|
Just put them back dry to the specified torque. If, as I suspect, you put a spark plug into orbit, then you'll be having the head back off before any corrosion gets a chance to establish itself, or be scrapping it. In the latter case i will miss your tales ;>)
|
|
|
If you have the spec for tightning the bolts just do it as stated, whether dry or wet won`t make any difference as tighning procedure was for either as long as the turns are as accurate as you can make them, they are stretch bolts so are flexible to either cast iron or aluminium blocks
I suspect firstly that this engine is so ancient that they are not stretch bolts, and secondly that he is re-using the old bolts. Modern stretch bolts are usually tighened to around 45ftlb, then around an extra half turn or so, during which you think they are going to shear! They can only be used once, as they will have lost their effective elasticity. I would just clean them with an oily rag then tighten them bit by bit up to around 45- 50 ftlb on the scale of my old cheap basic torque wrench/breaker bar, and then recheck them after 500 miles or so.
|
|
According to autodata a Daihatsu Charade with the CB22 engine has the head bolt torque figure of 50-60 Nm, does'nt say if it's lubed or dry.
|
According to autodata a Daihatsu Charade with the CB22 engine has the head bolt torque figure of 50-60 Nm, does'nt say if it's lubed or dry.
thanks. thats about 36-44 ft lbs so I'm in the range with 40, assuming its specced dry
|
According to autodata a Daihatsu Charade with the CB22 engine has the head bolt torque figure of 50-60 Nm, does'nt say if it's lubed or dry.
thanks. thats about 36-44 ft lbs so I'm in the range with 40, assuming its specced dry
How about the crankshaft pulley bolt?
It was pretty hard to get off, but I dunno if I can assume its the same as the CB23 (65-72 ft lbs)
The CB20 at around 40 ft lbs is quite a lot less, so there was some change in specification between the two..
Edited by edlithgow on 07/07/2023 at 12:12
|
|
|
|
If you have the spec for tightning the bolts just do it as stated, whether dry or wet won`t make any difference as tighning procedure was for either as long as the turns are as accurate as you can make them, they are stretch bolts so are flexible to either cast iron or aluminium blocks
I suspect firstly that this engine is so ancient that they are not stretch bolts, and secondly that he is re-using the old bolts. Modern stretch bolts are usually tighened to around 45ftlb, then around an extra half turn or so, during which you think they are going to shear! They can only be used once, as they will have lost their effective elasticity. I would just clean them with an oily rag then tighten them bit by bit up to around 45- 50 ftlb on the scale of my old cheap basic torque wrench/breaker bar, and then recheck them after 500 miles or so.
Dont think they are stretch bolts, so of course I'm re-using them,
Though you can apparently re-use some stretch bolts.
Honda apparently give two different procedures for old and new bolts on some of their engines. For example, 26 minutes in. (The new ones seem to make Mr O, presumably a seasoned pro, quite nervous.)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKwpHvey3oE.
If you torque oiled bolts to slighlly over the dry torque spec you'll be over-torqueing them quite a lot, assuming they really mean dry.
I took "dry" to mean solvent washed free of oil, because otherwise it doesn't appear to mean anything.
Edited by edlithgow on 16/06/2023 at 14:59
|
|
Bolts with a black finish (as opposed to shiny stainless-looking) generally have some kind of oxide film, which ought to prevent spalling. I would suggest your 40 ft/lb, if applied in the recommended sequence, will be adequate, especially if re-torqued after a few miles.
|
|
What is so difficult about screwing down a cylinder head. I did a few before I new a torque wrench existed and I could not afford one in any case which is why I was DIYing with the aid of a manual of course.
|
What is so difficult about screwing down a cylinder head. I did a few before I new a torque wrench existed and I could not afford one in any case which is why I was DIYing with the aid of a manual of course.
With the aid of a manual with no torque specs in it, apparently.
Thats one Casual Manual.
|
|
|
|
Bolts with a black finish (as opposed to shiny stainless-looking) generally have some kind of oxide film, which ought to prevent spalling. I would suggest your 40 ft/lb, if applied in the recommended sequence, will be adequate, especially if re-torqued after a few miles.
Thanks. They are a black oxide finish.
