Switching Head bolts
05-12-2004, 01:23 AM
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get the
information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You ask
what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will not
disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
Line by line:
Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were right.
So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that they
taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built a
couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
straight on head gaskets are you?
I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to have
you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method. not
so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
older thrown out?
The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
manufacturers.
Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder, gasket
maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of other
arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide any
evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
consequence is wrong.
Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as much
money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause a
failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it will?
Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does that
from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary to
all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers and
no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure from
a right one.
The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made it
sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think you
next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in the
trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out to
a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not talking
about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should pay
for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because they
were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any better.
So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer or
rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought this
was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen evidence
of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if you've
deemed it wrong.
Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that often.
There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my head.
This was one.
Not afraid to use my name,
Steve Garner
"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
what
> you typed here.
>
> "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> failure
> > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> suggesting
> > numerous times.
>
> That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing it.
>
> > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> procedures.
>
> Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
cylinders
> to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
posts
> here you would have figured that out.
>
> > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always used
> this
> > 3 step sequence you refer to?
>
> Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
Does
> that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's go
> back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> while we're at it.
>
> >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
>
> Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
>
> >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come to
> > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they did?
>
> Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not right
> for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for someone
> who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
>
> > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
under
> > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
always
> > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do it
> > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
necessary
> > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of a
> > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
>
> <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
>
> > The gasket serves to conform to
> > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
two
> > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
voids.
> > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
>
> And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
>
> As you speak about changing
> > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
varies
> > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure changes
> > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees to
> > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> chamber
> > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life. Would
> the
> > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> gasket
> > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
instead
> > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression, if
> > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> before
> > it was loosened.
> > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out of
> the
> > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new or
> > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet saying
> > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed. Not
> > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they also
> put
> > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> bolts?
> > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's okay
> for
> > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
>
> Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also wouldn't
> consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
out
> the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
>
> Another
> > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take too.
> > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and pushrods,
> all
> > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run through
> the
> > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
personal
> > best or just your average times for that job?
>
> In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe a
> bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was done
> improperly in my shop.
>
> > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost shouldn't
> > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
>
> Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
that
> the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
>
> Will the head gasket
> > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> yield
> > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
4.0,
> > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> your
> > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
would
> > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
>
> No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
>
> > What if you
> > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one bank
> to
> > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to remove,
> > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still do
it
> > if it were a mere $250?
>
> If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right I
> would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he paid
> good money to have done properly?
>
> > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> confidence
> > in your advise.
> > Steve
>
> First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
racing
> engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
system
> modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
decking,
> rod resizing, engine balancing.
>
> I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> (mainly Holley's).
>
> The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car. This
> was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked questions
> when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
own
> to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
assembly.
> Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
>
> I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
by
> many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
of
> the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me to
> do my thing.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
>
> So is that enough for you Steve?
>
> Chris
>
> <snippage>
>
>
information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You ask
what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will not
disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
Line by line:
Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were right.
So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that they
taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built a
couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
straight on head gaskets are you?
I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to have
you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method. not
so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
older thrown out?
The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
manufacturers.
Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder, gasket
maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of other
arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide any
evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
consequence is wrong.
Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as much
money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause a
failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it will?
Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does that
from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary to
all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers and
no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure from
a right one.
The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made it
sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think you
next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in the
trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out to
a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not talking
about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should pay
for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because they
were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any better.
So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer or
rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought this
was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen evidence
of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if you've
deemed it wrong.
Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that often.
There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my head.
This was one.
Not afraid to use my name,
Steve Garner
"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
what
> you typed here.
>
> "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> failure
> > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> suggesting
> > numerous times.
>
> That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing it.
>
> > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> procedures.
>
> Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
cylinders
> to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
posts
> here you would have figured that out.
>
> > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always used
> this
> > 3 step sequence you refer to?
>
> Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
Does
> that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's go
> back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> while we're at it.
>
> >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
>
> Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
>
> >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come to
> > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they did?
