[II think running two engines side by side is not meaningless, but not of much value either. Unless the clearances were checked before and after running.]

Very good point. It seems downunder is doing exactly that by determining the "pinch point" during the running in process. I look foward to updates.

jess

Fuelman has hit the nail right on the head!

Slobbery rich breakin won't usually make an ABC engine unusable, but, if everything is equal between engines, the one run slobbery rich will NEVER perform up to its pre-breakin potential.

If that performance degradation doesn't bother you, then by all means make'em slobbery rich for breakin.

I thought I knew quite a lot about 2-stroke engines but I wasn't having much luck with engine performance which was a bad thing when you are primarily flying pylon races. I started to observe what the guys who were always winning were doing with their engines. One of the pilots who had set a Q500 speed record at the AMA Nats took me under his wing. Well, I quickly realized I really didn't know squat about ABC and AAC engines!

To make a long story short, break in your ABC or AAC engines the way Fuelman broke in the number 2 engine in his post if you would like it to perform to its full potential.

downunder....

....maybe after we put the "Four-stroking an ABC engine will damage it" myth
to rest, we can work on the....

...."four stroke engines should be broken in sloppy rich, and take a long time
to break-in" myth. [sm=stupid.gif]

That's another good one.

Dave.

Steve,


What made Brian (downunder) start this thread, is [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1850473/anchors_1850473/mpage_1/key_break%252Din%252Ctapered%252Dbore/anchor/tm.htm#1850473]this thread[/link], which I started (and a preceding thread, which I also started a year before).

And yes, Brian (fuelman, this time...) did hit the nail right on the head, as was also mentioned in my thread's subtitle.


Brian (downunder),


I do agree that some engines may not have much to gain, from sticking religiously to my thread, but would sticking with it cause any damage to them, a loss of life expectancy, performance, or reliability?
I think that you would agree, any tapered-bore two-stroke will not have anything to lose from following it.

I don't think there is anything substantially incorrect in the procedure described there.

The extra Castor oil is good, as is the bringing it up to running temperature ASAP, as are the running end testing procedures...


Do you think anyone will damage his/her new, or overhauled tapered-bore engine from following my thread?
I don't think that you do.

Will the engine be broken-in and ready to run afterward?
I believe you would agree it would.

Dar, don't take this personally but I didn't learn anything new from your thread. I've heard that story about damaging an ABC by running it rich long before you started even the first thread on it. I didn't believe it then and I still don't but until now I've never had the opportunity to find out for myself what will happen. Many's the time I've seen someone write in saying they've just run their new engine (always sport engines) too rich and you've immediately told them they've probably ruined it.

For those who still don't understand what I'm doing (and it seems you're one of them Dar) I'm not trying to say that the accepted method is wrong. Obviously it's fine. All I'm trying to find out is if running it very rich from new will actually cause damage to a sports type engine, my intention isn't to run it in.

Brian,


I did tell some people that the rich break-in they gave their new tapered-bore engine, may have caused it damage.
I may even have said a couple of time that it did cause damage...

Please read Fuelman' post #48, which may be representative, or not.

He got lesser performance from the engine broken-in slobberingly rich.
I believe you would agree that this is damage, even though nothing is actually broken.


Will every tapered-bore engine be damaged by preferring this type of very rich, cold break-in, to my thread?
Definitely not!

But is following my thread safer than the cold way? Unlikely to cause any damage at all?

Sure it is.


I am not getting paid by anyone that selects to follow that thread.
I may even be scorned by engine manufacturers, wanting to make more money on spares.... that will lose money if more of their customers follow this thread, as Fuelman wrote in post #37.


So with tapered-bore engines, it is my way, or the highway... Even if FBD does not agree...

It appears they don't. From the responses, the sloppy rich camp attribute the difference to original manufacturering differences rather than break in.
From what I've seen, FBD will never believe. He's convinced himself it's a myth. He's been shown direct quotes from manufacturers, statements from engine experts, and real life examples where sloppy rich break in did result in lost performance. His responses are just back pedaling and refusal to accept what others have already discovered.

.

There are none so blind as those that will not see!

