Is there a strict running in process for the pd 170 engine? Or are modern tolerances good enough that as long as I don't redline or labour the engine. I know that they use different oil for the new (first) time.

Rag it from the start.

Get 500 or so miles on it then rag the f*ck out of it.

I would check the PD170 engine failure thread first.....................

There seem to be two different thoughts on running in an engine. Thrash it from

new for more power or treat it gently for better oil/fuel consumption.

There seems to be so many misleading articals about: but I would rather

just use it but not put to much load on it for 1K.

As a professional engineer (sad, dying breed in our McEconomy), it is intuitively obvious to me that any newly-built mechanical system ought to be treated gently for a period of time until any surfaces that have any friction between them become microscopically de-burred through a controlled wear process.

The big questions are what is gentle and what is the period of time, and is the factory engine burn-in enough?

Although it is true that we are able to machine parts to much better spreads of tolerances than say 20 years ago, and possibly just as important that we now have systems in place to better monitor and thus quality control those machined parts it is still true that any one system can fall into "maximum tolerance stack up" or "minimum tolerence stack up". What this meand is that there is a statistical probability that a number engines may end up with, for example, a piston that passes qual tests at max tolerance, meaning its diameter is OK but towards the maximum end of the scale, and a bore that has diameter right at the minimum end of the permitted tolerance scale. In this case, you have an acceptable, and statistically small number of engines that in this particular emasurement are tight. The opposite is also possible. This in itself is no big dela if your QC sampling is good, but nevertheless the tight engine will suffer slightly more friction at the mating surfaces. Now, all this is at a macro level meaning that if mating surfaces were mathematically pefect despite the tolerance stack-up, the basic design & QC system would likely not result in early wear or failures. The problem is that that at the micro-level that piston or bore, or bearing isn't perfectly, mathematically circular, whatever it's diameter tolerance limit is set to. In this case, you can get localized wear points that may, statistically result in failure.

Basically, this is a subject covered by a surprising number of PhDs, and thousands of collective years of R&D. So putting it simply, statiscally you have a higher chance of reducing engine failure and increasing longevity and long-term performance by being gentle for let's say a thousand miles or so. The factory burn-in period is as short as they can get away with based on statistics.

For those of you about to explain what happens with say F1 engines - go and check how many orders of maginitude of tolerance is acceptable for mass priduced engines compared with F1 (and how long they last before a rebuild is mandated).

Sorry to bore you if you got this far. I prefer science and logic to old wives tales and driver's anecdotes based on statistical samples of 1. I'm a numbers man, and when you don't have all the numbers, err on the side of caution.

I would check the PD170 engine failure thread first.....................

Where is that?

Where is that?

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/new-octavia/2-0-tdi-170-engine-failure/74145/

Yeah found it ta.

As a professional engineer (sad, dying breed in our McEconomy), it is intuitively obvious to me that any newly-built mechanical system ought to be treated gently for a period of time until any surfaces that have any friction between them become microscopically de-burred through a controlled wear process.

The big questions are what is gentle and what is the period of time, and is the factory engine burn-in enough?

Although it is true that we are able to machine parts to much better spreads of tolerances than say 20 years ago, and possibly just as important that we now have systems in place to better monitor and thus quality control those machined parts it is still true that any one system can fall into "maximum tolerance stack up" or "minimum tolerence stack up". What this meand is that there is a statistical probability that a number engines may end up with, for example, a piston that passes qual tests at max tolerance, meaning its diameter is OK but towards the maximum end of the scale, and a bore that has diameter right at the minimum end of the permitted tolerance scale. In this case, you have an acceptable, and statistically small number of engines that in this particular emasurement are tight. The opposite is also possible. This in itself is no big dela if your QC sampling is good, but nevertheless the tight engine will suffer slightly more friction at the mating surfaces. Now, all this is at a macro level meaning that if mating surfaces were mathematically pefect despite the tolerance stack-up, the basic design & QC system would likely not result in early wear or failures. The problem is that that at the micro-level that piston or bore, or bearing isn't perfectly, mathematically circular, whatever it's diameter tolerance limit is set to. In this case, you can get localized wear points that may, statistically result in failure.

Basically, this is a subject covered by a surprising number of PhDs, and thousands of collective years of R&D. So putting it simply, statiscally you have a higher chance of reducing engine failure and increasing longevity and long-term performance by being gentle for let's say a thousand miles or so. The factory burn-in period is as short as they can get away with based on statistics.

For those of you about to explain what happens with say F1 engines - go and check how many orders of maginitude of tolerance is acceptable for mass priduced engines compared with F1 (and how long they last before a rebuild is mandated).

Sorry to bore you if you got this far. I prefer science and logic to old wives tales and driver's anecdotes based on statistical samples of 1. I'm a numbers man, and when you don't have all the numbers, err on the side of caution.

Thanks for that detail anwser:thumbup:

I'll be safe and take it easy

As the man says just drive the vehicle normally and you will find you cover all the speed ranges and if it is your money paying for the vehicle certainly ignore the comments of the boy racers on here.

Most vehicles do not seem to free up until you reach around the 10,000 mile mark.

It will burn a bit of oil, but the top up each time is very small, I bought 4.5 litres of oil and have now done 10300 miles only used less than two thirds of the can. I use a small measure jug to top up and it rarely exceeds half a pint at each top up.

I has never required any coolant top up to date.

Get 500 or so miles on it then rag the f*ck out of it.

I thought the main point of a performance diesel was that you don't need to rag the f*ck of it anyway as the torque is low down, - i.e. you short shift... :confused:

yes, but didn't that comment come from a driver of a petrol-engined varia:rolleyes: nt?????