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

On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:19:20 -0600, Bow Wow wrote:

> I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Highlander V6 on a
> trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile drive
> and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't want to
> drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount if you can
> help before the car's properly broken in.
>
> The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly, which
> happens during the break in period and before that, I was told you should
> avoid any long highway trip.
>
> What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put off
> the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks.

I'm old-school. I drive a car 1500 miles and then do the first oil change.
Then I do the next one at 3000 miles, and every 3-3500 after that.

I also had 3 cars go over 250,000 miles without burning oil.

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.

It seems I can tell when a car was broken in properly or not. On cars I
had had new, they don't tend to develop 'notches' at certain speeds. By
this I mean, on cars other than ones I bought new, I can notice that the
car seems to hit a stride ~45-50 MPH, and another ~70 MPH. What I assume
is that the person that bought the car new had two driving modes:
secondary roads (45 MPH) and highway (70 MPH). I have noticed this on a
few used cars I have owned.

On cars I bought new and broke in properly, there weren't any 'notches',
everything was fairly even across the range.

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.

Of course, with newer cars and a V6, things are different now, but I would
still take it pretty easy for the first 1500 miles, and stop and have the
oil changed.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:19:20 -0600, Bow Wow wrote:
>
>> I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Highlander V6 on a
>> trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile drive
>> and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't want to
>> drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount if you can
>> help before the car's properly broken in.
>>
>> The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly, which
>> happens during the break in period and before that, I was told you should
>> avoid any long highway trip.
>>
>> What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put off
>> the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks.
>
> I'm old-school. I drive a car 1500 miles and then do the first oil change.
> Then I do the next one at 3000 miles, and every 3-3500 after that.
>
> I also had 3 cars go over 250,000 miles without burning oil.
>
> 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.
>
> It seems I can tell when a car was broken in properly or not. On cars I
> had had new, they don't tend to develop 'notches' at certain speeds. By
> this I mean, on cars other than ones I bought new, I can notice that the
> car seems to hit a stride ~45-50 MPH, and another ~70 MPH. What I assume
> is that the person that bought the car new had two driving modes:
> secondary roads (45 MPH) and highway (70 MPH). I have noticed this on a
> few used cars I have owned.
>
> On cars I bought new and broke in properly, there weren't any 'notches',
> everything was fairly even across the range.
>
> 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.

From the owner's manual for a 2008 Pilot:

"Help assure your vehicle’s future
reliability and performance by paying
extra attention to how you drive
during the first 600 miles (1,000 km).
During this period:
Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid
acceleration.
Do not change the oil until the
scheduled maintenance time.
Avoid hard braking for the first
200 miles (300 km).
Do not tow a trailer.
You should also follow these
recommendations with an
overhauled or exchanged engine, or
when the brakes are replaced."

Note what the manual says about the first oil change.



> Of course, with newer cars and a V6, things are different now, but I would
> still take it pretty easy for the first 1500 miles, and stop and have the
> oil changed.
>

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

Jeff wrote:
> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:19:20 -0600, Bow Wow wrote:
>>
>>> I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Highlander V6 on a
>>> trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile
>>> drive
>>> and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't want to
>>> drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount if you can
>>> help before the car's properly broken in.
>>>
>>> The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly, which
>>> happens during the break in period and before that, I was told you
>>> should
>>> avoid any long highway trip.
>>>
>>> What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put
>>> off
>>> the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks.
>>
>> I'm old-school. I drive a car 1500 miles and then do the first oil
>> change.
>> Then I do the next one at 3000 miles, and every 3-3500 after that.
>>
>> I also had 3 cars go over 250,000 miles without burning oil.
>> 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.
>>
>> It seems I can tell when a car was broken in properly or not. On cars I
>> had had new, they don't tend to develop 'notches' at certain speeds. By
>> this I mean, on cars other than ones I bought new, I can notice that the
>> car seems to hit a stride ~45-50 MPH, and another ~70 MPH. What I assume
>> is that the person that bought the car new had two driving modes:
>> secondary roads (45 MPH) and highway (70 MPH). I have noticed this on a
>> few used cars I have owned.
>>
>> On cars I bought new and broke in properly, there weren't any 'notches',
>> everything was fairly even across the range.
>> 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.
>
> From the owner's manual for a 2008 Pilot:
>
> "Help assure your vehicle’s future
> reliability and performance by paying
> extra attention to how you drive
> during the first 600 miles (1,000 km).
> During this period:
> Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid
> acceleration.
> Do not change the oil until the
> scheduled maintenance time.
> Avoid hard braking for the first
> 200 miles (300 km).
> Do not tow a trailer.
> You should also follow these
> recommendations with an
> overhauled or exchanged engine, or
> when the brakes are replaced."
>
> Note what the manual says about the first oil change.
>
>
>
>> Of course, with newer cars and a V6, things are different now, but I
>> would
>> still take it pretty easy for the first 1500 miles, and stop and have the
>> oil changed.



what??? read the manual??? no freakin' chance buddy! we're all going
to have a retardation contest here on usenet and take the words of
nameless idiots with our new multi-thousand dollar investments, not the
experts that researched, designed and manufactured the freakin' thing!

imagine these guys in aerospace: "yeah, but this guy said those cracks
didn't matter".

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

In article <%JiVj.79$ll1.45@trndny06>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
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.

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

In article <m6mdncXetPIwIrjVnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> imagine these guys in aerospace: "yeah, but this guy said those cracks
> didn't matter".

That's in' hilarious. I can just see the NASA engineers hitting up
Google, finding the space shuttle fanboi forums, and then listening to
them.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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

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

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.