>
> Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not right
> for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for someone
> who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
>
> > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
under
> > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
always
> > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do it
> > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
necessary
> > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of a
> > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
>
> <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
>
> > The gasket serves to conform to
> > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
two
> > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
voids.
> > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
>
> And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
>
> As you speak about changing
> > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
varies
> > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure changes
> > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees to
> > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> chamber
> > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life. Would
> the
> > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> gasket
> > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
instead
> > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression, if
> > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> before
> > it was loosened.
> > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out of
> the
> > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new or
> > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet saying
> > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed. Not
> > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they also
> put
> > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> bolts?
> > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's okay
> for
> > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
>
> Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also wouldn't
> consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
out
> the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
>
> Another
> > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take too.
> > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and pushrods,
> all
> > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run through
> the
> > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
personal
> > best or just your average times for that job?
>
> In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe a
> bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was done
> improperly in my shop.
>
> > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost shouldn't
> > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
>
> Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
that
> the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
>
> Will the head gasket
> > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> yield
> > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
4.0,
> > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> your
> > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
would
> > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
>
> No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
>
> > What if you
> > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one bank
> to
> > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to remove,
> > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still do
it
> > if it were a mere $250?
>
> If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right I
> would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he paid
> good money to have done properly?
>
> > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> confidence
> > in your advise.
> > Steve
>
> First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
racing
> engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
system
> modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
decking,
> rod resizing, engine balancing.
>
> I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> (mainly Holley's).
>
> The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car. This
> was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked questions
> when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
own
> to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
assembly.
> Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
>
> I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
by
> many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
of
> the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me to
> do my thing.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
>
> So is that enough for you Steve?
>
> Chris
>
> <snippage>
>
>
05-12-2004, 01:23 AM
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get the
information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You ask
what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will not
disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
Line by line:
Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were right.
So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that they
taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built a
couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
straight on head gaskets are you?
I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to have
you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method. not
so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
older thrown out?
The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
manufacturers.
Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder, gasket
maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of other
arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide any
evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
consequence is wrong.
Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as much
money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause a
failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it will?
Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does that
from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary to
all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers and
no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure from
a right one.
The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made it
sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think you
next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in the
trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out to
a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not talking
about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should pay
for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because they
were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any better.
So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer or
rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought this
was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen evidence
of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if you've
deemed it wrong.
Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that often.
There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my head.
This was one.
Not afraid to use my name,
Steve Garner
"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
what
> you typed here.
>
> "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> failure
> > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> suggesting
> > numerous times.
>
> That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing it.
>
> > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> procedures.
>
> Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
cylinders
> to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
posts
> here you would have figured that out.
>
> > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always used
> this
> > 3 step sequence you refer to?
>
> Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
Does
> that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's go
> back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> while we're at it.
>
> >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
>
> Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
>
> >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come to
> > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they did?
>
> Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not right
> for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for someone
> who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
>
> > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
under
> > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
always
> > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do it
> > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
necessary
> > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of a
> > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
>
> <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
>
> > The gasket serves to conform to
> > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
two
> > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
voids.
> > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
>
> And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
>
> As you speak about changing
> > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
varies
> > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure changes
> > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees to
> > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> chamber
> > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life. Would
> the
> > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> gasket
> > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
instead
> > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression, if
> > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> before
> > it was loosened.
> > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out of
> the
> > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new or
> > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet saying
> > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed. Not
> > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they also
> put
> > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> bolts?
> > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's okay
> for
> > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
>
> Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also wouldn't
> consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
out
> the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
>
> Another
> > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take too.
> > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and pushrods,
> all
> > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run through
> the
> > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
personal
> > best or just your average times for that job?
>
> In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe a
> bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was done
> improperly in my shop.
>
> > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost shouldn't
> > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
>
> Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
that
> the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
>
> Will the head gasket
> > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> yield
> > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
4.0,
> > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> your
> > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
would
> > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
>
> No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
>
> > What if you
> > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one bank
> to
> > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to remove,
> > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still do
it
> > if it were a mere $250?
>
> If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right I
> would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he paid
> good money to have done properly?