While I very much dislike installing fastners dry, I'm not confident enough of this ""translation" procedure (on a first go, anyway) to use the derived torque-and-angle spec.on the lubricated fastners
I would have to repeat it, hopefully with more consistency, and I don't think it is worth the additional wear on the dry components, so I'll just live with the dry-torqued situation for now.
Perhaps some other time..
|
|
Think John F explained it perfectly, go with his advice ( didn't think I'd ever say that!).
|
Think John F explained it perfectly, go with his advice ( didn't think I'd ever say that!).
Strictly speaking (as one should) John F doesn't offer "advice", but simply states what he would do, take it or leave it stylee. I believe this is his general practice..
I think I've already explained what I think is wrong with that specific procedure, and why I therefore won't be following it.
In general I wouldn't be saying that either, since I tend to agree with him on many issues, probably including the ones you dont.
Edited by edlithgow on 17/06/2023 at 21:46
|
|
|
|
Or not.
Looking like my only chance of getting the crankshaft pulley bolt off may be to use the starter, which would have been fairly safe with the head off, but is likely to clout valves in the current configuration.
Should have anticipated that.
Much messing about under de hot sun this afternoon, rigging a brake holder-downer and jacking/ Spanish Windlassing the engine about so the crank bolt is back in line with the port in the wheel arch, but the transmission slips.
Might be possible to jam the starter ring gear or pack rope into the cylinders via the plughole, but if that doesnt work I will likely have to either take the head off again (reluctant) or reinstate the old belt.
Edited by edlithgow on 19/06/2023 at 13:25
|
Took the head off (large variation in breakout torque seemed consistent with the angle data implication that bolt tension isnt very well controlled) and packed the cylinders with rope, then put thehead back on with the bolts finger tight.
That stopped the crank moving, but still couldnt shift that pulley bolt. Just bent my cheater tubes. Thats what comes of dry torque specs, I’m thinking.
Tempted to break out the charcoal again, but i suppose a scaffolding pole is a marginally safer option, or I might just put the new belt on the “sometime” shelf and try and reinstate the old one.
Too hot now (1600, Sun is on it about 14.30) anyway, so i can decide tomorrow
Edited by edlithgow on 20/06/2023 at 09:45
|
Took the head off (large variation in breakout torque seemed consistent with the angle data implication that bolt tension isnt very well controlled) and packed the cylinders with rope, then put thehead back on with the bolts finger tight. That stopped the crank moving, but still couldnt shift that pulley bolt. Just bent my cheater tubes. Thats what comes of dry torque specs, I’m thinking. Tempted to break out the charcoal again, but i suppose a scaffolding pole is a marginally safer option, or I might just put the new belt on the “sometime” shelf and try and reinstate the old one. Too hot now (1600, Sun is on it about 14.30) anyway, so i can decide tomorrow
No possibility the crank pulley bolt is left hand thread?
|
|
Before I had an impact driver, I used the starter motor and bar allowed to swing into something solid. Brutal, but it always worked.
|
|
|
|
Ed, I now remember that temperature -sensing fan drives which screwed onto a threaded spindle were left-hand thread to prevent any tendency to loosen. These were, I think, designed to fit BMW and Rover V8 engines.
Worth checking before trying brutal methods which might shear the head off!
|
Thanks. I THINK crank rotates clockwise, which I believe is conventional (FUN FACT: Corvair crank is anticlockwise) Easy enough to confirm by observation.
I suppose it might make sense for the bolt to be reverse threaded to resist loosening, but I dunno how I would determine that. Doesnt seem to be mentioned in the manual, and doesnt seem to be standard practice. I think they just massively overtorque it dry, and, to quote Saturday Night Fever,F**** The Future”
I did wonder if “remove crank bolt” meant “simply remove crank bolt” or “by some miracle remove crank bolt”.
Now I know.
These rubber band autodestructing engines are even worse than I thought, and I thought they were bad enough to have studiously avoided them up to now. In this instance the crank bolt is rather hard to get to which doesnt help.
The rope trick does stop the engine rotating, but Im not sure it would be completely safe if massive scaffolding pole stylee forces have to be applied.
To use the starter trick I now tealise Id have to put it all back together otherwise the loose timing belt might get jammed up. If i put it back together im likely to leave it like that, Saturday Night Fever stylee.