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

On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:30:50 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:19:20 -0600, Bow Wow wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Highlander V6 on a
>>>> trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile
>>>> drive
>>>> and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't want
>>>> to drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount if you
>>>> can help before the car's properly broken in.
>>>>
>>>> The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly, which
>>>> happens during the break in period and before that, I was told you
>>>> should
>>>> avoid any long highway trip.
>>>>
>>>> What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put
>>>> off
>>>> the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks.
>>>
>>> I'm old-school. I drive a car 1500 miles and then do the first oil
>>> change.
>>> Then I do the next one at 3000 miles, and every 3-3500 after that.
>>>
>>> I also had 3 cars go over 250,000 miles without burning oil.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It seems I can tell when a car was broken in properly or not. On cars I
>>> had had new, they don't tend to develop 'notches' at certain speeds. By
>>> this I mean, on cars other than ones I bought new, I can notice that
>>> the car seems to hit a stride ~45-50 MPH, and another ~70 MPH. What I
>>> assume is that the person that bought the car new had two driving
>>> modes: secondary roads (45 MPH) and highway (70 MPH). I have noticed
>>> this on a few used cars I have owned.
>>>
>>> On cars I bought new and broke in properly, there weren't any
>>> 'notches', everything was fairly even across the range. 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.
>>
>> From the owner's manual for a 2008 Pilot:
>>
>> "Help assure your vehicle’s future
>> reliability and performance by paying extra attention to how you drive
>> during the first 600 miles (1,000 km). During this period:
>> Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid
>> acceleration.
>> Do not change the oil until the
>> scheduled maintenance time.
>> Avoid hard braking for the first
>> 200 miles (300 km).
>> Do not tow a trailer.
>> You should also follow these
>> recommendations with an
>> overhauled or exchanged engine, or
>> when the brakes are replaced."
>>
>> Note what the manual says about the first oil change.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course, with newer cars and a V6, things are different now, but I
>>> would
>>> still take it pretty easy for the first 1500 miles, and stop and have
>>> the oil changed.
>
>
>
> what??? read the manual??? no freakin' chance buddy! we're all going to
> have a retardation contest here on usenet and take the words of nameless
> idiots with our new multi-thousand dollar investments, not the experts
> that researched, designed and manufactured the freakin' thing!
>
> imagine these guys in aerospace: "yeah, but this guy said those cracks
> didn't matter".

You have had how many cars >230,000 miles?

Feh.


Some things change, some things don't. Rings and cylinder walls are still
about the same as they were 20 years ago.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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. ;-)

Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Badidea?
 

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.

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!

Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Badidea?
 

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

> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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!

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

hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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

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

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.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:30:50 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:19:20 -0600, Bow Wow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Highlander V6 on a
>>>>> trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about 3000mile
>>>>> drive
>>>>> and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't want
>>>>> to drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount if you
>>>>> can help before the car's properly broken in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly, which
>>>>> happens during the break in period and before that, I was told you
>>>>> should
>>>>> avoid any long highway trip.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or put
>>>>> off
>>>>> the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks.
>>>> I'm old-school. I drive a car 1500 miles and then do the first oil
>>>> change.
>>>> Then I do the next one at 3000 miles, and every 3-3500 after that.
>>>>
>>>> I also had 3 cars go over 250,000 miles without burning oil.
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> It seems I can tell when a car was broken in properly or not. On cars I
>>>> had had new, they don't tend to develop 'notches' at certain speeds. By
>>>> this I mean, on cars other than ones I bought new, I can notice that
>>>> the car seems to hit a stride ~45-50 MPH, and another ~70 MPH. What I
>>>> assume is that the person that bought the car new had two driving
>>>> modes: secondary roads (45 MPH) and highway (70 MPH). I have noticed
>>>> this on a few used cars I have owned.
>>>>
>>>> On cars I bought new and broke in properly, there weren't any
>>>> 'notches', everything was fairly even across the range. 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.
>>>
>>> From the owner's manual for a 2008 Pilot:
>>>
>>> "Help assure your vehicle’s future
>>> reliability and performance by paying extra attention to how you drive
>>> during the first 600 miles (1,000 km). During this period:
>>> Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid
>>> acceleration.
>>> Do not change the oil until the
>>> scheduled maintenance time.
>>> Avoid hard braking for the first
>>> 200 miles (300 km).
>>> Do not tow a trailer.
>>> You should also follow these
>>> recommendations with an
>>> overhauled or exchanged engine, or
>>> when the brakes are replaced."
>>>
>>> Note what the manual says about the first oil change.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Of course, with newer cars and a V6, things are different now, but I
>>>> would
>>>> still take it pretty easy for the first 1500 miles, and stop and have
>>>> the oil changed.
>>
>>
>> what??? read the manual??? no freakin' chance buddy! we're all going to
>> have a retardation contest here on usenet and take the words of nameless
>> idiots with our new multi-thousand dollar investments, not the experts
>> that researched, designed and manufactured the freakin' thing!
>>
>> imagine these guys in aerospace: "yeah, but this guy said those cracks
>> didn't matter".
>
> You have had how many cars >230,000 miles?

a few actually. 306k was my highest [verifiable] mileage. but wtf has
that got to do with inability to read manuals???


>
> Feh.
>
>
> Some things change, some things don't. Rings and cylinder walls are still
> about the same as they were 20 years ago.

"about the same"??? you want to be imprecise so you can claim whatever
you want that way??? or are you saying "about" you don't actually know
the details??? [rhetorical]

it's untrue if you think there are no changes - there are small but
subtle changes to lip profiles that help with power and economy, and
there are improvements to honing processes giving better cylinder wall
finish, and quality.

