Marauder Engine Breakin

[sailsmen]

At 8,000 miles my Marauder feels faster than ever. Does anyone know at what point the engine is fully broke in?

Is this long break in period unique to the mod engine? I seem to remember the muscle cars of old breaking in much sooner, then again we rarely had a new one.

I remember reading when Ford was first developing the 4.6 Mod they went double their standard endurance test with wear still w/in specs. and shut the test down.

[BillyGman]

correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the MM engine have hypereutectic pistons?? If so, then I wonder if that can be a reason or a cause for a longer break-in period since those type of pistons run a tighter piston to cylinder wall clearence then cast or forged pistons do(it's.002" which is half of what it is for forged pistons). Which is also supposed to be better for piston ring life too......

[sailsmen]

The MM does have those pistons. My understanding is they are 15% silicone which is liter and allows tighter clearances due to the alloy properties.

I never thought of that but it makes sense.

[Logan]

I felt my first mm loosen up around 4000-4500 miles...

[BillyGman]

that you have more than one? Cool.......

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by sailsmen
Is this long break in period unique to the mod engine?


I don't believe so.

My LS1 behaved the same way. Brand new, I felt it was pretty fast, had no trouble reaching the 162 mph speed limiter (long story), but below 2000 in 6th gear (0.50:1 w/ 3.42 rear) it was a real dog. By 10000 miles, 6th gear became completely useable, and I rarely downshift to 5th on the highway unless my speed drops to below 45 mph or so (which is around idle RPM in 6th). So I guess that makes 6th gear pretty useable... (but by no means giving me *great* acceleration, of course!). And the car felt hellaciously fast in comparison to when brand new...

The numbers tell the same story:
6000 miles, a bunch of 14.1s and one lucky 13.9, at around 102-103 mph on a good track with good air. One year later on my honeymoon, I pulled a 13.6 at 104 at another quick track immediately after an 8 hour drive with all our luggage still in the car. Another year later, the car pulled 13.4 at 107.6 at a very very poor track but with good air. No change in neither launch nor race technique...

[Logan]

BillyG... I owned my first one from June 2002 through December 2002, I just picked up my second, exactly like the first one... :)

[BillyGman]

if I owned two of them I'd be dangerous!! I think I'd keep one absolutely stock, and the other I'd build as much as my bank account would allow(including the 5.4 conversion). But that's just a dream for me:rolleyes:
Cole, a 13.6 ET isn't too shabby, but I thought those cars would do better than my 73 small block Vette does(13.48). Ofcourse my car isn't stock, but I figured that w/a 6 speed trans, you would get better ET's than my car w/that LS-1 motor. I once raced a Camaro from a traffic light and it was very close until I hit third gear, and then I began to walk away from him, but when I hit about 80 MPH we both had to let up because we ran out of room.I was clearly in front by about two car lengths, but had it been on the drag strip, I think that our ET's would've been fairly close. That was in late 2001 and his car looked pretty new. I always wondered if his car was equiped w/the mighty LS-1 motor since I wasn't sure exactly what year his Camaro was, or what year they started putting those engines in the Camaro. But based on your ET, and mine, maybe his car did have the LS-1 motor.

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by BillyGman
Ofcourse my car isn't stock, but I figured that w/a 6 speed trans, you would get better ET's than my car w/that LS-1 motor.

Break-in is an important factor in LS1 performance. The model year is another. The '98 is the slowest of the bunch, running pig rich probably for longevity's sake (being the first year installed in the F-cars, and 2nd in Vettes). I've known some stock '98s to go low 13s, with minor modifications (the so-called "free mods") possibly netting a high high high 12.

The '99 was a tad quicker, the 2001 got a big jump in performance with the LS6 intake, a more low-end-focused cam, and some other LS6-related improvements. One member of the internet F-clan from North Carolina took his brand new 2001 WS6 to the track and got a 12.8 right off the bat, witnessed by quite a few people. Sounds like a fluke car, but in general the 2001-2002 cars can see regular high 12s bone stock with proper break-in and good driving.

[Zack]

Why does everyone blame the 'bad track' all the time? Get some slicks, jeez.

[MAD-3R]

Well, I would have better times, but... my car was set up for AutoX not drag. :lol:

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by Zack
Why does everyone blame the 'bad track' all the time? Get some slicks, jeez.


Can't... I've got twigs for axles back there, and a clutch that can't take the abuse. :puke:

Not making excuses... these are really weak points in the 98+ cars. The clutch, while really nice as far as effort and feel goes, can't stand up to that kind of abuse and the rear twigs have always been a soft spot in the entire 4th generation run (1993-2002).

So, since I don't have the $$ to splurge on track-related improvements to my WS6 and keep ownership of all these cars, I'll deal with the occasional crappy track surface and just pay closer attention to my launches... I guess I just don't race the car often enough to make it financially worth the effort.

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by MAD-3R
Well, I would have better times, but... my car was set up for AutoX not drag. :lol:


ROFLMAO! Man, how many times have I heard that one?

There could be some truth to it, though. Stiffer suspensions will compromise weight transfer on launches... I suspect that's why my 'weaker' fat pig '98 T/A WS6 was always capable of whooping a$$ on the SLP Eastern Canadian sales manager's '99 Firehawk Formula... odd, because of the '99s being slightly stronger and the Formula being lighter and the Firehawk being... well, a Firehawk. ;) But some of the theories revolved around the 'Hawk's stiffer optional suspension (Bilstein + springs) and its drag-unfriendly weight transfer characteristics. It certainly wasn't due to drivers... I'm a docile lamb behind the wheel on the 1/4, whereas the 'Hawk was his company car (you figure out what that means...)

[BillyGman]

thanx for all the details on the different years of those cars. Maybe I'll have to be carefull the next time that I'm in my Vette, and I meet up w/someone w/a LS-1 equipped Camaro. otherwise I might get dusted. But then again, the way I am, I'd rather get beat trying, then to back down from a challenge. Even if it's a car that I know will beat mine. I mean lets say that I pulled up to a guy w/an old muscle car w/a blower hangin out of the hood, or a Dodge Viper. I know they would beat me, but I'd try to get them going anyway so that I could enjoy watching them make their car spew out some serious HP And I'd give em a thumbs up as their going by me, or at the next traffic light.......

[bugsys03]

so much for sailsmans question. this is mm.net,right?

[BillyGman]

comment was directed at me, then I apologize for getting off-topic, but I didn't see you or anyone else post who was able to come up w/any definitive answers to his question:rolleyes: