Is there any actual proof whether hard or soft breakin better?

[jackka]

I am picking up my new Camaro next monday and I still haven't been able to decide whether to do a hard break in(Darin's method) or a soft break in(the Manual's method).

Is there any actual proof of the advantage of a hard break in that is permanently unattainable with a soft break in? (ie. dyno number differences between a soft break in and a hard break in after the soft break in has had enough miles on it )

I would do a hard break in and I believe that the car rapidly gains more power during a hard break in.

But the fact that engine engineers from GM, Ford, and Honda in a car magazine article have discredited any significant gain from a hard break in method kind of makes me think that Darin's method of break in is simply speeding up the process that would happen eventually with a soft break in anyway.

The only way to prove that a hard break in has a real advantage over a soft break in and not simply speeding up the break in process would be to compare dyno results with a car fully broken in with the soft method.

I was wondering if anyone has actually seen or felt such differences in performance.

[Revo1]

Better to err on the side of safety... Soft break-in for me.

[mikeSS]

just drive it normal.... you have a warranty

[fearless]

I broke mine in pretty rough mainly because I couldnt help my self:P

[mhood]

I broke mine in under load...no problems other than the damp driver's seat and the constant idiot grin on my face.

[Russell James]

Your correct in your thought of it just speeds up the wear in process. I have a couple of friends that are powertrain engineers and they do dyno testing all the time. They've seen green engines fail on dynos when taken to max load right away with no break in run time. It's very rare, but it does happen. Usually from a component that is a bit too tight. Such as a valve to valve guide clearance a hair too tight. Take that green motor red hot and it could stick that valve. Give it just a little break in run time, doesn't take much, and the parts will wear in and then be just fine when taken to max load.

The fact that most cars handle it just fine when beaten on brand new is more a testament to a quality build, than that is actually how it should be driven. Plus they've already had a little run time at the plant, in shipping, and moving around the dealer... so it really isn't that green anymore. In reality it's already had some pretty easy break in run time.

I've bought many brand new Vettes, F-bodies... over the years. I just drive them normal for a couple hundred miles, change the fluids, then drop the hammer at will. All have then dyno'd perfectly with numbers up there with the strongest out there. Even comparable numbers with those who claimed to be using the secret hard break in method. So they got their rings seated a couple hundred miles before me, woop de do.

I guess if you need to win a dyno shoot out at the 100 mile mark, the fast break in will help with that.

[Tech]

I've heard that there are two opinions on this. one, break in easy for the first 500 miles. The second is drive it like you want it to drive after the computer learns. Some say the computer will adapt to your driving style and that's how it will be from then on. not sure...

[04Ram2500Hemi]

Originally Posted by Revo1

Better to err on the side of safety... Soft break-in for me.

That's what I did, but now that it's hit 1500 miles and had it's first oil change, I'll be driving it like I want to.

[Camaro_Corvette]

I don't know about you. But mine will be a brutal break in.

[snowtrill]

Originally Posted by jackka

I am picking up my new Camaro next monday and I still haven't been able to decide whether to do a hard break in(Darin's method) or a soft break in(the Manual's method).

Is there any actual proof of the advantage of a hard break in that is permanently unattainable with a soft break in? (ie. dyno number differences between a soft break in and a hard break in after the soft break in has had enough miles on it )

I would do a hard break in and I believe that the car rapidly gains more power during a hard break in.

But the fact that engine engineers from GM, Ford, and Honda in a car magazine article have discredited any significant gain from a hard break in method kind of makes me think that Darin's method of break in is simply speeding up the process that would happen eventually with a soft break in anyway.

The only way to prove that a hard break in has a real advantage over a soft break in and not simply speeding up the break in process would be to compare dyno results with a car fully broken in with the soft method.

I was wondering if anyone has actually seen or felt such differences in performance.

I asked for dyno examples last week and didn't get much. I don't think there are actual numbers to support either as being better.

Mine will be mostly a soft break in with a few times that I just may not be able to resist.

After having the engine in my first car blown because my dad swore he knew more than the Volvo engineers, I generally listen to the people who design the cars.

[x626xBlack]

I am more concerned with the Brake rotors. If I drive it like I stole it out of the chute I may have to brake like a wife...

[ackeight]

After the oil is all warmed up I occasionally take it to 6K every drive. I'm not ragging on it all the time however. So I'd say a mix of the 2.

[joeaux]

These threads are my favs. All kinds of stuff flying around. To answer your original question, no there is no proof about one break-in over the other. I've had a butt ton of new cars over the years. I just do what the manual says and all of my cars have run like the devil. The Camaro is no exception.

[nards444]

Well I think the engineers at GM are smarter than some of the witch doctors on Camaro 5