Its a car of its time
Stayin ali-iii-iii-iii-ve?
|
Oh wait
I think that might have been “Screw The Future”
(“Wrong Kid. The Future Screws You”)
More appropriate AND Mary Whitehouse Module friendly.
Edited by edlithgow on 21/06/2023 at 00:13
|
|
Replacing the head after packing the cylinders with rope to stop engine rotation (worked, but I still couldn't shift that crankshaft bolt) I used the “torque translation” procedure when I put the head back on. Bit more convincing/consistent this time, though I knocked the box holding the bolts in sequence over, so they are randomised WRT the original order.
Plotted in Calc (which I’ve just started to use. Formats a bit screwed compared to Excel) one can see that Bolt 5 hardly changes angle between 10 and 20 ft lbs, i.e. its stuck. Maybe thats what galling looks like on this view. though I would have expected it at higher torque values.
forumosauploads-12829.kxcdn.com/original/3X/a/9/a9...g
According to the previous owner, this engine has had a head gasket failure, so the bolts have probably been re-used at least 4 times (though of course I don’t know if they were used “dry” by the pros and would doubt it.) This may be enough to compromise the thin black oxide coating and allow galling.
If I have to do it again (which unfortunately seems likely) I’ll probably lubricate them and use the angles.
I may just start from finger tight and use the total angle, since I’m not sure of the rationale for starting at 1/4 torque.
It seems to assume the initial torqueing is not affected by lubrication, which seems unlikely?
Edited by edlithgow on 26/06/2023 at 03:20
|
|
Can't see much to worry about. None seem to be gross outliers. Perhaps bolt 5 went into bolt 2's original slightly tighter hole. This apparatus is not exactly precision engineering.
|
Yes, seems reasonably consistent this time around.
Think I will use the average total angle for the lubed threads, since AFAICT for a given thread pitch the relationship between angle and tension should be a constant, unaffected by friction.
|
|
unaffected by friction.
Not heard that one before as all fixings are affected by friction when turned, the old head bolts were torqued to specific setting regardless of wet or dry, unless stated otherwise in the manual.
you did mention a torque setting you was going to use, sounded reasonable to me to do it at that torque, if any failure may not be down to what the torque is could be a bolt failure which was common of re`used bolts ie thread stretch/slip
|
The idea here, as I undertand it, is that if you turn a threaded fitting through, say, 360 degrees, the end of it will move a distance which depends on the thread pitch
That distance is not affected by friction, which only affects how hard the fitting is to turn.
I suppose there may be a very slight difference due to the lubricant film thickness adding to the thread depth, but that isnt a friction effect, and will be tiny.
That seems clear and valid enough (to me). My problem with the method as described is that it takes 1/4 of the torque spec as a starting point.
This seems to assume that the initial torque is unaffected by lubrication, which seems unlikely, so I THINK finger tight might be a better starting reference point
|
IF“ the old head bolts were torqued to specific setting regardless of wet or dry, unless stated otherwise in the manual.” (I rather doubt it. Id think it more likely “clean and dry” or “lightly oiled”, probably the former, was being assumed if unstated, or it could be the manufacturer was just bodyswerving the whole issue) then thats saying bolt tension (which could vary by over 50 percent) doesnt matter, but torque setting does.
This does not appear to make sense, since it is bolt tension that generates the clamping force which holds the head on, and it is bolt tension in excess which stretches bolts and damages threads
|
|
and it is bolt tension in excess which stretches bolts and damages threads
If you use a Torque wrench to tighten the bolts and the threads are clean and dry, you cannot tighten beyond specified torque once set as the wrench clicks- unless you use the gauge type that the pointer moves along the torque scale, but even that is accurate enough to stop at the correct torque.
so not really certain why your worried about the torque being spot on or any variation in torque applied, if set correctly there shouldn`t be a problem unless you have either a warped head or the block is warped-or both in which case your wasting your time
good luck anyway...
|
|
I'm using a cheapo (Draper) beam-type wrench I got in the UK (you can't get them here) Not very precise, but less likely to lose calibration than the clicky type.
I'm not worried about the torque being spot on anyway.
