Windex,
"Fancy oil"... You mean like the PD 505.01 ratings? Or the required 507 for the CRs? I hope you don't think this is personal, as it is simply a disagreement in technique. For the most part, I do not care if you break in the regular, stock grind, everyday, underpowered stock engine. You are right and you will most often be right. It is not GENERALLY necessary. And when I'm asked about stock ALH engine cams, that is what I tell them.
But going back to the days when big blocks were in my life, we would blow out cams is weeks, sometimes days. We learned flat tapped cams were potentially failure point, unless proper break-in was done. As a current example, the PD cams are problems.
Some cams are fussy. When I decide to build an engine, I consider it important to follow a more careful procedure to insure results. That is the technique we employ with the PD engines and any engine that is modified for substantial power increases.
When we decide that beak-in is important, we are talking about PROBLEM CAMS. I don't think you can make much issue that the PD is a problem cam, for many reasons.
In the long term, and that is the most often repeated statement, cam maker to cam maker.. The first 1/2 hr (some say 20 minutes) is the life of the cam. I beleive an improved cam break-in procedure allows increased life expectancy, I am all for it.
DBW is, as usual, subtle as a hammer. Your inference about cams is biased and typical of the your methods we have come to understand. If we are going to talk about rules, you are infringing, subtle but obvious. You haven't seen the finish, so you shouldn't comment on what you obviously do not know. And you also infringe on your own cam grinder, who we happen to know, makes many cams of the kind of which you to take me to task. That is hypocritical. Even there, you absolutely do not know what cams we use and that they are new.
You really want to go 'round again?