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

hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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.
>
> 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!

"success" as defined by "it didn't break down" is not the same as
"success" defined by the manufacturer based on their research.

because you /did/ do a complete tear-down, analysis and comparison with
other engines given factory treatment before declaring "success", didn't
you?

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:21:42 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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.
>>
>> 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!
>
> "success" as defined by "it didn't break down" is not the same as
> "success" defined by the manufacturer based on their research.
>
> because you /did/ do a complete tear-down, analysis and comparison with
> other engines given factory treatment before declaring "success", didn't
> you?


Let's see...one car, 245,000 miles and it needed a water pump.
Next car...260,000 miles and it needed an alternator rebuild.
Next car...240,000 miles and it needed timing belts. And it was a Honda.

Not a single one burned a drop of oil.

All I said was, it works for me. That's good enough for me.
And I gave the OP my opinion based on my experience.

Why turn everything into a friggin' arguement?! If you don't like the
advice I gave...DON'T FOLLOW IT, MORON!

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

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

> hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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...

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:19:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:30:50 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:19:20 -0600, Bow Wow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Highlander V6 on
>>>>>> a trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about
>>>>>> 3000mile drive
>>>>>> and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't
>>>>>> want to drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount
>>>>>> if you can help before the car's properly broken in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly,
>>>>>> which happens during the break in period and before that, I was told
>>>>>> you should
>>>>>> avoid any long highway trip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or
>>>>>> put off
>>>>>> the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks.
>>>>> I'm old-school. I drive a car 1500 miles and then do the first oil
>>>>> change.
>>>>> Then I do the next one at 3000 miles, and every 3-3500 after that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also had 3 cars go over 250,000 miles without burning oil.
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems I can tell when a car was broken in properly or not. On cars
>>>>> I had had new, they don't tend to develop 'notches' at certain
>>>>> speeds. By this I mean, on cars other than ones I bought new, I can
>>>>> notice that the car seems to hit a stride ~45-50 MPH, and another ~70
>>>>> MPH. What I assume is that the person that bought the car new had two
>>>>> driving modes: secondary roads (45 MPH) and highway (70 MPH). I have
>>>>> noticed this on a few used cars I have owned.
>>>>>
>>>>> On cars I bought new and broke in properly, there weren't any
>>>>> 'notches', everything was fairly even across the range. 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.
>>>>
>>>> From the owner's manual for a 2008 Pilot:
>>>>
>>>> "Help assure your vehicle’s future
>>>> reliability and performance by paying extra attention to how you drive
>>>> during the first 600 miles (1,000 km). During this period: Avoid
>>>> full-throttle starts and rapid
>>>> acceleration.
>>>> Do not change the oil until the
>>>> scheduled maintenance time.
>>>> Avoid hard braking for the first
>>>> 200 miles (300 km).
>>>> Do not tow a trailer.
>>>> You should also follow these
>>>> recommendations with an
>>>> overhauled or exchanged engine, or
>>>> when the brakes are replaced."
>>>>
>>>> Note what the manual says about the first oil change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, with newer cars and a V6, things are different now, but I
>>>>> would
>>>>> still take it pretty easy for the first 1500 miles, and stop and have
>>>>> the oil changed.
>>>
>>>
>>> what??? read the manual??? no freakin' chance buddy! we're all going
>>> to have a retardation contest here on usenet and take the words of
>>> nameless idiots with our new multi-thousand dollar investments, not the
>>> experts that researched, designed and manufactured the freakin' thing!
>>>
>>> imagine these guys in aerospace: "yeah, but this guy said those cracks
>>> didn't matter".
>>
>> You have had how many cars >230,000 miles?
>
> a few actually. 306k was my highest [verifiable] mileage. but wtf has
> that got to do with inability to read manuals???


I doubt the manual was written with a 3,000 mile all-at-once break in in
mind.

>
>
>
>> Feh.
>>
>>
>> Some things change, some things don't. Rings and cylinder walls are
>> still about the same as they were 20 years ago.
>
> "about the same"??? you want to be imprecise so you can claim whatever
> you want that way??? or are you saying "about" you don't actually know
> the details??? [rhetorical]
>
> it's untrue if you think there are no changes - there are small but subtle
> changes to lip profiles that help with power and economy, and there are
> improvements to honing processes giving better cylinder wall finish, and
> quality.


All the more reason to pay particular attention to the break in period,
especially when driving long distances during that period.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:06:41 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>
>> hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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.

Presumably? Well, considering that the guy posted about two different
vehicles on two different newsgroups, I don't think there is a real
purchase.


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

Bull! I gave him the benefit of *my* experience and knowledge. And my
experience is that these trucks and cars are changing and evolving over
the years. There are newer and better oils, better manufacturing and
machining methods and better ways to assemble the engines, resulting in
different break-in requirements.

The people who build the cars know more than you or I.

What applies to cars made 10, 20 or 30 years ago may or may not apply to
cars made today.

> 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.

You must have a very limited life.

However, questioning is far better than giving out-dated and incorrect
advice, as you did.

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

You know, there is something called a filter, aka, kill file that comes
with newsgroups. Please feel free to put me on yours.