>
> > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> confidence
> > in your advise.
> > Steve
>
> First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
racing
> engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
system
> modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
decking,
> rod resizing, engine balancing.
>
> I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> (mainly Holley's).
>
> The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car. This
> was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked questions
> when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
own
> to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
assembly.
> Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
>
> I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
by
> many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
of
> the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me to
> do my thing.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
>
> So is that enough for you Steve?
>
> Chris
>
> <snippage>
>
>
information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You ask
what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will not
disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
Line by line:
Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were right.
So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that they
taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built a
couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
straight on head gaskets are you?
I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to have
you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method. not
so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
older thrown out?
The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
manufacturers.
Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder, gasket
maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of other
arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide any
evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
consequence is wrong.
Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as much
money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause a
failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it will?
Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does that
from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary to
all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers and
no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure from
a right one.
The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made it
sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think you
next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in the
trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out to
a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not talking
about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should pay
for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because they
were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any better.
So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer or
rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought this
was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen evidence
of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if you've
deemed it wrong.
Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that often.
There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my head.
This was one.
Not afraid to use my name,
Steve Garner
"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
what
> you typed here.
>
> "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> failure
> > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> suggesting
> > numerous times.
>
> That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing it.
>
> > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> procedures.
>
> Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
cylinders
> to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
posts
> here you would have figured that out.
>
> > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always used
> this
> > 3 step sequence you refer to?
>
> Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
Does
> that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's go
> back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> while we're at it.
>
> >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
>
> Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
>
> >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come to
> > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they did?
>
> Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not right
> for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for someone
> who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
>
> > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
under
> > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
always
> > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do it
> > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
necessary
> > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of a
> > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
>
> <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
>
> > The gasket serves to conform to
> > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
two
> > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
voids.
> > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
>
> And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
>
> As you speak about changing
> > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
varies
> > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure changes
> > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees to
> > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> chamber
> > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life. Would
> the
> > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> gasket
> > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
instead
> > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression, if
> > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> before
> > it was loosened.
> > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out of
> the
> > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new or
> > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet saying
> > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed. Not
> > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they also
> put
> > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> bolts?
> > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's okay
> for
> > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
>
> Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also wouldn't
> consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
out
> the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
>
> Another
> > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take too.
> > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and pushrods,
> all
> > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run through
> the
> > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
personal
> > best or just your average times for that job?
>
> In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe a
> bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was done
> improperly in my shop.
>
> > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost shouldn't
> > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
>
> Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
that
> the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
>
> Will the head gasket
> > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> yield
> > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
4.0,
> > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> your
> > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
would
> > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
>
> No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
>
> > What if you
> > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one bank
> to
> > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to remove,
> > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still do
it
> > if it were a mere $250?
>
> If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right I
> would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he paid
> good money to have done properly?
>
> > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> confidence
> > in your advise.
> > Steve
>
> First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
racing
> engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
system
> modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
decking,
> rod resizing, engine balancing.
>
> I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> (mainly Holley's).
>
> The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car. This
> was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked questions
> when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
own
> to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
assembly.
> Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
>
> I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
by
> many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
of
> the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me to
> do my thing.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
>
> So is that enough for you Steve?
>
> Chris
>
> <snippage>
>
>
05-12-2004, 01:23 AM
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get the
information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You ask
what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will not
disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
Line by line:
Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were right.
So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that they
taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built a
couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
straight on head gaskets are you?
I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to have
you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method. not
so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
older thrown out?
The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
manufacturers.
Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder, gasket
maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of other
arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide any
evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
consequence is wrong.
Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as much
money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause a
failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it will?
Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does that
from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary to
all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers and
no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure from
a right one.
The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made it
sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think you
next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in the
trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out to
a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not talking
about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should pay
for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because they
were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any better.
So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer or
rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought this
was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen evidence
of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if you've
deemed it wrong.
Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that often.
There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my head.
This was one.
Not afraid to use my name,
Steve Garner
"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
what
> you typed here.