Ed S

Will all of you people in the front row (obviously engine experts) please sit down because I want to watch the show (the final results). Quit bothering the man from"down under" so he can finish and then we can all inject our support or counter-support. Until then, sit down and s**t up. Everytime there is a new post for this link, I think the final results are in but then I see the start of another pi**ing contest. Can't we all just get along? Group hug time. Everyone happy? Now s**t up and lets see the final results.

With Pinched ABC /ABN /AAC engines, I agree with Ed Smith and Fuelman.
About 6 years ago, Fuelman came down to my area and the discussion of ABC break in came up and we thought he was off his rocker. He explaned why and the reasoning seemed logical so I started doing it that way. When we used to get about 3 gallons from a piston and sleeve set on my 3 sons rc cars, we were happy. Doing it his way and throwing the instruction manual back in the box, we're getting in excess of 10 gallons of fuel through a car engine before needing a new piston and sleeve. My kids race cars, I'm just a simple airplane and heli guy, and my ABC type engines which I have several of from the 25 size on up to an ASP 108 ABC, all have been broken in via Fuelman's advise (which I think is George Aldrich and Dave Geirke's advise as well) and have had no longevity problems at all and I fly very very often.
I do it Downunder's way with ringed engines and a couple of Fox lapped iron engines I have, and after years and lots of gallons, all my engines are like fine tuned, well oiled little machines.

Dr Nitro

This subject has really been tossed around. Several observations, a good test would be with a quality engine. The Bluebird was cheap because it is cheap. A friend had one, a 28 as I recall, and it was the typacal Asian "cheapy". My friends engine was not reliable including a bad carb that leaked lots of air from new out of the box. My guess is that the rest of the tolerences were just as bad.
If this was a good engine quality wise then we all would have some.......They went away just like MDS.

Anything learned from this "test" applys only to this specific engine, period.

I GO WITH DAR AND HIS METHODS, THEY WORK AND ARE SAFE.

You run your engines the way you want to and believe what ever statistics you wish to. The way I run my engines is based on what engine manufacturer's engineers/designers and professional engine re-fitters recommend. I get consistantly excellent results from ALL of my engines.

I want to bring this comment to light before it gets buried too deep. This is
exactly the type of misinformation I cannot, and WILL NOT allow past me
on my watch.

Before we get too deep on the issues at hand, and before I address the insults
that are coming my way....has anyone seen my recommendations or my
procedure for break-in ? Probably not, I haven't posted them.(I don't mean snipets)

Has anyone seen where I recommended someone to run an engine sloppy rich ?

FBD.

Recommended? Haven't checked.

Have you said that doing so will not hurt the engine? Definitely. Here's one example "it will not harm the engine running it very, or sloppy rich". Your statements are contrary to the recommendations of several manufacturers, people in the industry, and recognized engine experts.

Chuck....What I am saying is, and downunder has set out to prove is, a normal
ABC engine will not be harmed by running it overly rich....fourstroking it....during
the break-in period. (or any other time for that matter)

The terms do not matter....overly rich, sloppy rich, super rich, way too rich, rich
as all get out, stupid rich....

We're not even saying that four stroking the engine is a good thing. We know that
running an engine too rich, and too cool is defeating the purpose of trying to brake-in
the engine in the first place....because it will extend the break-in period unnecessarily
as well as wasting expensive fuel.

I do not break-in my engines overly rich....in a four-stroking mode. I have on
occasion, after a break-in run....cranked the needle way out....into a four stroking
mode for a few seconds to cool the enging down a bit before I shut it off. Of course,
it did not harm the engine.

I doubt that downunder runs his engines overly rich on break-in either, I know for
a fact he is an experienced aero-modeler.

What we are saying is....rediculous statements like:....
__________________________________________________ _______

"It must not be allowed to run for any length of time in four-stroke mode,
during the break-in."

"Also, in every non-firing revolution the piston is pushed, into the seize at the top
of the bore and then pulled back down, out of the seize, by the conrod. These
repeated compression-tension cycles can ultimately cause the conrod to fail."
__________________________________________________ ________

....aren't going to pass muster. Other old wives tales like....never let an engine idle
during the break-in period....will be debunked as well.

downunder's Quote:
The bottom line is, I'm not going to stand by while someone uses scare tactics on
some poor kid asking about breaking in his new engine (that he probably spent
his life savings on)....by telling him the factory instructions are incorrect....and
unless you follow my instructions in "this thread" you will damage or ruin your
engine.