Jeff

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:19:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:30:50 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:19:20 -0600, Bow Wow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was planning on taking my soon to take possession Highlander V6 on
>>>>>>> a trip which will consist mostly of highway driving of about
>>>>>>> 3000mile drive
>>>>>>> and been told that that's not such a good idea because you don't
>>>>>>> want to drive a brand new car on the highway for any extended amount
>>>>>>> if you can help before the car's properly broken in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The seals, rings and the machine just needs to set in properly,
>>>>>>> which happens during the break in period and before that, I was told
>>>>>>> you should
>>>>>>> avoid any long highway trip.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you guys think? If this was your car, would you do it or
>>>>>>> put off
>>>>>>> the trip until after the car's broken in properly? Thanks.
>>>>>> I'm old-school. I drive a car 1500 miles and then do the first oil
>>>>>> change.
>>>>>> Then I do the next one at 3000 miles, and every 3-3500 after that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also had 3 cars go over 250,000 miles without burning oil.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems I can tell when a car was broken in properly or not. On cars
>>>>>> I had had new, they don't tend to develop 'notches' at certain
>>>>>> speeds. By this I mean, on cars other than ones I bought new, I can
>>>>>> notice that the car seems to hit a stride ~45-50 MPH, and another ~70
>>>>>> MPH. What I assume is that the person that bought the car new had two
>>>>>> driving modes: secondary roads (45 MPH) and highway (70 MPH). I have
>>>>>> noticed this on a few used cars I have owned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On cars I bought new and broke in properly, there weren't any
>>>>>> 'notches', everything was fairly even across the range. 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the owner's manual for a 2008 Pilot:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Help assure your vehicle’s future
>>>>> reliability and performance by paying extra attention to how you drive
>>>>> during the first 600 miles (1,000 km). During this period: Avoid
>>>>> full-throttle starts and rapid
>>>>> acceleration.
>>>>> Do not change the oil until the
>>>>> scheduled maintenance time.
>>>>> Avoid hard braking for the first
>>>>> 200 miles (300 km).
>>>>> Do not tow a trailer.
>>>>> You should also follow these
>>>>> recommendations with an
>>>>> overhauled or exchanged engine, or
>>>>> when the brakes are replaced."
>>>>>
>>>>> Note what the manual says about the first oil change.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, with newer cars and a V6, things are different now, but I
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> still take it pretty easy for the first 1500 miles, and stop and have
>>>>>> the oil changed.
>>>>
>>>> what??? read the manual??? no freakin' chance buddy! we're all going
>>>> to have a retardation contest here on usenet and take the words of
>>>> nameless idiots with our new multi-thousand dollar investments, not the
>>>> experts that researched, designed and manufactured the freakin' thing!
>>>>
>>>> imagine these guys in aerospace: "yeah, but this guy said those cracks
>>>> didn't matter".
>>> You have had how many cars >230,000 miles?
>> a few actually. 306k was my highest [verifiable] mileage. but wtf has
>> that got to do with inability to read manuals???
>
>
> I doubt the manual was written with a 3,000 mile all-at-once break in in
> mind.
>
>>
>>
>>> Feh.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some things change, some things don't. Rings and cylinder walls are
>>> still about the same as they were 20 years ago.
>> "about the same"??? you want to be imprecise so you can claim whatever
>> you want that way??? or are you saying "about" you don't actually know
>> the details??? [rhetorical]
>>
>> it's untrue if you think there are no changes - there are small but subtle
>> changes to lip profiles that help with power and economy, and there are
>> improvements to honing processes giving better cylinder wall finish, and
>> quality.
>
>
> All the more reason to pay particular attention to the break in period,
> especially when driving long distances during that period.
>
>

you're making no sense whatsoever.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:21:42 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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.
>>>
>>> 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!
>> "success" as defined by "it didn't break down" is not the same as
>> "success" defined by the manufacturer based on their research.
>>
>> because you /did/ do a complete tear-down, analysis and comparison with
>> other engines given factory treatment before declaring "success", didn't
>> you?
>
>
> Let's see...one car, 245,000 miles and it needed a water pump.
> Next car...260,000 miles and it needed an alternator rebuild.
> Next car...240,000 miles and it needed timing belts. And it was a Honda.
>
> Not a single one burned a drop of oil.
>
> All I said was, it works for me. That's good enough for me.
> And I gave the OP my opinion based on my experience.
>
> Why turn everything into a friggin' arguement?! If you don't like the
> advice I gave...DON'T FOLLOW IT, MORON!
>
>

your "success" is based on the fact that they're toyotas or hondas, both
of which are almost impossible to kill, even by people like you that
can't be bothered to read the freakin' manual.

as to your "advice", it's utterly baseless and uninformed. every single
freakin' time. if you don't like being called on that, don't give it!

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

On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:04:10 +0000, Jeff wrote:

> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:06:41 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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.
>
> Presumably? Well, considering that the guy posted about two different
> vehicles on two different newsgroups, I don't think there is a real
> purchase.

IIRC, the original post said he was thinking about taking delivery of a
new (whatever). I would extrapolate the choice is between a Highlander and
a Pilot, similar vehicles, although I believe the Highlander is slightly
smaller.


>
>
>> I gave him the benefit of my experience. You, as usual, offer nothing.
>
> Bull! I gave him the benefit of *my* experience and knowledge. And my
> experience is that these trucks and cars are changing and evolving over
> the years. There are newer and better oils, better manufacturing and
> machining methods and better ways to assemble the engines, resulting in
> different break-in requirements.

Thanks. I'll stick to my way. Works for me.


>
> The people who build the cars know more than you or I.
>
> What applies to cars made 10, 20 or 30 years ago may or may not apply to
> cars made today.


Pistons and rings still slide against cylinder walls. That still happens.
And that's not including other systems in the vehicle.

>
>> 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.
>
> You must have a very limited life.
>
> However, questioning is far better than giving out-dated and incorrect
> advice, as you did.