>
> "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> failure
> > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> suggesting
> > numerous times.
>
> That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing it.
>
> > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> procedures.
>
> Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
cylinders
> to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
posts
> here you would have figured that out.
>
> > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always used
> this
> > 3 step sequence you refer to?
>
> Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
Does
> that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's go
> back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> while we're at it.
>
> >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
>
> Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
>
> >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come to
> > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they did?
>
> Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not right
> for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for someone
> who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
>
> > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
under
> > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
always
> > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do it
> > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
necessary
> > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of a
> > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
>
> <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
>
> > The gasket serves to conform to
> > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
two
> > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
voids.
> > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
>
> And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
>
> As you speak about changing
> > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
varies
> > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure changes
> > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees to
> > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> chamber
> > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life. Would
> the
> > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> gasket
> > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
instead
> > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression, if
> > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> before
> > it was loosened.
> > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out of
> the
> > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new or
> > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet saying
> > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed. Not
> > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they also
> put
> > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> bolts?
> > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's okay
> for
> > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
>
> Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also wouldn't
> consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
out
> the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
>
> Another
> > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take too.
> > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and pushrods,
> all
> > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run through
> the
> > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
personal
> > best or just your average times for that job?
>
> In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe a
> bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was done
> improperly in my shop.
>
> > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost shouldn't
> > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
>
> Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
that
> the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
>
> Will the head gasket
> > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> yield
> > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
4.0,
> > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> your
> > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
would
> > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
>
> No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
>
> > What if you
> > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one bank
> to
> > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to remove,
> > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still do
it
> > if it were a mere $250?
>
> If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right I
> would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he paid
> good money to have done properly?
>
> > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> confidence
> > in your advise.
> > Steve
>
> First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
racing
> engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
system
> modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
decking,
> rod resizing, engine balancing.
>
> I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> (mainly Holley's).
>
> The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car. This
> was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked questions
> when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
own
> to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
assembly.
> Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
>
> I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
by
> many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
of
> the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me to
> do my thing.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
>
> So is that enough for you Steve?
>
> Chris
>
> <snippage>
>
>
information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You ask
what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will not
disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
Line by line:
Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were right.
So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that they
taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built a
couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
straight on head gaskets are you?
I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to have
you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method. not
so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
older thrown out?
The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
manufacturers.
Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder, gasket
maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of other
arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide any
evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
consequence is wrong.
Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as much
money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause a
failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it will?
Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does that
from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary to
all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers and
no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure from
a right one.
The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made it
sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think you
next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in the
trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out to
a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not talking
about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should pay
for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because they
were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any better.
So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer or
rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought this
was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen evidence
of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if you've
deemed it wrong.
Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that often.
There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my head.
This was one.
Not afraid to use my name,
Steve Garner
"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
what
> you typed here.
>
> "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> failure
> > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> suggesting
> > numerous times.
>
> That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing it.
>
> > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> procedures.
>
> Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
cylinders
> to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
posts
> here you would have figured that out.
>
> > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always used
> this
> > 3 step sequence you refer to?
>
> Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
Does
> that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's go
> back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> while we're at it.
>
> >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
>
> Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
>
> >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come to
> > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they did?
>
> Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not right
> for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for someone
> who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
>
> > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
under
> > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
always
> > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do it
> > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
necessary
> > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of a
> > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
>
> <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
>
> > The gasket serves to conform to
> > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
two
> > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
voids.
> > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
>
> And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
>
> As you speak about changing
> > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
varies
> > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure changes
> > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees to
> > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> chamber
> > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life. Would
> the
> > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> gasket
> > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
instead
> > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression, if
> > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> before
> > it was loosened.
> > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out of
> the
> > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new or
> > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet saying
> > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed. Not
> > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they also
> put
> > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> bolts?
> > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's okay
> for
> > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
>
> Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also wouldn't
> consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
out
> the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
>
> Another
> > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take too.
> > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and pushrods,
> all
> > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run through
> the
> > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
personal
> > best or just your average times for that job?
