Here is the scoop - toured factory 2 weeks ago, awesome tour, about 2 hrs. No pictures allowed.

• Since intro of 997.2 DI motor, they have stopped doing dyno runs to confirm HP and torque, etc.
• Now they drive every 10th car.
  

Why ?

• A system has been developed involving multiple checks of engine tolerances including drag, friction, etc. that is checked at certain steps in the engine assembly process. This system was developed using mathematical modeling and statistical analysis of the entire engine building process from initial parts picking from the bins to final motor assembly. Empirical results and testing are consistent with the modeling, thus it was found unnecessary to dyno and test each motor.
• The systems saves Porsche a significant amount of time and money.

Re. tour, I have not seen the TV show, Ultimate Factories, but I can share that the 911s are still largely hand built, or screwed together, combining some high-tech robotics with old fashioned Teutonic workmanship. They are limited in x, y square footage, so Werks 2 Porsche assembly is a "vertically integrated" system - the cars are put together starting from the top floor(s), and the final marriage of the body and chassis occurs on the bottom floor. It was a thing of beauty to see these cars built, and was a real head turner to see the test drivers ripping up and down the Porscheplatz, testing every 10th car.

 

Interesting testing procedures at Porsche but what does that have to do with motor break-in?

 

That is what some concluded from watching the NatGeo show. It's really controlled stochastic assembly. Testing does not solve anything if it finds no fault. If they have tuned assembly to a high degree, it is possible that general testing would yield very few faults. Of course the occasional glitch on a non-driven car is transferred to the owner/dealer to resolve.

 

Off hand I'd say it puts to rest the theory/myth that Porsche "breaks-in" every engine before it leaves the factory and that driver break-in during the first 2K miles is unnecessary.

Which is why at 1700 miles my '09 C2S has yet to see anything above 4500 rpm.

 

So based on this lack of engine testing would it be safe to assume that the initial 20 miles or so are the critical for engine breakin?

 

Probably the first 5-15 minutes actually, but yes.......

 

running all, some, or no motors on a dyno to confirm output and check for defects has noting to do with motor break-in....unless run for an extended period of time. The whole point of break-in is to wear in the interfaces between all the moving parts. how this is done and how much time it takes is certainly up for debate, but I don't think anybody ever considered the short factory tests "break-in".

 

Oh trust me......I've had numerous BMW and Porsche salesman claim that the engines are broken-in at the factory.....usually just after they've bounced the engine off the rev limiter on a car with fewer than 100 miles on the odo and cold oil. Now.....I now sales BS of this sort when I hear it, but apparently not everyone does since this gets repeated on forums on a regular basis......"Porsche/BMW break the engines in at the factory."

I agree that a bench test is not the same thing as breaking an engine in and believe that most here understand this, but this new Porsche procedure should finally put any ill-informed discussion about this to rest once and for all.

Now we can all go back to debating whether a slow and easy 2k mile break-in period is better than a 5 minute WOT break-in

 

Very interesting...so Porsche is cutting costs any way they can now including hot-testing their engines. They really should update their virtual factory tour website. Makes me glad I went with the 997.1 instead of the 997.2. Will be interesting to see the long term effects from these changes.

 

Testing every car is largely a boutique claim for small manufacturers. The greater error in your tolerances or building procedures, the greater need to test every engine. As Deming & his students have clearly demonstrated, if each element of an assembly procedure is within tolerance, it is unlikely for the final result to be out of tolerance. Testing every 10th car is still a more aggressive testing regimen than many companies. But testing is not the same as breakin...which can be enhanced by strong, but reasonable loads (e.g., it would be better to go up a long incline at 3,500rpm-4,000rpm than redline the engine). But, in fact, engines are so tolerant of different procedures, different approaches to break-in often amount to killing a chicken on the crossroads at midnight.

 

From what I hear, GT3's are still hot tested; which has nothing to do with break in either.

Although, .1 engines were dynoed and .2's are not, does not make the .1 a better engine; as inferred in an above post.

 

Actually I think the boutique aspect of producing cars is a mixed bag. One can look at it as if the company goes to extra steps or attention to maintain quality. The other side of that is, that due to the lower volumes, in some cases cars are welded or sprayed by hand rather than robots. The machines are definitely better. Actually catching defects before they leave the factory is old world way of ensuring quality (still good to do to keep an eye on quality). The modern way is having the process under contol which is much more effective. In any case it is good to see that Porsche tests at least the fundamentals of the engine before it leaves the factory.