Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    Long periods of _no_ usage are bad - (see Land Rover note!:-) )
    because things can sieze, and lots of very short journeys are bad,
    since the engine never really warms up, plugs get gunged up etc, so the
    frequency of service would need to be much greater. But I would think
    that there would be little difference in wear on an engine at eg
    100,000 miles if it had done them at a rate of 600 per day, or 200 per
    day - all other things being equal! 
    
    Elaine

If the car / engine was going to fail because of being driven a long way, then
it would fail before 200 miles (a friend had a car once which was OK for forty
miles then mysteriously overheated, but that's another story...), so once it's
done 200 you can safely assume it'll do the next 400.

If there's a mechanical fault that will break the car within 600 miles, then I
would have thought it wouldn't make much difference whether you did 1x600 or
3x200, it will still break.

With 3x200, you're running the car cold for three times as long, but that won't
make much difference: if you wanted to do 600 miles in 120 journeys of 5 miles
each, then the cold running would be significant!

Scott.

Yeah,

In terms of engine wear, both 200 & 600 miles are sufficiently long journeys
for the engine to warm up properly. But does anyone know if there is a
practical limit to the number of continuous miles driven by a car.

For instance, could I (and a couple of shift drivers), drive my car for 6000
miles in one go after a service. What problems are likely to occur?

Just out of curiosity!

Mark.

    Hmmm, my 2p worth, I think it does matter what age the car is, older
    cars, ie early 70's and previous, are more likely to be OK on shortish
    runs frequently covered, but on long runs, things like overheating
    start to happen, in my experiance, ie;
    
    Neglected greasing of wheel bearings may result in overheating the
    bearing, and destroying the seals,
    -Thermostats which have worked for 3/4 's of their designed range, (all
    they have previously been called to work under) are asked to use that
    last quarter, and somehow forget how to!
    -Also in air-cooled engines, nasty things like fuel vapourisation takes
    place, and smoking heat-exchangers !
    
    
    Carl 

    A much more interesting question is to ask what effect the 2 journies
    would have on the driver !
    
    600 miles in a day is ok, but it does leave you a bit tired.
    
    DejW

    
    Re: .3
    
    
    a practical limit to continuous miles ?
    
    I'd have thought that was when it ran out of petrol !
    
    :-)

what always amaxed me were claims by manufacturers of driving their cars
continuously around the Nardo circuit for 60,000 miles at average speeds
of ~150 mph (including fuel stops)

I particularly remember the claim by mercedes for the 190e cosworth,
when it was launched.
The magazine test reports seem only to get it up to the low 140's.


...confused art

    Well to be quite honest i would have thought that the constant pressure
    of driving a car for 600miles would be worse than doing 3x200miles.
    
    Just for some reason this seems logical to me.
    
    But there again, i don't really know too much about cars!
    
    Lewis. (Guessing again).

    Having done numerous long journeys (600 to 800 miles at a whack) with
    rotating drivers I see nothing wrong with them.  The car gets to drive
    all night when it's usually cooler, instead of three days of sun and
    warmer temps.
    
    The longest trip we've made was a 3000 mile round trip journey in 2.5
    days (New Hampshire to Mississippi and back) with three of us in a VW
    Jetta GLI (1.8 litre).
    
    Of course, in our case, we usually don't have the choice of doing the
    trips over a three day period.  We need to get where we're going
    (usually a rally) overnight, even if it's 800 miles away....  Driving
    straight through is the only way!
    
    Dave

    
    It would certainly do less damage than stop/cool down/start type
    driving, as the engine is continously operating at optimum temperature
    with correct viscosity of oil and other fluids and at it's most
    economical....
    
    Stands to reason that it's better for an engine to be doing what it was
    designed to do.
    
    :-)

    
    I've seen advertisements for Volvo in the US where they show a
    a proud owner beside his 141 or some such vintage that has done
    an INCREDIBLE number of miles. What they don't tell you is the
    'duty cycle' of how those miles were done, that would be interesting
    to know.

    
    
    Worst bit of the drive is 590 on motor-way and 10 last miles in traffic
    
    	See the temp gauge rise.....
    
    Trev Who_would_do_2*300_miles_cos_thats_when_the_petrol_gets_LOW
    

    
    personally I would do the 600 miles in one trip, stopping once for
    fuel...
    
    having done Le Havre to Toulouse (approx 500 miles) a couple of times
    in a day after an overnight ferry, 600 miles would really not be a
    problem.

>    having done Le Havre to Toulouse (approx 500 miles) a couple of times
>    in a day after an overnight ferry, 600 miles would really not be a
>    problem.

It is if you have three children...

� of a hour after having started journey (from Hampshire to S of France)

Youngest child - "Are we nearly there yet?"
Middle child - "Oh do shut up moaning it'll be at least another 2 hours"
Eldest child (under breath) - "And thats only to get to the ferry"

What with petrol stops, wee stops and food stops, which never ever
coincide, it takes us a while to get any where. :-) :-) Oh the joys of 
summer.
Dave

	Well I would also do it in one stretch. Buy the kids 'I spy books'
	or bribe the oldest to keep the other two occupied.

	I travelled from Kitzbuhel to Delft just before the new year in under
	8 hours, it's about 1000 Km's, just stopping for petrol. Mind you
	the roads were very quiet.

	Gordon

    RE.0
    
    1*600 = one cold-start
    3*200 = three cold-starts

    If, as I assume, cold running generates more engine wear than warm
    running then the answer is obvious. 30*20 would be even worse than
    3*200 but not so bad as 600*1 or even 1200*0.5 etc. More important
    question might be 'how many days does the driver/passenger wish
    to spend making the journey?' In my last equation, 1200*0.5 one
    would need leave of absence for three years, three months and a
    couple of weeks! Not only would this seriously shorten the engine
    life it would seriously damage the drivers income.
    
    Bucko...
    

    I think that the point i was getting at was :
    
    Would the constant strain on the engine make any difference.
    
    Forget 600miles for now. Imagine 1500miles. Now, would it be better
    for the engine to do 1500miles in 1 go or in 3 goes of 500.
    
    Lewis. Who-has-decided-to-stick-it-on-the-train-and-go-to-sleep.

    I think the point is that you owe me one pizza !!!!!
    
    Steph.

    Hang it all Lewis,
    
    If it's the Renegade you're considering do it as the crow flies
    Cross country !
    
    If it's the Fiesta, the debate is acedemic
    
    It won't do 600 miles, you'd probably loose your way again and you'd
    end up doing 1200 miles, and the CD player would be nicked when
    you stopped for fuel.
    
    Let the train take the strain, the brain's not up to it !

    Tony,
    
    Is this supposed to cheer me up ?
    
    If so, it hasn't worked. 
    
    The cross country run would take too long and i might end up 
    cycling ( ;-) ) all the way.
    
    Lewis. Who-wishes-he-hadnt-entered-this-now-because-hes-down-some
           -street-cred-and-more-importantly-a-pizza!