I'm not concerned with the torque at all, now, since, once I have the required degrees of rotation, (which I think I now have) I don't need to measure torque or use a torque wrench, though I probably will out of curiosity.
Torque is a rather uncertain guide to bolt tension, and in this case, simply using the specified torque means I would have to do it with dry, unlubricated threads, which I don't like doing.
So this might be a better way of doing it, and I should be able to use it to "translate" other dry torque specs I might encounter in the future, so its worth trying to work it out.
Its not my main current concern, though. My main current concern is I can't get the b***** crank bolt out
I checked the block and head with a straight edge and feeler guage and they seemed to be within the limits for flatness, though that was before I packed the cylinders with rope to stop the crank going around, because I couldn't get the b***** crank bolt out.
Still can't
Edited by edlithgow on 27/06/2023 at 08:12
|
It's not my main current concern, though. My main current concern is I can't get the b***** crank bolt out
Frequent alternate applications of blow torch and ice water plus hammering at both extremes of temperature? Reminds me of years ago trying to remove the TR7's alloy water pump cover which fits onto the iron block like the tin lid of a paint can. After many years it had sort of corrodowelded itself in situ, just like a rusty old metal paint can lid. Took me about three days to dislodge it without breaking it.
|
It's not my main current concern, though. My main current concern is I can't get the b***** crank bolt out
Frequent alternate applications of blow torch and ice water plus hammering at both extremes of temperature? Reminds me of years ago trying to remove the TR7's alloy water pump cover which fits onto the iron block like the tin lid of a paint can. After many years it had sort of corrodowelded itself in situ, just like a rusty old metal paint can lid. Took me about three days to dislodge it without breaking it.
You are tempting me to break out the charcoal again, though it would require some ingenuity to apply extreme heat in that location, and I'd worry about damage to bearings, seals, and maybe even crank temper. (I worry a lot).
Access is restricted. There is only space to get a ring spanner on directly and I only have a double-hex in 17mm. I tried a bottle jack on the other end of the ring spanner and it lifted the front of the car off the stands, but no budgee.
When I let it down it pinged off, ricocheted, and narowlly missed my head.
I could perhaps source a 6-point 17mm ring spanner but they seem pretty uncommon so might have to be via the web. Doubt it'll work anyway.
Using a socket and T bar, you have to use an extension through the port in the wing, which used to have a rubber bung but I lost it. That puts the load from the jack off axis, and it twists out.
Doing it manually with long tubes as levers you need three extensions to get clear of the wheel arch, so as above with nobs on, plus I have a torn up left shoulder so probably arent cabable of applying nearly enough force manually.
The 17mm socket (6 point) is looking pretty beat up and there is some damage to the bolt. I could get a better socket, perhaps one of those profiled to apply load to the flats (can't remember what they are called) but I doubt that'll do it.
Taking the engine out is a very very last resort.
I had pretty much decided to give up and wiggle the cam sprocket back on with the original 12 year old belt, but that aint so easy either, so I went back and had another go at the crank bolt.
I can see me alternating between the two indefinately until something breaks, probably me.
|
|
A local garage was a Daihatsu dealer, I will contact them tomorrow about crank bolts for the Charade. They were helpful supplying bits for my daughter's 17 year old model, so may have a tip (or at least confirm thread hand)
|
A local garage was a Daihatsu dealer, I will contact them tomorrow about crank bolts for the Charade. They were helpful supplying bits for my daughter's 17 year old model, so may have a tip (or at least confirm thread hand)
Thanks.
It would be nice to be absolutely sure all this effort isn't actually tightening the b***** thing, though I am fairly sure.
Edited by edlithgow on 28/06/2023 at 00:56
|
A local garage was a Daihatsu dealer, I will contact them tomorrow about crank bolts for the Charade. They were helpful supplying bits for my daughter's 17 year old model, so may have a tip (or at least confirm thread hand)
Thanks.
It would be nice to be absolutely sure all this effort isn't actually tightening the b***** thing, though I am fairly sure.
Ed, confirmed that the crank bolt is not LH thread.
Comment from the mechanic is "They are b*****y tight.