Who says it's incorrect? The manual said basically the same thing 7, 12,
14 and 20 years ago. I was pointing out generalizations for breaking in
any car, and as someone pointed out, they're still listed in the manual:
avoid abrupt starts and stops, vary the speed, etc. 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.

As usual, a molehill turns into a mountain with you.


>
>> If you leave tomorrow, I don't think you'd be missed. Don't let the door
>> slap you...
>
> You know, there is something called a filter, aka, kill file that comes
> with newsgroups. Please feel free to put me on yours.

Nah, I need a good laugh every day.


>
> Jeff

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

On 2008-05-12, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:

> 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...
>
>

I don't think anyone has much of a problem with recommending a
"gentle" break in. What the issue was is your definition of it.

1) 1000 Miles is plenty. And by Gentle, we mean no high RPM's, easy
on the jack-rabbit starts, and try to keep the RPM's moving around a
bit.

2) The first Oil Change should NOT be done until the maintenance
minder says to do it. The oil in the car from the factory is
specially formulated to aid in break-in, and if you remove it
prematurely, you could do more harm than good.

The engineers know what they are doing. Honda and Toyota have earned
the reputation of the top 2 car manufacturers for reliability. It
makes sense to do what they say to ensure a reliable ride...


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:35:07 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> All I said was, it works for me. That's good enough for me. And I gave
>> the OP my opinion based on my experience.
>>
>> Why turn everything into a friggin' arguement?! If you don't like the
>> advice I gave...DON'T FOLLOW IT, MORON!
>>
>>
>>
> your "success" is based on the fact that they're toyotas or hondas, both
> of which are almost impossible to kill, even by people like you that can't
> be bothered to read the freakin' manual.

Hmmm...when did I say I didn't read the manual? Of course I read the
manuals.

>
> as to your "advice", it's utterly baseless and uninformed.

It's based on what's in the manuals for break-in.

> every single
> freakin' time. if you don't like being called on that, don't give it!

And your suggestion to the OP would be? You didn't even bother to speak up
until you read my post.

Here's what the Pilot manual says:

Help assure your vehicle's future reliablilty and performance by paying
extra attention to how you drive during the first 600 miles. During this
period:

Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid acceleration

Do not change the oil until the recommended time or mileage interval shown
in the maintenance section.

Avoid hard breaking. New brakes need to be broken in by moderate use for
the first 200 miles.



A real wealth of information there, eh?

I'll stick to my method, thanks. It's proven over thirty years and nine or
so new cars.

Next time you want to pick a fight, stick your head up your ass and fight
for air.

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:23:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>>>> Some things change, some things don't. Rings and cylinder walls are
>>>> still about the same as they were 20 years ago.
>>> "about the same"??? you want to be imprecise so you can claim whatever
>>> you want that way??? or are you saying "about" you don't actually know
>>> the details??? [rhetorical]
>>>
>>> it's untrue if you think there are no changes - there are small but
>>> subtle changes to lip profiles that help with power and economy, and
>>> there are improvements to honing processes giving better cylinder wall
>>> finish, and quality.
>>
>>
>> All the more reason to pay particular attention to the break in period,
>> especially when driving long distances during that period.
>>
>>
>>
> you're making no sense whatsoever.


And your advice to the OP was?

The guy's concerned about driving the car 3,000 nearly non-stop. He was
looking for advice. You offer a pissing contest from a know-it-all.


Here. Take another look:
>>> there are small but
>>> subtle changes to lip profiles that help with power and economy

>> All the more reason to pay particular attention to the break in period,
>> especially when driving long distances during that period.


There. Does it make sense now, or are you that thick?

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

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BdJVj.3981$mc1.3276@trndny08...
> hachiroku ???? 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.

Most of them are naive, clueless LIEbrawl DEMONrats.


>
> 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

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

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uANVj.183$ll1.61@trndny06...
> Hachiroku ???? wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:06:41 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> hachiroku ???? 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.
>
> Presumably? Well, considering that the guy posted about two different
> vehicles on two different newsgroups, I don't think there is a real
> purchase.
>
>
>> I gave him the benefit of my experience. You, as usual, offer nothing.
>
> Bull! I gave him the benefit of *my* experience and knowledge. And my
> experience is that these trucks and cars are changing and evolving over
> the years. There are newer and better oils, better manufacturing and
> machining methods and better ways to assemble the engines, resulting in
> different break-in requirements.
>
> The people who build the cars know more than you or I.
>
> What applies to cars made 10, 20 or 30 years ago may or may not apply to
> cars made today.
>
>> 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.
>
> You must have a very limited life.
>
> However, questioning is far better than giving out-dated and incorrect
> advice, as you did.
>
>> If you leave tomorrow, I don't think you'd be missed. Don't let the door
>> slap you...
>
> You know, there is something called a filter, aka, kill file that comes
> with newsgroups. Please feel free to put me on yours.
>
> Jeff

Suck dick, LIEbrawl faggot.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:04:10 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:06:41 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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.
>> Presumably? Well, considering that the guy posted about two different
>> vehicles on two different newsgroups, I don't think there is a real
>> purchase.
>
> IIRC, the original post said he was thinking about taking delivery of a
> new (whatever). I would extrapolate the choice is between a Highlander and
> a Pilot, similar vehicles, although I believe the Highlander is slightly
> smaller.
>
>
>>
>>> I gave him the benefit of my experience. You, as usual, offer nothing.
>> Bull! I gave him the benefit of *my* experience and knowledge. And my
>> experience is that these trucks and cars are changing and evolving over
>> the years. There are newer and better oils, better manufacturing and
>> machining methods and better ways to assemble the engines, resulting in
>> different break-in requirements.
>
> Thanks. I'll stick to my way. Works for me.

but you don't know that! all you know is that honda and toyota tolerate
you - they survive in spite of your behavior, not because of it!!!


