, and he loved dogs. So what?

Again, I was defending your right to love big, powerful cars; I only expressed some marvel at the fact that Mr HH found it proper to ironize on your hypothetical small attributes but not on your choice of music for your funeral, since the thread had been started by him. But I suppose that owning a Porsche Boxster is, for some, a worst sin than having sympathies for the devil.

Cordially

CD

Huge posted:

 

Many people had problems because a 'mate' said "Oh! modern car engines don't need any running in.".  On the other hand some (a small minority) of the early CAVE engines DID have a big problem with oil consumption and subsequently with overheating due to carbonisation of the piston crowns (in the 1st generation engines, the oil control ring was a simple stepped ring and were a bit slack).  Others have had a problem from people running the gearbox in 'S' to much, or manually controlling them with the paddles, and some others due to using cheap oil "because the engine uses so much oil, there's no point in using the expensive stuff".

Run in properly, driven properly (according to the engine's needs, including, when cold, not racing the engine or using too much torque) and with the right oil, they're actually quite reliable!

I've also been informed that new cars no longer need running in. Well, perhaps I'm being a bit finicky but I still spend the first couple of thousand miles going through a very gentle driving regime, and an ongoing mechanical sympathy for how I drive. It's not only the engine that may benefit from this (and I'm convinced it does) but also brakes, suspension, and all the other mechanical moving parts. Perhaps it's a mere coincidence but all my cars have been reliable; makes you think a bit when you read of other folks' horror stories with their cars.

I see you insist , you should know  there are quite different meanings on the rune symbolism than  the well known Nazi iconography.

If you hate cars, please don't waste this space any more, there are people here more keen to talk about engines than you. If you think that a car like that  is Big and  Powerful  it seems that you are not really competent on the argument and you' d be better to write about football or whatever you like

Regards

Roberto

tonym posted:

Huge posted:

 

Many people had problems because a 'mate' said "Oh! modern car engines don't need any running in.".  On the other hand some (a small minority) of the early CAVE engines DID have a big problem with oil consumption and subsequently with overheating due to carbonisation of the piston crowns (in the 1st generation engines, the oil control ring was a simple stepped ring and were a bit slack).  Others have had a problem from people running the gearbox in 'S' to much, or manually controlling them with the paddles, and some others due to using cheap oil "because the engine uses so much oil, there's no point in using the expensive stuff".

Run in properly, driven properly (according to the engine's needs, including, when cold, not racing the engine or using too much torque) and with the right oil, they're actually quite reliable!

I've also been informed that new cars no longer need running in. Well, perhaps I'm being a bit finicky but I still spend the first couple of thousand miles going through a very gentle driving regime, and an ongoing mechanical sympathy for how I drive. It's not only the engine that may benefit from this (and I'm convinced it does) but also brakes, suspension, and all the other mechanical moving parts. Perhaps it's a mere coincidence but all my cars have been reliable; makes you think a bit when you read of other folks' horror stories with their cars.

I have seen a thread somewhere where it was argued that new performance cars needed to be driven hard initially for some reason, can't remember why but the technical reasons given seemed convincing when presented - something about glazing the engine bores? Anyhow, I tend to follow the same routine you guys take for the first thousand miles or so and have also had no engine problems with my cars (touch wood!).

The old change your oil at 1000 miles or so and go easy on the driving was a mixture of the machining tolerances possible and the inability to remove all of the core sand used in the engine manufacture. That's all changed, your engine will have done a hot test in the engine plant to ensure it meets its performance targets, a bit of a thrashing. It will also have done a similar test in vehicle, after assembly. It was only towards the end of my career at Ford, that I saw both engine plant and final vehicle assembly. If you get a chance a vehicle assembly plant is a fascinating tour. People often complain about vehicle failures, but if you subjected your £20k piece of hifi to the speeds, g forces, weather, poor driving etc and expect it to be repairable after a crash as well..................

rsch posted:

I see you insist , you should know  there are quite different meanings on the rune symbolism than  the well known Nazi iconography.

If you hate cars, please don't waste this space any more, there are people here more keen to talk about engines than you. If you think that a car like that  is Big and  Powerful  it seems that you are not really competent on the argument and you' d be better to write about football or whatever you like

Regards

Roberto

 

I'll treasure your suggestions. I love football and also whatever I like. I'll stick to those popular attractions while you dedicate to French Medieval Music. Sorry for wasting your time.

