Crankshaft Dampner Separated -- Arghh!

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

...look again. Mine was 115 lbft.

Ahhh, c'mon Chas... won't you look for me? Pleeaassseee.... 115 ft/lbs seems awful high, but if you can find it on the ARP site then I'll personally bow down and proclaim your torque expertise.

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

Just edited that post-look again. Mine was 115 lbft.

CORRECTION: I misspoke. The ARP spec with their lube for a 5/8-18 is 189lbft. (243 with oil!) I think all I could muster was 130 on my back under the car.

I used to watch 4 engine builders torque them with impact guns set on kill.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

CORRECTION: I misspoke. The ARP spec with their lube for a 5/8-18 is 189lbft. (243 with oil!) I think all I could muster was 130 on my back under the car.

I used to watch 4 engine builders torque them with impact guns set on kill.

189 ft/lbs?!? Uhhhh, I'd like a second opinion on that from the gallery please.

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by patrickt

189 ft/lbs?!? Uhhhh, I'd like a second opinion on that from the gallery please.

Pat-that's straight off the ARP bolt spec sheet I have taped to my cabinet. If I must, I'll take a snap tomorrow morning for you.

We may joust all the time but I wouldn't lie to ya. As I said, some pros use an impact which is at least 150lbft. 130 has been fine for 12 seasons for me.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

Pat-that's straight off the ARP bolt spec sheet I have taped to my cabinet. If I must, I'll take a snap tomorrow morning for you.

We may joust all the time but I wouldn't lie to ya. As I said, some pros use an impact which is at least 150lbft. 130 has been fine for 12 seasons for me.

I believe you; I just wonder if that's right though for that particular application -- Chevrolets don't have that big of a bolt up there. Maybe Keith, Barry, & Brent will tell me what they do. My torque wrench only goes up to 100 ft/lbs. I bet my arm doesn't go up a whole lot higher than that either.

[ERA Chas]

Yes I'd like to hear from our pros on here too. You could get your impact with extension over the K-member on it.

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by patrickt

I believe you; I just wonder if that's right though for that particular application -- Chevrolets don't have that big of a bolt up there. Maybe Keith, Barry, & Brent will tell me what they do. My torque wrench only goes up to 100 ft/lbs. I bet my arm doesn't go up a whole lot higher than that either.

Another opportunity for you to buy a tool that you will only use a few times.

[Pete Munroe]

I am reinstalling the flywheel (aluminum) and pressure plate on my car.

Just called ARP's tech line this afternoon. Very helpful, discussed the torque values with oil, locktite and moly...

OK, where is the bolt/torque chart on ARP's site? I have not seen it, but I am sure its there.

I have an old general torque chart from a Sears beam-bar torque wrench package. Of course it doesn't touch on effect of different lubes on the threads and torque required.

Always like to find good references on torques, techniques to apply it accurately

Would be good to see a thread on proper tightening to achieve correct torque and the bolt stretching that is necessary to get it.

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

Pat-that's straight off the ARP bolt spec sheet I have taped to my cabinet. If I must, I'll take a snap tomorrow morning for you.

We may joust all the time but I wouldn't lie to ya. As I said, some pros use an impact which is at least 150lbft. 130 has been fine for 12 seasons for me.

[Rick Parker]

Right Here:

http://www.arp-bolts.com/Catalog/Catalog.html Page 24
The fastener itself may be capable of that torque value however that might be overkill for the intended application, I would follow the torque spec provided by the damper Mfgr or else use OEM specified torque. Don't break the snout or you'll REALLY be pissed! 189 Ft lbs seems like way too much to secure the damper.

[blykins]

I wouldn't torque to 189 lb-ft....

IMO, OEM factory spec or a little higher is fine with Loctite. I'd torque her at about 100. If you want to pull a little harder on it, it's not going to hurt anything.

[RICK LAKE]

I torque mine to 75 pounds and use a drop of red locktite. No failures or the bolt coming loose yet was tight for 8 years before rebuild. I have seen the spec from 70-90 ft pounds I would not take the bolt pass 120 pounds for fear of stripping the threads inside the crank or pulling them. You need to be sure that the dampener is seated to the bottom of the snout of the crank. As long as the dampener is tight on the snout and the pulleys are spinning true, see no reason for 100+ torque reading, but that is just me. Rick L.