>
>
>> The people who build the cars know more than you or I.
>>
>> What applies to cars made 10, 20 or 30 years ago may or may not apply to
>> cars made today.
>
>
> Pistons and rings still slide against cylinder walls. That still happens.
> And that's not including other systems in the vehicle.
>
>>> 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.
>> You must have a very limited life.
>>
>> However, questioning is far better than giving out-dated and incorrect
>> advice, as you did.
>
> Who says it's incorrect? The manual said basically the same thing 7, 12,
> 14 and 20 years ago. I was pointing out generalizations for breaking in
> any car, and as someone pointed out, they're still listed in the manual:
> avoid abrupt starts and stops, vary the speed, etc. 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.

"the deal" is that the engine needs to build up an amorphous
carbonaceous layer on the cylinder walls. you will have seen that when
taking the heads off engines. what you probably haven't done though is
do a micro hardness test on it to find that's it's very hard and that it
gives a good, low friction working surface for the cylinder wall. for
the engine to last well, that layer needs to build up quickly, but not
excessively. the best way to do it is to have a "dirty" oil keep
circulating fine soot/combustion product particles. hence, if you
change the first oil too soon, you delay build-up and the wear rate
stays higher, longer than it otherwise would.



>
> What it really comes down to is driving the car 3,000 miles pretty much at
> once.
>
> As usual, a molehill turns into a mountain with you.

it's neither mountain nor molehill - it's just plain ignorant. if you
asked questions, that would be different. but instead you just voice
underinformed opinion - it's utterly worthless.



>
>
>>> If you leave tomorrow, I don't think you'd be missed. Don't let the door
>>> slap you...
>> You know, there is something called a filter, aka, kill file that comes
>> with newsgroups. Please feel free to put me on yours.
>
> Nah, I need a good laugh every day.
>
>
>> Jeff
>

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:23:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>>> Some things change, some things don't. Rings and cylinder walls are
>>>>> still about the same as they were 20 years ago.
>>>> "about the same"??? you want to be imprecise so you can claim whatever
>>>> you want that way??? or are you saying "about" you don't actually know
>>>> the details??? [rhetorical]
>>>>
>>>> it's untrue if you think there are no changes - there are small but
>>>> subtle changes to lip profiles that help with power and economy, and
>>>> there are improvements to honing processes giving better cylinder wall
>>>> finish, and quality.
>>>
>>> All the more reason to pay particular attention to the break in period,
>>> especially when driving long distances during that period.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> you're making no sense whatsoever.
>
>
> And your advice to the OP was?

i didn't offer any - it's already been said. "read the owner manual".


>
> The guy's concerned about driving the car 3,000 nearly non-stop. He was
> looking for advice. You offer a pissing contest from a know-it-all.
>
>
> Here. Take another look:
>>>> there are small but
>>>> subtle changes to lip profiles that help with power and economy
>
>>> All the more reason to pay particular attention to the break in period,
>>> especially when driving long distances during that period.
>
>
> There. Does it make sense now, or are you that thick?

but you're not making any sense. again. you don't know what you're
talking about.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:35:07 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> All I said was, it works for me. That's good enough for me. And I gave
>>> the OP my opinion based on my experience.
>>>
>>> Why turn everything into a friggin' arguement?! If you don't like the
>>> advice I gave...DON'T FOLLOW IT, MORON!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> your "success" is based on the fact that they're toyotas or hondas, both
>> of which are almost impossible to kill, even by people like you that can't
>> be bothered to read the freakin' manual.
>
> Hmmm...when did I say I didn't read the manual? Of course I read the
> manuals.

you may look at the pages, but you don't seem to understand the words
written on them.


>
>> as to your "advice", it's utterly baseless and uninformed.
>
> It's based on what's in the manuals for break-in.

no it's not!!! you recommend ignoring what /is/ in the owner manual -
oil change interval - but you have no rationale!!!




>
>> every single
>> freakin' time. if you don't like being called on that, don't give it!
>
> And your suggestion to the OP would be? You didn't even bother to speak up
> until you read my post.
>
> Here's what the Pilot manual says:
>
> Help assure your vehicle's future reliablilty and performance by paying
> extra attention to how you drive during the first 600 miles. During this
> period:
>
> Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid acceleration
>
> Do not change the oil until the recommended time or mileage interval shown
> in the maintenance section.
>
> Avoid hard breaking. New brakes need to be broken in by moderate use for
> the first 200 miles.
>
>
>
> A real wealth of information there, eh?
>
> I'll stick to my method, thanks. It's proven over thirty years and nine or
> so new cars.

that's an average of a new car every 3.3 years. either there's
something you're not sharing, or your mileage numbers are, er,
"over-optimistic". [240k in 3.3 years = 72k miles per year. that's 200
miles per day, every single day of the year. at average 60mph, that's
3.3 hours per day, every single day of the year.]

bottom line, you're not going to have much in the way of oil-related
reliability problem show up in only 3 years of, lets say, "more typical"
usage.



>
> Next time you want to pick a fight, stick your head up your ass and fight
> for air.
>
>


you're boxing your own shadow.

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:33:08 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> It's based on what's in the manuals for break-in.
>
> no it's not!!! you recommend ignoring what /is/ in the owner manual -
> oil change interval - but you have no rationale!!!


So? This thread was picked up in the Toyota group, where the OP
asked specifically about a Highlannder. Here's what the Highlander Owner's
manual says:

*Drive gently and avoid high speeds.*

Your vehicle does not need an elaborate break-in. But following a few
simple steps for the first 1000 miles can add to the future economy and
long life of your vehicle:

Avoid full throttle acceleration when starting and driving.