Meanwhile, you could enlighten us on the biography of Douglas Pierce and explain his habitual 'lifestyle'. Best wishes with your new Supercar (which, necessarily, can't belong than to a Superman).

CD

The principle is simple there are manufacturing tolerances and from machining there is initially highpoint to highpoint contact.

The initial phase of running in allows moving surfaces to wear (or peen) the highpoints to give a better polish on the moving surfaces.  Later more stress is applied gradually to improve the bedding in as the highpoint surfaces become wider.  Finally a high energy (increased forces and heat stress) is applied for a short time to stress harden the surface of the materials to increase longevity.  This is independent of the manufacturer's short term stress test.

So the drive hard (for a fairly short time) guidance is correct, but ONLY AFTER the full bedding in process has been completed.

Crompton Divided posted:

rsch posted:

I see you insist , you should know  there are quite different meanings on the rune symbolism than  the well known Nazi iconography.

If you hate cars, please don't waste this space any more, there are people here more keen to talk about engines than you. If you think that a car like that  is Big and  Powerful  it seems that you are not really competent on the argument and you' d be better to write about football or whatever you like

Regards

Roberto

 

I'll treasure your suggestions. I love football and also whatever I like. I'll stick to those popular attractions while you dedicate to French Medieval Music. Sorry for wasting your time.

Meanwhile, you could enlighten us on the biography of Douglas Pierce and explain his habitual 'lifestyle'. Best wishes with your new Supercar (which, necessarily, can't belong than to a Superman).

CD

I suggest you  reading  the excellent Aldo Chimenti's book  - Nascosto Tra Le Rune (English version "Hidden Amongst The Runes.

The above   it' s not absolutely a super car, only a pretty humble sports car.

Regards

Roberto

Penarth Blues posted:

tonym posted:

Huge posted:

 

Many people had problems because a 'mate' said "Oh! modern car engines don't need any running in.".  On the other hand some (a small minority) of the early CAVE engines DID have a big problem with oil consumption and subsequently with overheating due to carbonisation of the piston crowns (in the 1st generation engines, the oil control ring was a simple stepped ring and were a bit slack).  Others have had a problem from people running the gearbox in 'S' to much, or manually controlling them with the paddles, and some others due to using cheap oil "because the engine uses so much oil, there's no point in using the expensive stuff".

Run in properly, driven properly (according to the engine's needs, including, when cold, not racing the engine or using too much torque) and with the right oil, they're actually quite reliable!

I've also been informed that new cars no longer need running in. Well, perhaps I'm being a bit finicky but I still spend the first couple of thousand miles going through a very gentle driving regime, and an ongoing mechanical sympathy for how I drive. It's not only the engine that may benefit from this (and I'm convinced it does) but also brakes, suspension, and all the other mechanical moving parts. Perhaps it's a mere coincidence but all my cars have been reliable; makes you think a bit when you read of other folks' horror stories with their cars.

I have seen a thread somewhere where it was argued that new performance cars needed to be driven hard initially for some reason, can't remember why but the technical reasons given seemed convincing when presented - something about glazing the engine bores? Anyhow, I tend to follow the same routine you guys take for the first thousand miles or so and have also had no engine problems with my cars (touch wood!).

It seems there are  different school of thoughts about engine run in. The first one is to stick with limited rpm  3/4K for the first 1000 miles or so. The other one, when the engine is well up to temperature to use pretty much all the revs availble on low gears but without giving it too muxh load on high gears. This  would be helpeful for a better bed in of piston rings within the cylinder.  VW cars generally are scheduled for the first oil change after 2 years or 30000 km ( a bit optimistic perhaps) Lotus cars are delivered with semi syntetic oil due to be changed to fully synthetic after 1000 miles/1 year.

Regards

Roberto

Penarth Blues posted:

tonym posted:

Huge posted:

 

Many people had problems because a 'mate' said "Oh! modern car engines don't need any running in.".  On the other hand some (a small minority) of the early CAVE engines DID have a big problem with oil consumption and subsequently with overheating due to carbonisation of the piston crowns (in the 1st generation engines, the oil control ring was a simple stepped ring and were a bit slack).  Others have had a problem from people running the gearbox in 'S' to much, or manually controlling them with the paddles, and some others due to using cheap oil "because the engine uses so much oil, there's no point in using the expensive stuff".

