Bike Miles

The older GS is on 230,000 miles, but that's got the 30k engine in. I'm
impressed with the longevity of the bevel box gears and splines [1] and
it's still on the original shaft. The frame of course is the same age,
but I've seen pics of 200k GS frames fatigue-snapped at the front engine
mounts, so I'm keeping an eye on that.

[1] No wear whatsoever - still got the original machining marks on.
Fucking amazing what regular greasing/oiling will do.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#16? FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19

 

You're awake then...

 

Champ said:

Would you like to suck a fishermans friend?

 

No thanks, I've just had one.

I was of course aluding to my seminal treatise on the subject of
running in.

 

dixit The Older Gentleman:

claret alert!

 

"Colonels and cunts" was the collective term for Jag owners in common
usage at BL dealerships (well, in the workshops at least) according to
a friend of mine who held the (unfortunate) position of workshop
manager at one in the early '80s. It so appeared that any given Jag
owner would fall into one or other of those categories, sometimes both
....

 

Champ said:

I know - however there is a difference between a new bike with low
mileage thrashed from new in that it develops more power than the
carefully run in one. However, the stuff I've read about it, suggests
that 50,000 miles later the roles are reversed.

 

Pip said:

I can't disagree with any of that - and I've never been in the forces.

 

Given that the only people interested in the longevity of an engine
enough to run it for >50k miles are likely to be the manufacturers, why
would they want to break their own running in instructions to "see what
happens"?

I'm sure they set the instructions for good reasons- reduce warrantee
claims at a guess; so even if hammering the **** out of it does run it
in better and doesn't harm the longevity they wouldn't want more people
hammering the **** out of the engines.

I think the 'evidence' is likely to be very anecdotal. Still, what the
**** do I know.

 

Champ said:

I was basing it on some data I saw (done IIRC by Honda on a blade
engine). Basically that said that thrashed from new - plenty power but
using oil by 20k. Break-in the standard way (don't baby the engine, use
the full rev range, but don't let it lug and don't make it work too hard
for more than a few seconds at a time - like a decent ride rather than a
mad thrash), slightly less BHP after run-in (like maybe 2 or 3 bhp less)
but an engine that will last as designed.

I've spent the last half hour scouring the web for the article but I
can't find it. Maybe I dreamed it. Maybe they said bounce it off the
rev limiter in neutral for an hour?

I tend to run an engine smoothly and thoughtfully until the first oil
change, then gradually explore the full range and power of the engine.

There must be something in it, as IIRC Kawasaki changed the running in
requirements of the ZX12 (or whatever it was called - their version of
the 'busa) to 2000 gentle miles to stop the engine exploding at an early
age.

 

said:

That might have been what I was trying to say - if only I had your
fluency and charm.

 

And your definition of running in here matches mine pretty well

That actually surprised me when it happened.

 

Champ said:

I think it's the right way to do it. I'm sure it is in fact. The only
exception is NOS old-style engines that are not plateau honed.

I too... They really boo-boo'd with that engine methinks. I suspect
most of the benefit from the more gentle approach is that a lot of
power-rangers will have sold them on before they get to 2000 miles.

 

Or it'll be out of warranty

 

Champ said:

More to the point - that's what I thought when I first saw it.