ADUK Archive

Silk wrote:

StressedDave wrote:

TripleS wrote::) Not directed at anybody in particular. Just

Yes, but have you considered that you've got all the reliability in CUBby that has been stolen from every other French car in existence?

That and he rarely takes it above 2000 rpm.

In the low gears, that's true; well maybe 2500.

3500 in 5th is a more frequent occurance. That's OK, isn't it?

TripleS wrote:3500 in 5th is a more frequent occurance. That's OK, isn't it?

Isn't that about 90mph ?

Where's this idea of low revs = good health come from?

An Italian tune-up a day keeps the doctor away, possibly.

fungus wrote:

TripleS wrote:3500 in 5th is a more frequent occurance. That's OK, isn't it?

Isn't that about 90mph ?

Oh gosh, is that all? I am disappointed.

trashbat wrote:Where's this idea of low revs = good health come from?

An Italian tune-up a day keeps the doctor away, possibly.

I used to love the handbook for the Alfa 156 I owned - where it talked about the revs and the red line - it simply said "don't stay in the red for too long" absolutely implicit that you would regularly enjoy pushing the car into the red...

Alasdair

akirk wrote:

trashbat wrote:Where's this idea of low revs = good health come from?

An Italian tune-up a day keeps the doctor away, possibly.

I used to love the handbook for the Alfa 156 I owned - where it talked about the revs and the red line - it simply said "don't stay in the red for too long" absolutely implicit that you would regularly enjoy pushing the car into the red...

Alasdair

Mine had a sticker in the top right of the windscreen - since replaced - that said, 'Alfa Romeo cars are fitted with high performance engines derived from their strong racing heritage. It is therefore important to check your engine oil level regularly'. Mmm-hmm.

But, in all seriousness, habitually using the full rev range & occasionally this 'rag it' method is documented to have benefit. I don't go around literally bouncing off the limiter but mine generally gets into the high numbers at least a few times every proper trip.

not sure what % of cars don't have a rev-limiter, but can't be many...
and I assume that a rev limiter stops the revs going high enough to damage the engine...

so logically, anything the engine will allow, should be okay to do

Alasdair

trashbat wrote:Where's this idea of low revs = good health come from?

An Italian tune-up a day keeps the doctor away, possibly.

FWIW I don't think low revs = good health. The frequent use of excessively low revs and excessively high revs could be bad for an engine, but I reckon a good bootful does them good if administered at reasonable intervals and without ill-treating the machinery. Well that's my excuse.

trashbat wrote:

akirk wrote:

trashbat wrote:Where's this idea of low revs = good health come from?

An Italian tune-up a day keeps the doctor away, possibly.

I used to love the handbook for the Alfa 156 I owned - where it talked about the revs and the red line - it simply said "don't stay in the red for too long" absolutely implicit that you would regularly enjoy pushing the car into the red...

Alasdair

Mine had a sticker in the top right of the windscreen - since replaced - that said, 'Alfa Romeo cars are fitted with high performance engines derived from their strong racing heritage. It is therefore important to check your engine oil level regularly'. Mmm-hmm.

But, in all seriousness, habitually using the full rev range & occasionally this 'rag it' method is documented to have benefit.

Yes, so I've heard.

A few years ago I read an article in which it was claimed that tests had shown that engines that were driven really hard from new delivered a greater power output than those that had been carefully run-in. This, by the way, was referring to motorcycle engines rather than car engines, but I don't know if this makes any difference. I also don't know what effect this 'flog them from new' technique had on the durability of the machinery, but I suspect it could lead to a shorter life.

In any case, running-in, as we used to do it, now seems to be unnecessary, at least with the sort of cars I've known this last few years. I imagine this follows from improvements in design, materials, tolerances, surface finishes, lubricants, and who knows what else.

akirk wrote:not sure what % of cars don't have a rev-limiter, but can't be many...
and I assume that a rev limiter stops the revs going high enough to damage the engine...

so logically, anything the engine will allow, should be okay to do

Alasdair

Yes, I expect so - at least for quite a long time - although personally I'm inclined to keep away from the top end of the speed range in the case of an engine that has clocked up a high mileage. it's just my natural conservatism, and maybe not strictly necessary.

TripleS wrote:A few years ago I read an article in which it was claimed that tests had shown that engines that were driven really hard from new delivered a greater power output than those that had been carefully run-in. This, by the way, was referring to motorcycle engines rather than car engines, but I don't know if this makes any difference. I also don't know what effect this 'flog them from new' technique had on the durability of the machinery, but I suspect it could lead to a shorter life.

I've heard the same about cars, about power but also in relation to oil consumption - e.g. if someone made use of the full rev range from the start, it would typically consume less oil for the rest of its life, especially when later owners came to drive it that way. I've heard this many times but I have absolutely no evidence for it.

TripleS wrote:In any case, running-in, as we used to do it, now seems to be unnecessary, at least with the sort of cars I've known this last few years. I imagine this follows from improvements in design, materials, tolerances, surface finishes, lubricants, and who knows what else.

Possibly the ECU maps on cars might handle what was traditionally the 'running in guidance' for you to some extent; again there's a bit of anecdotal stuff that says, 'oh my new car started responding better after 1500 miles' or whatever. Plus it might well have been 'run-in' in the factory by automated testing, I'm not sure. Definitely less of an issue at the user end though.

TripleS wrote:Yes, I expect so - at least for quite a long time - although personally I'm inclined to keep away from the top end of the speed range in the case of an engine that has clocked up a high mileage. it's just my natural conservatism, and maybe not strictly necessary.

Having once had three range rover engines blow up in 18 months (I will just say, none of them were driver error ), I see it simply as an opportunity to rebuild bigger and more powerful
first range rover was a 3.5v8 - died while a friend was driving it, replaced it with a newer rr with a 4.2 which blew up 6 months later (bad original fuel / air mix killed the engines), put in a 4.6v8 and 6 months later road debris caused the oil to be canned at high speed - rebuilt it to a 5.0lt v8

got better and better

Alasdair

Just about every car built since the 1990s and many before, incorporates a rev limiter.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:Just about every car built since the 1990s and many before, incorporates a rev limiter.

I think the limiter my 1991 205 had was valve bounce

Does it coincide with cars moving from carbs to injection?

That'd certainly be a factor. With carbs you need an ignition cutting mechanism geared to engine revs, separately from the fuelling system. Since electronic fuel injection combines fuel and rev sensors, it's easy to incorporate an arbitrary rev limit.

So the import of the above is that probably, OEM fitted solid state electronic ignition is more of a factor. HTH.