Quote:
|
Originally Posted by z12358
...Everyone else can choose their own drive lengths during break-in based on the "evidence" presented here and/or elsewhere. 
Z. |
Hi,
No hard feelings here either. But you emphasise my point that there is absolutely no Evidence whatever here to conclude that short trips have anything to do with causing or preventing premature RMS failure. And that's the point you fail to percieve.
You mistakenly present an internet anecdote and embue it with the quality of being
Evidence of some sort, using a brand of Pretzel Logic to weirdly connect the dots. As it stands, it simply is not any sort of evidence at all. If you (or others) want to
suspect that it is, then of course you're free to do so, but all it is is
unfounded suspicion, nothing more. It bears the same absurdity as cautioning that turning the ignition key can lead to premature RMS failure, because common sense dictates that if you never turn the key, you'll never experience premature RMS failure either.
Every car ever manufactured has had some sort of shaft seal. Yet, no other car manufacturer (qualify to say that I know of) says to avoid short trips in their break-in period specifically to maintain the integrity of the shaft seal.
Do the laws of physics, the mechanics, or the characteristics of materials differ in cars produced in Stuttgart or Uusikaupunki with those from the rest of the world? Because that is in essence what you're saying by trying to promote this nonsense. The science involved is very straightforward and proven time and again.
It's not OK to stipulate or suggest such malarkey on a forum where many people may be less learned and come here to learn more. Nor is it fair to plant doubt in the minds of Owners who have experienced premature RMS failure that perhaps they did something to cause it, which they didn't.
The premature RMS failure in the M96 engine is directly linked to the innovative casting methods used by Porsche to reduce production costs by eliminating the need for post-cast machining of the blocks. This technology has a much higher reject rate than traditional, but more costly, methods.
This
theory you present deserves no credence. If you want to do some sampling and draw conclusions based on this sampling, go ahead. But, lacking this, all you're doing is proferring myth, which bye-the-way, is in direct opposition to what the rest of the world experiences every day, and without one shred of evidence to back it up...
Happy Motoring!... Jim'99