>
> In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe a
> bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was done
> improperly in my shop.
>
> > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost shouldn't
> > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
>
> Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
that
> the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
>
> Will the head gasket
> > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> yield
> > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
4.0,
> > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> your
> > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
would
> > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
>
> No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
>
> > What if you
> > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one bank
> to
> > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to remove,
> > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still do
it
> > if it were a mere $250?
>
> If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right I
> would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he paid
> good money to have done properly?
>
> > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> confidence
> > in your advise.
> > Steve
>
> First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
racing
> engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
system
> modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
decking,
> rod resizing, engine balancing.
>
> I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> (mainly Holley's).
>
> The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car. This
> was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked questions
> when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
own
> to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
assembly.
> Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
>
> I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
by
> many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
of
> the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me to
> do my thing.
>
> Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
>
> So is that enough for you Steve?
>
> Chris
>
> <snippage>
>
>
05-12-2004, 07:09 AM
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Holy crap dude.....
seriously....the OP posted for opinions (we know that saying) and y'all gave
them.
Don't be shooting people down cuz you say they "fail to convince you"
If you feel comfortable NOT changing the gasket...so be it! That's your
choice.
Regardless of whether it's required or not, the LEAST people will get out of
changing it is peace of mind.
As far as engineers being infallible....uh...see Tacoma narrows bridge!!
I agree Engineers do all the required calculations to get things
kicking....but we've all seen the outcome and thought....what the hell is
that doing WAY over there....or you can't work on this cuz that's in the
way.
So quit the belly aching and just give the OP the info he requires to make
his OWN decision.
"Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
news:Vwioc.452854$Ig.108727@pd7tw2no...
> Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get
the
> information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You
ask
> what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will
not
> disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
> you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
>
> Line by line:
>
> Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
> that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were
right.
>
> So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that
they
> taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
> in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
> were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
> not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
> engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
> switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
> leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
> about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built
a
> couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
> straight on head gaskets are you?
>
> I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
> refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to
have
> you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method.
not
> so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
> re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
> still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
> older thrown out?
>
> The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
> assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
> wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
> manufacturers.
>
> Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
> evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder,
gasket
> maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
> procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
> like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
> that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of
other
> arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide
any
> evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
> consequence is wrong.
>
> Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
> position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
> where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
> evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as
much
> money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause
a
> failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it
will?
> Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
> to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does
that
> from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
>
> Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
> had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
> importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
> replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary
to
> all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers
and
> no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
> difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure
from
> a right one.
>
> The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
> about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made
it
> sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think
you
> next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in
the
> trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out
to
> a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
> wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
> turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
> career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
> they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not
talking
> about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
> what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
> less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
> didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
> rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
> statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should
pay
> for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
> prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because
they
> were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any
better.
>
> So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer
or
> rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought
this
> was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
> against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
> yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen
evidence
> of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
> Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if
you've
> deemed it wrong.
>
> Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that
often.
> There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
> once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my
head.
> This was one.
>
> Not afraid to use my name,
> Steve Garner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
> what
> > you typed here.
> >
> > "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> > failure
> > > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> > suggesting
> > > numerous times.
> >
> > That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing
it.
> >
> > > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> > procedures.
> >
> > Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
> cylinders
> > to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> > trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
> posts
> > here you would have figured that out.
> >
> > > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always
used
> > this
> > > 3 step sequence you refer to?
> >
> > Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> > computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
> Does
> > that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> > conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's
go
> > back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> > while we're at it.
> >
> > >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
> >
> > Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
> >
> > >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come
to
> > > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they
did?
> >
> > Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not
right
> > for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for
someone
> > who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
> >
> > > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
> under
> > > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
> always
> > > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do
it
> > > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
> necessary
> > > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of
a
> > > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
> >
> > <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
> >
> > > The gasket serves to conform to
> > > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
> two
> > > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
> voids.
> > > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
> >
> > And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> > expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
> >
> > As you speak about changing
> > > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
> varies
> > > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure
changes
> > > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees
to
> > > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> > chamber
> > > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life.