Run in properly, driven properly (according to the engine's needs, including, when cold, not racing the engine or using too much torque) and with the right oil, they're actually quite reliable!

I've also been informed that new cars no longer need running in. Well, perhaps I'm being a bit finicky but I still spend the first couple of thousand miles going through a very gentle driving regime, and an ongoing mechanical sympathy for how I drive. It's not only the engine that may benefit from this (and I'm convinced it does) but also brakes, suspension, and all the other mechanical moving parts. Perhaps it's a mere coincidence but all my cars have been reliable; makes you think a bit when you read of other folks' horror stories with their cars.

I have seen a thread somewhere where it was argued that new performance cars needed to be driven hard initially for some reason, can't remember why but the technical reasons given seemed convincing when presented - something about glazing the engine bores? Anyhow, I tend to follow the same routine you guys take for the first thousand miles or so and have also had no engine problems with my cars (touch wood!).

You might be recalling the discussion about diesel engines where it was strongly suggested that every so often they need to be revved hard so as to clear deposits and flush out the particulate filter. Gentle driving of diesel engines 100% of the time is actually detrimental to them.

rsch posted:

I see you insist , you should know  there are quite different meanings on the rune symbolism than  the well known Nazi iconography.

If you hate cars, please don't waste this space any more, there are people here more keen to talk about engines than you. If you think that a car like that  is Big and  Powerful  it seems that you are not really competent on the argument and you' d be better to write about football or whatever you like

Regards

Roberto

 

Don't be put-off, Roberto. Some of us enjoy talking about cars and engines. Those who don't are under no obligation to contribute to the thread. 

The funny thing is, that HH started ironizing about supercars and doing very elegant innuendos about the inverse ratio between the size of the car and that of the genitals (in a very understated, British way, of course) , but in the end it's me spoiling the party.... You forum people are really a species of its own. Talk about all the f****ing cars you want, the object of my post was another.

But, as many times and many forum lives before, I've just started and already have enough. Enjoy yourself – this has more than a meaning, RSCH, not the rune...

CD

rsch posted:

Penarth Blues posted:

tonym posted:

Huge posted:

 

Many people had problems because a 'mate' said "Oh! modern car engines don't need any running in.".  On the other hand some (a small minority) of the early CAVE engines DID have a big problem with oil consumption and subsequently with overheating due to carbonisation of the piston crowns (in the 1st generation engines, the oil control ring was a simple stepped ring and were a bit slack).  Others have had a problem from people running the gearbox in 'S' to much, or manually controlling them with the paddles, and some others due to using cheap oil "because the engine uses so much oil, there's no point in using the expensive stuff".

Run in properly, driven properly (according to the engine's needs, including, when cold, not racing the engine or using too much torque) and with the right oil, they're actually quite reliable!

I've also been informed that new cars no longer need running in. Well, perhaps I'm being a bit finicky but I still spend the first couple of thousand miles going through a very gentle driving regime, and an ongoing mechanical sympathy for how I drive. It's not only the engine that may benefit from this (and I'm convinced it does) but also brakes, suspension, and all the other mechanical moving parts. Perhaps it's a mere coincidence but all my cars have been reliable; makes you think a bit when you read of other folks' horror stories with their cars.

I have seen a thread somewhere where it was argued that new performance cars needed to be driven hard initially for some reason, can't remember why but the technical reasons given seemed convincing when presented - something about glazing the engine bores? Anyhow, I tend to follow the same routine you guys take for the first thousand miles or so and have also had no engine problems with my cars (touch wood!).

It seems there are  different school of thoughts about engine run in. The first one is to stick with limited rpm  3/4K for the first 1000 miles or so. The other one, when the engine is well up to temperature to use pretty much all the revs availble on low gears but without giving it too muxh load on high gears. This  would be helpeful for a better bed in of piston rings within the cylinder.  VW cars generally are scheduled for the first oil change after 2 years or 30000 km ( a bit optimistic perhaps) Lotus cars are delivered with semi syntetic oil due to be changed to fully synthetic after 1000 miles/1 year.

Regards

Roberto

I think the key here is not to allow the engine to labour in too high a gear ( not a worry with autos).