I also had a word wih my mate who runs his garage 5 minutes from me and he said they have often had difficulty undoing crank bolts of all makes (VW especially)
Applying the dagga-dagga airgun to these bolts is not as effective as you would think, the damping effect of the pulley cushions the shock. (Which is what it's there for, of course, the company I worked for made thousands of vibration dampers a week, for BMC, Volvo, Jaguar, Rootes Group etc. Giving away my age there!)
Edited by galileo on 28/06/2023 at 14:52
|
|
Thanks for the info.
Re impact driver it MIGHT help a little that this car is (AFAIK) pre those fancy fragile harmonic damper things with the soft centres, so shock might be less absorbed than on your average modern car.
OTOH there is a school of thought that says it is bad for crankshafts to be attacked with impact wrenches. This school of thought presumably doesn't include any professional mechanics, but that doesn't make them wrong.
Electric impact wrench (probably starting around the scrap value of the car) might be a possibility, if they got enough juice.
No way I can afford or deploy an air wrench, but it MIGHT be a job for a mobile mechanic, if I can locate one here
|
|
I have a rather expensive Japanese hit-it-with-a-hammer stylee impact driver, (Attak Drivah! Tora Tora, and Banzai) but I think this is way beyond those.
Perhaps not very good for the thrust bearing either.
Edited by edlithgow on 28/06/2023 at 22:23
|
|
Only ever not removed a crank pulley bolt, and that was on a VW LT35- 2.5- straight 6 van, I bent a 10 ft pole on a 36" breaker bar and bent that, the socket split so gave up, never happened before but changed the cambelt with it still in place, never again
Ps engine removed to replace as no room to move in van, engine below cab.
|
Only ever not removed a crank pulley bolt, and that was on a VW LT35- 2.5- straight 6 van, I bent a 10 ft pole on a 36" breaker bar and bent that, the socket split so gave up, never happened before but changed the cambelt with it still in place, never again
Ps engine removed to replace as no room to move in van, engine below cab.
Well, there you have it. The Case Against Dry Torquieng,
(I'm betting, though I dunno how VW spec it).
Different situation though. There isn't really any rotational force applied to head bolts in service, so clamping force is whats important, and thread friction doesn't matter much.
There definately IS rotational force applied to a crank bolt, so I suppose reducing the thread friction, even while applying the correct clamping force MIGHT be an issue.
Another issue did occur to me with the ""Torque Translation"" method outlined above. though, of course after I put aluslip on the threads.
In a situation where re-torqueing is likely to be required, say because the head gasket compresses further after a few hundred miles, if you use the angle to replace your torque spec, you can't do it, since the angle wont change.
Only work-around I can think of is to record the final torque reached while setting the final angle, and then re torque to that.
Dunno how accurate that's likely to be.
Edited by edlithgow on 28/06/2023 at 02:35
|
Only ever not removed a crank pulley bolt, and that was on a VW LT35- 2.5- straight 6 van, I bent a 10 ft pole on a 36" breaker bar and bent that, the socket split so gave up, never happened before but changed the cambelt with it still in place, never again
Ps engine removed to replace as no room to move in van, engine below cab.
Well, there you have it. The Case Against Dry Torquieng,
(I'm betting, though I dunno how VW spec it).
Different situation though. There isn't really any rotational force applied to head bolts in service, so clamping force is whats important, and thread friction doesn't matter much.
There definately IS rotational force applied to a crank bolt, so I suppose reducing the thread friction, even while applying the correct clamping force MIGHT be an issue.
Another issue did occur to me with the ""Torque Translation"" method outlined above. though, of course after I put aluslip on the threads.
In a situation where re-torqueing is likely to be required, say because the head gasket compresses further after a few hundred miles, if you use the angle to replace your torque spec, you can't do it, since the angle wont change.
Only work-around I can think of is to record the final torque reached while setting the final angle, and then re torque to that.
Dunno how accurate that's likely to be.
Maybe your overthinking it should have been done by makers years ago so you didn`t have to, though not so sure its going to do you any good as it will either work or it wont, being an old unit I doubt the bolts will react the same as new bolts so there will be a variation throughout the bolt so might be better to give a slightly higher torque on first go and leave it at that, sometimes the idea of retorqueing miles later might disturb the gasket and back to square one, which I have seen before go wrong ie the bolts should have been left alone
Not being in your position its difficult to know whats best, so not sure what else you can do apart from what your doing.... good luck
|
|
"Just do what it says in the manual" (which is what most people are saying above) isn't unreasonable.