Would
> > the
> > > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> > gasket
> > > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
> instead
> > > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression,
if
> > > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> > before
> > > it was loosened.
> > > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out
of
> > the
> > > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new
or
> > > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet
saying
> > > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed.
Not
> > > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they
also
> > put
> > > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> > bolts?
> > > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's
okay
> > for
> > > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
> >
> > Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> > take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also
wouldn't
> > consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
> out
> > the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
> >
> > Another
> > > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take
too.
> > > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and
pushrods,
> > all
> > > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run
through
> > the
> > > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
> personal
> > > best or just your average times for that job?
> >
> > In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe
a
> > bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> > pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was
done
> > improperly in my shop.
> >
> > > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost
shouldn't
> > > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
> >
> > Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
> that
> > the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
> >
> > Will the head gasket
> > > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> > yield
> > > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
> 4.0,
> > > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> > your
> > > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
> would
> > > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
> >
> > No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
> >
> > > What if you
> > > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one
bank
> > to
> > > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to
remove,
> > > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still
do
> it
> > > if it were a mere $250?
> >
> > If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right
I
> > would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he
paid
> > good money to have done properly?
> >
> > > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> > confidence
> > > in your advise.
> > > Steve
> >
> > First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> > advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> > started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> > doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> > condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
> racing
> > engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> > which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> > detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
> system
> > modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> > converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
> decking,
> > rod resizing, engine balancing.
> >
> > I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> > carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> > massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> > (mainly Holley's).
> >
> > The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> > that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car.
This
> > was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> > standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked
questions
> > when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
> own
> > to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
> assembly.
> > Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
> >
> > I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> > track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
> by
> > many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
> of
> > the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me
to
> > do my thing.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
> >
> > So is that enough for you Steve?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >
>
>
seriously....the OP posted for opinions (we know that saying) and y'all gave
them.
Don't be shooting people down cuz you say they "fail to convince you"
If you feel comfortable NOT changing the gasket...so be it! That's your
choice.
Regardless of whether it's required or not, the LEAST people will get out of
changing it is peace of mind.
As far as engineers being infallible....uh...see Tacoma narrows bridge!!
I agree Engineers do all the required calculations to get things
kicking....but we've all seen the outcome and thought....what the hell is
that doing WAY over there....or you can't work on this cuz that's in the
way.
So quit the belly aching and just give the OP the info he requires to make
his OWN decision.
"Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
news:Vwioc.452854$Ig.108727@pd7tw2no...
> Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get
the
> information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You
ask
> what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will
not
> disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
> you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
>
> Line by line:
>
> Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
> that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were
right.
>
> So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that
they
> taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
> in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
> were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
> not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
> engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
> switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
> leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
> about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built
a
> couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
> straight on head gaskets are you?
>
> I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
> refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to
have
> you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method.
not
> so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
> re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
> still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
> older thrown out?
>
> The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
> assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
> wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
> manufacturers.
>
> Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
> evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder,
gasket
> maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
> procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
> like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
> that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of
other
> arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide
any
> evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
> consequence is wrong.
>
> Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
> position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
> where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
> evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as
much
> money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause
a
> failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it
will?
> Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
> to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does
that
> from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
>
> Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
> had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
> importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
> replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary
to
> all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers
and
> no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
> difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure
from
> a right one.
>
> The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
> about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made
it
> sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think
you
> next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in
the
> trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out
to
> a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
> wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
> turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
> career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
> they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not
talking
> about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
> what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
> less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
> didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
> rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
> statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should
pay
> for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
> prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because
they
> were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any
better.
>
> So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer
or
> rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought
this
> was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
> against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
> yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen
evidence
> of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
> Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if
you've
> deemed it wrong.
>
> Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that
often.
> There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
> once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my
head.
> This was one.
>
> Not afraid to use my name,
> Steve Garner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
> what
> > you typed here.
> >
> > "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> > failure
> > > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> > suggesting
> > > numerous times.
