I'd much rather apply a light throttle and let the car get up to 4000rpm, instead of having to give the engine a bootful in order to maintain speed in too high a gear. Something about compression ratios and fatigue etc on a cold piece of metal.

New engines nowadays are run at redline/rev limiter speeds for 24 hours (well, a test engine is) before going into production so I doubt that anything this side of an Enzo will be too fussed about the odd bit of load when cold. I almost hate to admit it but when I had my TT, which I really, really disliked, I treated it awfully and it'd regularly experience full bore starts up to the limiter from stone cold. In the 1500 miles I abused it (running at 16.2mpg overall) I don't think I made any discernible difference to the engine. Not when compared to the cars I've babied through my ownership.

I can't honestly answer that, just that it feels better.

I've always likened it to riding a bike, I wouldn't try and pedal up a hill in 21st gear as it would wreck my legs, so I won't do the same to a car, although I would say that its unlikely to cause permanent damage to your legs (although you could certainly strain muscles etc), whether that's the same for an engine, I can't personally answer that.

Basically though, I still think placing a light load on an engine up to about 4K rpm for a petrol is unlikely to cause any harm.

That is an excellent way to highlight how the physics of an engine would have additional stress.

Additionally, whilst few folks bother with 'running in' their modern, new company cars and they do not appear to cause any harm, that does not mean the longevity of the engine would not be compromised in some way.

Every new car I've bought or made available to me over the last half century, even company cars because I sometimes bought them when the time came to change, has benefited from progressive 'running in' for the first say two thousand miles. Work colleagues who also believed it was not necessary with modern cars, often had engine problems as the mileages built up. My cars never did and the next new car I buy, will also be treated to progressive "running in" period for the first say two thousand miles. Simply because my experience shows it is beneficial. I tend to keep my cars or pass them on in the family for 7-10 years, sometimes more. Thirteen and fifteen years even. Never had engine problems.

I used to live a mile from a very short sliproad onto a fast, busy dual carriageway. I hated driving to work that way on a cold engine.

Pedants and OCD types worry far too much about this kind of thing, and tend to use them to justify excessive faffing and maintenance on very normal cars.

My folks live in the darkest valleys of Wales, and have spent the past 30yrs pulling out of their driveways onto a one-mile long 1:10 hill with cold engines. All of their cars have gone on to live far beyond 100k with nothing more than routine servicing.

In summary, if you're driving something with a highly-strung race engine and recommended 3k oil-change intervals, then you're probably best avoiding it. In anything which resembles a repmobile or shopping hatch, you're probably worrying excessively.

+1

I may fall into that category, but... I'd like to think I drive with some mechanical sympathy, whereas my wife doesn't. I've always maintained both of our cars the same, but her cars are always knackered after about 2 years, whereas mine are not. Modern cars may be more tolerant of abuse than old ones, but that doesn't mean they are impervious....

I agree.

Just get in and drive the feckin car and stop worring about stuff that doesn't really matter

Apparently it's gentler on a cold engine to reverse up hills. Seems the gearing is perfect to maintain the optimum engine speed for most hills encountered by motorists when their engines are cold.

Annoying for other road users but you'll have the last laugh when their engine is clapped out and yours is fresh as a daisy.

It was sarcasm. Like this:-

Tickled me that.