But if you cant get a bit experimental on a 40ish year old car of 0 market value, when can you?
|
|
Most of the vids of people using long extensions and levers they use an axle stand as a fulcrum.
( These are mostly Honda, which are apparently extra tight.However, there are special tools available for them (crankshaft lock and special impact driver) and access is pretty good. I should be so lucky)
Using the front wheels (plus some hardwood planks, and some steel tubes) as a fulcrum means you can stand on the extensions to stabilise them, and put your leg and back (and torn up shoulder) muscles into it.
CRAKed1920×1920 297 KB
CRAK! not my shoulder. (Well, not JUST my shoulder)
boltout1920×2560 209 KB
Awkward little b*****. Dunno what the black stuff on the threads is, but evidently not graphite. Maybe iron filings.
Now to get the pulleys off. Outer one is for the aircon, and likely not a standard Daihatsu fitting. No clearance to get them off the crank, so they’ll need to be separated, involving removing 4 recessed and almost completely unreachable bolts, or the engine will have to come out.
If I get it off I might not put it back, assuming I don’t need a shorter crank bolt if I do that
pulleys1920×2560 194 KB
Oops. Images look OK in Linux but with or without unzipping still bust when uploaded. OK from Windows. That’s a pity.
Maybe its STILL the old tar-pit snare and delusion, though it was looking better this time around.
Edited by edlithgow on 30/06/2023 at 02:14
|
|
Actually JUST enough wiggle room to get the pulleys off as an assembly (after removing three of the bolts) which is just as well, because the last one is very solid.
Would probably need a vice to get it off, but it can stay on now.
|
|
Since the average tightening angle corresponding to 40 ft-lbs dry was 220 degrees (see graph up above…er…somewhere) I tightened the head bolts (with the threads lubricated with Permatex Aluminium antiseize) in 4 X 55 degree increments, recording the torque reached.
The first 2 torques, at 55 and 110 degrees, are “nominal”, since the wrench is almost unreadable at these low values. Not very precise at the higher values either, but I think some of that scatter is real.
Unsurprisingly, torque values reached lubricated are less than the dry specification.
forumosauploads-12829.kxcdn.com/original/3X/3/4/34...g
|
Looking at the graph again, there seems to be a systematic increase in final torque across the tightening sequence, IOW from the centre to the outside of the head.
I suppose this may reflect a bowing of the head, and may not be a good sign.
If the HG pops it wouldnt necessarily invalidate the method, bu wouldnt give much confidence in it
And vice versa, of course.
|
If with a constant bolt tension across the head, you get more torque at the ends, this seems to imply that a constant torque across the head wont give you a constant bolt tension, (and this may not be what you need, as I ve been assuming)
If ive got this the right way round, you”ll get, and may need, more tension in the middle.
|
|
Actually, if you plot the final torques (at 220 degrees with aluslip) there is a suggestion that the first central diagonal pair of bolts tightened (front left to back right) may take the tension off for the next pair (front right to back left) and so reduce its torque, but beyond that there isn’t a clear pattern, so I’m not going to worry about it for now.
forumosauploads-12829.kxcdn.com/original/3X/c/4/c4...g
I just lost the timing belt tensioner spring, so I’ll worry about that instead.
|
|
Another "Science Bit"
Because its worth it.
I had to remove the head because the cam sprocket was jammed and I wanted to check for valve damage. I used the torque-to-turn-translation (tturnslation?) method for aluslip lubricated bolts as before.
Recorded torque values are higher this time, perhaps due to the thinning out of the aluslip and/or compression of the gasket.
forumosauploads-12829.kxcdn.com/original/3X/a/c/ac...g
forumosauploads-12829.kxcdn.com/original/3X/0/5/05...g
If I have to do it again (hope not) I'll top up the aluslip a bit
Edited by edlithgow on 03/08/2023 at 02:46
|
|
Bolt 2 (In tightening sequence, position B3) doesnt gain any torque between the penultimate and final tightening, which seems odd, but happened last time. so it also seems consistent.
I'd guess this is due to the turning of bolt 1 unloading it.
Edited by edlithgow on 04/08/2023 at 00:47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