Avoid racing the engine.

Try to avoid hard stops during the first 200 miles.

Do not drive for a long time at any single speed, either fast or slow.

Do not tow a trailer during the first 500 miles.

____________________________________________


So except for adding an oil change, what did I say that was outside these
guidelines.

Also, considering this is the first 3000 miles of the car's life, I would
consider a 3,000 mile trip "severe driving conditions" and adjust
accordingly.

You change your oil every 7,500 miles whether it needs it or not?
I do 3,000 miles. That's not in the manual, is it?


As far as an extra oil change, I have rationale. And you're not rational.

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:20:46 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>>>> I gave him the benefit of my experience. You, as usual, offer nothing.
>>> Bull! I gave him the benefit of *my* experience and knowledge. And my
>>> experience is that these trucks and cars are changing and evolving over
>>> the years. There are newer and better oils, better manufacturing and
>>> machining methods and better ways to assemble the engines, resulting in
>>> different break-in requirements.
>>
>> Thanks. I'll stick to my way. Works for me.
>
> but you don't know that! all you know is that honda and toyota tolerate
> you - they survive in spite of your behavior, not because of it!!!

Are you a fool, or what?!?!?

I guess the next new car I get, I'll screech the tires out of the
dealership and then take it for a 100 mile rip on the freeway at 125 MPH,
just because the Owner's Manual doesn't say not to do it.

Actually, it does say not to, but according to you, I guess it would be ok.
I like to be gentle on new mechanical components, and not take them to the
'recommended limits' in the first 1,000-1,500 miles.

My God, are you obtuse.



>
>
>>
>>
>>> The people who build the cars know more than you or I.
>>>
>>> What applies to cars made 10, 20 or 30 years ago may or may not apply to
>>> cars made today.
>>
>>
>> Pistons and rings still slide against cylinder walls. That still happens.
>> And that's not including other systems in the vehicle.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>> You must have a very limited life.
>>>
>>> However, questioning is far better than giving out-dated and incorrect
>>> advice, as you did.
>>
>> Who says it's incorrect? The manual said basically the same thing 7, 12,
>> 14 and 20 years ago. I was pointing out generalizations for breaking in
>> any car, and as someone pointed out, they're still listed in the manual:
>> avoid abrupt starts and stops, vary the speed, etc. 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.
>
> "the deal" is that the engine needs to build up an amorphous
> carbonaceous layer on the cylinder walls. you will have seen that when
> taking the heads off engines. what you probably haven't done though is
> do a micro hardness test on it to find that's it's very hard and that it
> gives a good, low friction working surface for the cylinder wall. for
> the engine to last well, that layer needs to build up quickly, but not
> excessively. the best way to do it is to have a "dirty" oil keep
> circulating fine soot/combustion product particles. hence, if you
> change the first oil too soon, you delay build-up and the wear rate
> stays higher, longer than it otherwise would.

After about 1 million miles split between 4 cars, I think my method works
just fine.


>
>
>
>>
>> What it really comes down to is driving the car 3,000 miles pretty much at
>> once.
>>
>> As usual, a molehill turns into a mountain with you.
>
> it's neither mountain nor molehill - it's just plain ignorant. if you
> asked questions, that would be different. but instead you just voice
> underinformed opinion - it's utterly worthless.

The OP asked about taking a new car on a 3,000 mile trip, and if it was a
bad idea. What I didn't say was, yeah, I think it's a bad idea, but if I
had to do it, here's how I'd do it. If it's a Honda with the 'special
break in oil', then yeah, skip the 1,500 oil change. If it's a Toyota, I'd
change the oil. I have changed the oil. I've been rewarded with car that
have lasted me up to 20 years.

You appear to be an Educated Fool, merely for arguing.

If you had said, "Hachi threw in a oil change that I would skip", OK, then
I guess it doesn't need to be done. As far as an 'amorphous layer', it'll
get there, don't worry.




>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> If you leave tomorrow, I don't think you'd be missed. Don't let the door
>>>> slap you...
>>> You know, there is something called a filter, aka, kill file that comes
>>> with newsgroups. Please feel free to put me on yours.
>>
>> Nah, I need a good laugh every day.
>>
>>
>>> Jeff

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:23:55 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> And your advice to the OP was?
>
> i didn't offer any - it's already been said. "read the owner manual".

But not for an extreme condition such as this.
>
>
>>
>> The guy's concerned about driving the car 3,000 nearly non-stop. He was
>> looking for advice. You offer a pissing contest from a know-it-all.
>>
>>
>> Here. Take another look:
>>>>> there are small but
>>>>> subtle changes to lip profiles that help with power and economy
>>
>>>> All the more reason to pay particular attention to the break in period,
>>>> especially when driving long distances during that period.
>>
>>
>> There. Does it make sense now, or are you that thick?
>
> but you're not making any sense. again. you don't know what you're
> talking about.


How many hours a day do you spend smacking your frontal lobes with a
ball-peen hammer?

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

On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:37:06 -0400, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <m6mdncXetPIwIrjVnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> imagine these guys in aerospace: "yeah, but this guy said those cracks
>> didn't matter".
>
> That's in' hilarious. I can just see the NASA engineers hitting up
> Google, finding the space shuttle fanboi forums, and then listening to
> them.


Depends on where the cracks are, Some are tolerable, some aren't.

