DrGP

You just might find some additional sources that back up Motoman's recommendations. It doesn't matter whether the engine break in is for a motorcycle or car or airplane they are all internal cumbustion engines. 2 things seem to be accepted. 1) DON"T USE SYNTHETIC OIL!!!. and 2) Short busst of acceleration followed by engine braking are beneficial. These 2 concepts are entirely missing in Audis recommendation.<ul><li><a href="http://www.ntnoa.org/enginebreakin.htm">Another engine break in recommendation</a></li></ul>

s4for5_TTfor2

Risking warranty by using non approved oil ?
I know you really, really, really believe the motoman stuff but don't you think if the procedure was better Audi would know all this and take appropriate measures on their 80k performance machine ?
Do you think they want to deal with oil consumption issues if all it takes is "different" breakin procedures to prevent it?
Do we know for a fact that the engines are not already subjected to factory breakin procedures ?
As I said..just curious, no offense intended

Tomasz@Startup

C&amp;D claims that tolerances in our engines are very different than the two strokes he used for his testing. I would follow the manual, NOT motoman.

DrGP

I have and continue to believe that the break in recommendations recommended by Audi are not the best way to break in an engine. I realize that this is a contoversial subject and there are different opinions. BUT, I would not recommend this unless I believed that it was beneficial. I have been doing similar with my last BMW M3, A6 2.7t, S4, Mountaneer,&amp; 350Z. None of which consume ANY oil. The principle of break in is to get all the parts to "WEAR" in properly, especially to get the piston rings to "Wear" in against the cylinder walls. You get this by generating enough pressure in the cylinder to force the rings against the cylinder walls. Conservative driving does not generate enough of this pressure to accomplish quick and complete piston ring seating. Synthetic oils do not allow the required wear to occur. I don't work for Audi or know what their thinking is, but Audi is not all knowing and they have a cop out. If the engine uses oil, they just say 1 qt/1000 miles is "within acceptable limits". Unfortunately with the break in proceedures that Audi recommends, oil consumption issue prevail in the european released Rs4s. That should not happen in an $80 K vehicle if you are following a break in technique recommended by the factory. Something is wrong. It is either the technique or the rings. A good high quality dino oil( and I believe there are Audi approved non synthetics since they put that in my 04 S4) used for the first 1000 miles should allow enough wear to get everything worn in properly used only for the first 1000 miles. I know it is hard to go against the recommendations of the MFG, but sometimes you just have to look at what is going on and say that there is another way that is better. I don't believe that there are many, if any owners, who used a more agressive break in style that are now unhappy that they did. There could always be exceptions but what works works for a reason.

dxben

Really, not even about their own damned engines?

WTF?

ESFO

There are so many things that you aren't looking at that contribute to oil consumption that have nothing to do with break-in procedure. So much about these engines and their break-in cycle that you are unaware of to be making these assertions. You're ignoring the fact that cylinder wall and piston ring material on this engine are different than many auto manufacturers NOT TO MENTION different than the motorcycles that Motomutt is testing on.

Your personal break-in testing using different vehicles is deficient in evidence to give any credence to the Moto's method. I've owned an Acura, a Lexus, a Nissan and a few Mustangs. Each one I've broken in the way the manual says and guess what Doc? Not one of them used a drop of oil. Just like you and your vehicles. So, obviously, oil consumption is a product of several variables, not <b>just</b> break-in procedure. And some manufacturers vehicles have a hit or miss record with oil consumption. Audi is one of them, especially with this engine and it's cylinder wall and ring material.

Fact is... Some Audis burn oil. Some don't. It's an oversimplification and evidence of some naivete to say that it's due to just one thing.

MoroBlueBrit

NOT
let me understand something, if you break in like motorman says ie high pressure making the rings "seat" against the cylinder walls, does that mean that when you are running at anything less than WOT, the rings are not snug against the cylinder wall?
and then wouldn't that result in excessive oil consumption during everyday driving? I am not an engineer, just trying to understand.
BTW got some great cold fusion stuff for sale.....

DrGP

if they are burning oil, it is because the piston rings are not seated properly. What other magical process will cause that especially on a new engine. The simple fact is that if the piston rings seat properly you will not burn oil. What you are implying is that the engine in this car is made in such a way and of such exotic material that it has to be broken in gently and it is just the luck of the draw as to whether you get one that burns oil or not. I can't buy that. I can buy there may be something inherent in the piston ring's material or tolerences or the surface of the cylinder wall that do not allow complete seating in all cars. But that would be a manufacturing or design defect on Audi's part. Just remember that there have been many reported oil consumption issues in both the RS6 and RS4s. The same sporadic oil consumption issue has plaqued the C6 Corvette as well. BUT, they have located the cause of the problem in the Corvette. (bad lower piston rings) That doesn't mean that that is the cause in the Audis, but I would be suspicious .

DrGP

Read the link to understand the physics.<ul><li><a href="http://www.ntnoa.org/enginebreakin.htm">Clicky</a></li></ul>

s4for5_TTfor2

any actual legit engineering info ?

I am trying to be openminded but the info others above have posted sound much more plausible to me.