That's when Flyboy dave throws his hat into the ring.

FBD.

Dave, I understand what you are saying, and trying to do. I think the issue is that MANY engine experts, and manufacturers disagree with you. By endorsing a philosophy that it's ok to run ABC engines sloppy rich, you ignore these people's experiences. What you also do is encourage people to ignore the manufacturer's recommendations and possibly do things wrong. There's a reason people recommend a certain type of break in for ABC engines, and why manufacturers include strong warnings NOT TO RUN ABC ENGINES SLOPPY RICH. They don't do this just because it's an old wives tale, they do it because they know it causes problems leading to worn engines, warranty claims, and customer dissatisfaction. It's beyond me why you are taking such delight in encouraging people to ignore the combined experiences of the manufacturers and engine experts.

Chuck, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Please do not address any
more of you posts to me....I do not wish to discuss this topic with
you any further.

Thanks,
Dave.

I never seen you type anything about how to break in an engine in this forum, but Chuck and I have a valuable point which I feel you or any other moderator should back us on. It is simply follow the manufacturers instructions, if you don't expect the worse. If the worse doesn't happen then you got lucky.

Edit: Removed off topic comment.

Edit: Removed off topic comment.

No you are not out of it , Flyboy only deleted the post you made toward him. Stick in there , I am a strong believer of following rules, laws, and directions. So I will definitely be around to warn the person who misinterprets the information being handed out in this thread.

PS my extra 300 should be here tomorrow. I can't wait to get this plane in the air.

Chuck:

I'm sorry you feel you are being "Over moderated," but in this case I have to agree with FBD. You have essentially said the same thing many times here in this thread, and you don't need to say it again.

I just got off the phone with FBD about it, as he has also been repetitious. The difference is he has been defending himself against the repetition of other posters. Not a lot of difference, but enough difference to make a difference. Sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity for being a little repetitious myself. Haw.

Anyway, let's all lean back and cool it, just wait and see how Brian/Downunder comes out with his experiment.

RC_Fiend:

Your post about a new car engine being destroyed if run over 50 mph is, as pointed out, total nonsense. However, if you were poking fun at the others here making ridiculous statements of absolutes I'm sorry I didn't see the irony - it really looks like a serious statement rather than intended humor.

All:

Please gentlemen, let's stop arguing. This thread is supposed to be one man's experiment and its results. Let's stop and allow him to tell us what has and is happening.

Thanks.

Bill.

Why do my ABC engines seem to preform best well after breakin. In fact some of my best engines hardly have any pinch left. In fact you can't really tell till you pull the glo plug off. The pistons still have a shiny ring around the top, so they are not worn out. Fuelman's experiances could be the effect of too much wear during break in and I am sure some engines would be just as he described. But it is propably just as likely that one of them had a sleeve that had a port off a bit, or the top was too thin allowing the ports to sit a bit lower. My experiance is that you can have as much as 500 RPM variences between engines of the same brand, just because of manufacturing tolerances.

FBD, Bill,


Chuck has been repeating himself, because of what you, Dave, have been refusing to see.

You still claim (with Brian-downunder supporting you) that no damage occurs when a tapered-bore engine is broken-in slobbery, despite Fuelman's 500 RPM deficit in the OS.32SX and the 2-3 vs. 10-12 gallon engine life in cars.

500 RPM deficit is not damage?
Would you race your (supposed) F3D racer, if RPM was down 500 RPM from the next guy???

In this day-and-age of CNC production, two identical engines will differ by no more than 100 RPM, in their performance potential.
Any larger difference can be attributed only to the break-in technique.


In tapered-bore engines there is only one right way.

This is George Aldrich's way, as compiled by me in that referred thread.


Will another way, slobbery for instance, necessarily harm all engines? No, but it still doesn't make it another right way. It is still wrong!


The tapered-bore, ring-less engine is something that only exists in model engines (although there are some full size aircraft radials that have a slightly tapered bore).
There is no 'real-life' model to go on...


So it is either George Aldrich's fail-safe way, or your supposedly harmless way.
What would you choose?

I wasn't trying to make a joke , I was trying to point out there are instruction for breaking in car engines which if not followed will destroy your engine. Have I heard of a car seizing up from driving it to fast when it is new ? yes . From my father who is a mechanic and has worked on engines most of his life.