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

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:04:10 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:06:41 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒã‚¯ 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.
>> Presumably? Well, considering that the guy posted about two different
>> vehicles on two different newsgroups, I don't think there is a real
>> purchase.
>
> IIRC, the original post said he was thinking about taking delivery of a
> new (whatever). I would extrapolate the choice is between a Highlander and
> a Pilot, similar vehicles, although I believe the Highlander is slightly
> smaller.

You recall correctly. However, he did also post the same question to the
Honda newsgroup about a Pilot. Same exact message, except for the Pilot.

>>
>>> I gave him the benefit of my experience. You, as usual, offer nothing.
>> Bull! I gave him the benefit of *my* experience and knowledge. And my
>> experience is that these trucks and cars are changing and evolving over
>> the years. There are newer and better oils, better manufacturing and
>> machining methods and better ways to assemble the engines, resulting in
>> different break-in requirements.
>
> Thanks. I'll stick to my way. Works for me.

Perhaps it did. However, that doesn't mean it is right for today's vehicles.

>> The people who build the cars know more than you or I.
>>
>> What applies to cars made 10, 20 or 30 years ago may or may not apply to
>> cars made today.
>
>
> Pistons and rings still slide against cylinder walls. That still happens.
> And that's not including other systems in the vehicle.

Just like when I used to bore and hone blocks myself.

But today's cars and trucks have much closer clearances.

>>> 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.
>> You must have a very limited life.
>>
>> However, questioning is far better than giving out-dated and incorrect
>> advice, as you did.
>
> Who says it's incorrect? The manual said basically the same thing 7, 12,
> 14 and 20 years ago.

7 years ago? A lot has changed since then.

> I was pointing out generalizations for breaking in
> any car,

Any old car made to yesterday's specs.

> 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.

> 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.

> As usual, a molehill turns into a mountain with you.

You seem to be make a mountain.

>>> If you leave tomorrow, I don't think you'd be missed. Don't let the door
>>> slap you...
>> You know, there is something called a filter, aka, kill file that comes
>> with newsgroups. Please feel free to put me on yours.
>
> Nah, I need a good laugh every day.
>
>
>> Jeff
>

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

Hachiroku wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:23:55 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> And your advice to the OP was?
>> i didn't offer any - it's already been said. "read the owner manual".
>
> But not for an extreme condition such as this.

What extreme condition?

Driving on the highway? That's a normal condition. In fact, highway
driving is easier on an engine than city driving.

Jeff

<...>

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

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.

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

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:57:24 +0000, Jeff wrote:

> Hachiroku wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:23:55 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>> And your advice to the OP was?
>>> i didn't offer any - it's already been said. "read the owner manual".
>>
>> But not for an extreme condition such as this.
>
> What extreme condition?
>
> Driving on the highway? That's a normal condition. In fact, highway
> driving is easier on an engine than city driving.
>
> Jeff
>
> <...>


Read the excerpt from the Highlander Owner's Manual I posted.

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

On Sun, 11 May 2008 22:30:35 -0500, Joe wrote:

>> 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...
>>
>>
>>
> I don't think anyone has much of a problem with recommending a "gentle"
> break in. What the issue was is your definition of it.

jim beam sure does! I thnk if he were here he'd be coming at me with an
axe...


>
> 1) 1000 Miles is plenty. And by Gentle, we mean no high RPM's, easy on
> the jack-rabbit starts, and try to keep the RPM's moving around a bit.

Yup. pretty much what I said...

>
> 2) The first Oil Change should NOT be done until the maintenance minder
> says to do it. The oil in the car from the factory is specially
> formulated to aid in break-in, and if you remove it prematurely, you could
> do more harm than good.

Toyota does not use a special break in oil. Unless they've changed in the
last 3 years. Honda may; I asked a Honda service manager when I worked for
a Honda/Toyota shop and he said, "Huh?"

But, he had not been a *Honda* service manager for very long. A lot of
people say it is a special oil.

I'd be willing to bet the 'special break in oil' is Slick 50 or something
similar. Anyone know?

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

Hachiroku wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:33:08 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> It's based on what's in the manuals for break-in.
>> no it's not!!! you recommend ignoring what /is/ in the owner manual -
>> oil change interval - but you have no rationale!!!
>
>
> So? This thread was picked up in the Toyota group, where the OP
> asked specifically about a Highlannder. Here's what the Highlander Owner's
> manual says:
>
> *Drive gently and avoid high speeds.*
>
> Your vehicle does not need an elaborate break-in. But following a few
> simple steps for the first 1000 miles can add to the future economy and
> long life of your vehicle:
>
> Avoid full throttle acceleration when starting and driving.
>
> Avoid racing the engine.
>
> Try to avoid hard stops during the first 200 miles.
>
> Do not drive for a long time at any single speed, either fast or slow.
>
> Do not tow a trailer during the first 500 miles.
>
> ____________________________________________
>
>
> So except for adding an oil change, what did I say that was outside these
> guidelines.
>
> Also, considering this is the first 3000 miles of the car's life, I would
> consider a 3,000 mile trip "severe driving conditions" and adjust
> accordingly.

tooling along the freeway is not "extreme".


>
> You change your oil every 7,500 miles whether it needs it or not?
> I do 3,000 miles. That's not in the manual, is it?

the question you really need to be asking yourself is this:

"why do i pay attention to nameless nobodies and ignore the engineers
and researchers that know what they're doing?"

>
>
> As far as an extra oil change, I have rationale.

no you don't, you have ignorance. by your logic, you'd go to a brain
surgeon, then tell them they don't know what they're doing. some of the
research that goes into modern cars is real rocket science. done by
smart people that actually know what they're doing. and that's who
you're saying they don't know what they're doing with your wasteful 3k
mile oil change.


> And you're not rational.

so how's your dentist? are you better at their job than they are?