[tuska]

as long as damper is seated well, snug on it's key 100ft/lb is max i'd go to...loctight for forever reassurance!

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

Yes I'd like to hear from our pros on here too. You could get your impact with extension over the K-member on it.

You're not concerned about over-torquing with an impact wrench?

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by dcdoug

You're not concerned about over-torquing with an impact wrench?

Again, I watched it happen everyday. These were IR or Snap On guns-all were set well over 100. No warranty returns due to crank nose or damper bolt failures.

As stated I set my own by hand at 130, 12 years ago. We all have our own preferences based on experience-I do not claim mine is the only way.

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by Rick Parker

Right Here:

http://www.arp-bolts.com/Catalog/Catalog.html Page 24
The fastener itself may be capable of that torque value however that might be overkill for the intended application, I would follow the torque spec provided by the damper Mfgr or else use OEM specified torque. Don't break the snout or you'll REALLY be pissed! 189 Ft lbs seems like way too much to secure the damper.

Thank you Rick-I thought I'd have to show St Patrick the holes in my hands...

More amazing is that the same fastener without ARP lube takes 243!

IIRC the castle nut on the Jag rear requires 180 lbft. I quit at 150.

[patrickt]

I received a surprisingly good bit of feedback via email, PMs, etc. so here is a summary of my findings:

The ARP Torque Table: The figures that are found in the ARP table are general guidelines only and different applications (rod bolts versus something else, for instance) require a different interpretation of the table in light of the functional relationship that the fastener has with its surroundings. As an example, if the OEM fastener was originally "oversized," the torque values found in the ARP table may be inappropriate, as they obviously do not take in to account the object that is being fastened or the type of stress that may be involved. Further, ARP recommends that if you are adhering to the values in their chart that you reduce the torque value down to 75%. Thus, if we blindly follow the ARP chart for an ARP Ford Crank Bolt 5/8-18 it would be 142 ft/lbs. with moly.

The Original Ford Specs: I have an original 1967 Shop Manual, so I looked it up with my own two eyes. The torque specs for an original Ford OEM bolt (which hasn't been made in years) are 70-90 ft/lbs. with no mention of anything on the threads, by the way, in the shop manual R&R procedure, just "lubricate the inside diameter of the hub and line up the key...."

What People Tell Me They Actually Do: 1) The majority of mechanics put nothing on the bolt (meaning no oil, no moly, no thread locker, nothing at all). Rick and one other person use red loctite; a few use blue). The vast majority of mechanics are torquing in at or under 90 ft/lbs regardless of the manufacturer of the bolt. As an interesting side note, the older the mechanic, the lower the torque setting seems to be. 50 and 60 ft/lbs. were not uncommon numbers that were sent to me by some of the really old FE mechanics.

Does it Really Back Out? -- No one reported a crank bolt loosening or backing out on an FE even when torqued to a relatively "low figure."

So What Am I Going to Do? -- I'm going to torque it to 90 ft/lbs with blue loctite. And at the suggestion of one respondent, I'll paint a little white line on the bolt that easily shows any backing out that may occur.

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Further, ARP recommends that if you are adhering to the values in their chart that you reduce the torque value down to 75%. Thus, if we blindly follow the ARP chart for an ARP Ford Crank Bolt 5/8-18 it would be 142 ft/lbs. with moly.

I knew that college education would pay off some day. Should I worry?-I'm at 69.2%

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

Should I worry?-I'm at 69.2%

I think you're perfect just the way you are.

[Bernica]

Originally Posted by Snakebit

I second the Romac balancer.

I'll also agree on the Romac steel balancer. Mine is 7-1/2". It's very well made, and it does only have the one timing mark. Just used a piston stop to verify the mark, then re-checked with a dial-back timing light, then for good measure I put on the MSD timing tape so I can use my self-powered timing light anytime with little hassle....

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Bernica

I'll also agree on the Romac ... and it does only have the one timing mark.

As of this morning mine's on a UPS truck just leaving Little Rock. As soon as I get it I'll post some shots.