> >
> > That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing
it.
> >
> > > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> > procedures.
> >
> > Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
> cylinders
> > to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> > trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
> posts
> > here you would have figured that out.
> >
> > > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always
used
> > this
> > > 3 step sequence you refer to?
> >
> > Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> > computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
> Does
> > that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> > conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's
go
> > back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> > while we're at it.
> >
> > >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
> >
> > Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
> >
> > >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come
to
> > > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they
did?
> >
> > Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not
right
> > for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for
someone
> > who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
> >
> > > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
> under
> > > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
> always
> > > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do
it
> > > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
> necessary
> > > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of
a
> > > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
> >
> > <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
> >
> > > The gasket serves to conform to
> > > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
> two
> > > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
> voids.
> > > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
> >
> > And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> > expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
> >
> > As you speak about changing
> > > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
> varies
> > > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure
changes
> > > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees
to
> > > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> > chamber
> > > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life.
Would
> > the
> > > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> > gasket
> > > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
> instead
> > > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression,
if
> > > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> > before
> > > it was loosened.
> > > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out
of
> > the
> > > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new
or
> > > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet
saying
> > > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed.
Not
> > > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they
also
> > put
> > > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> > bolts?
> > > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's
okay
> > for
> > > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
> >
> > Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> > take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also
wouldn't
> > consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
> out
> > the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
> >
> > Another
> > > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take
too.
> > > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and
pushrods,
> > all
> > > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run
through
> > the
> > > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
> personal
> > > best or just your average times for that job?
> >
> > In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe
a
> > bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> > pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was
done
> > improperly in my shop.
> >
> > > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost
shouldn't
> > > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
> >
> > Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
> that
> > the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
> >
> > Will the head gasket
> > > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> > yield
> > > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
> 4.0,
> > > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> > your
> > > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
> would
> > > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
> >
> > No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
> >
> > > What if you
> > > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one
bank
> > to
> > > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to
remove,
> > > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still
do
> it
> > > if it were a mere $250?
> >
> > If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right
I
> > would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he
paid
> > good money to have done properly?
> >
> > > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> > confidence
> > > in your advise.
> > > Steve
> >
> > First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> > advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> > started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> > doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> > condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
> racing
> > engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> > which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> > detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
> system
> > modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> > converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
> decking,
> > rod resizing, engine balancing.
> >
> > I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> > carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> > massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> > (mainly Holley's).
> >
> > The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> > that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car.
This
> > was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> > standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked
questions
> > when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
> own
> > to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
> assembly.
> > Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
> >
> > I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> > track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
> by
> > many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
> of
> > the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me
to
> > do my thing.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
> >
> > So is that enough for you Steve?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >
>
>
05-12-2004, 07:09 AM
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Holy crap dude.....
seriously....the OP posted for opinions (we know that saying) and y'all gave
them.
Don't be shooting people down cuz you say they "fail to convince you"
If you feel comfortable NOT changing the gasket...so be it! That's your
choice.
Regardless of whether it's required or not, the LEAST people will get out of
changing it is peace of mind.
As far as engineers being infallible....uh...see Tacoma narrows bridge!!
I agree Engineers do all the required calculations to get things
kicking....but we've all seen the outcome and thought....what the hell is
that doing WAY over there....or you can't work on this cuz that's in the
way.
So quit the belly aching and just give the OP the info he requires to make
his OWN decision.
"Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
news:Vwioc.452854$Ig.108727@pd7tw2no...
> Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get
the
> information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You
ask
> what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will
not
> disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
> you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
>
> Line by line:
>
> Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
> that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were
right.
>
> So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that
they
> taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
> in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
> were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
> not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
> engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
> switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
> leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
> about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built
a
> couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
> straight on head gaskets are you?
>
> I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
> refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to
have
> you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method.
not
> so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
> re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
> still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
> older thrown out?
>
> The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
> assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
> wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
> manufacturers.
>
> Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
> evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder,
gasket
> maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
> procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
> like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
> that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of
other
> arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide
any
> evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
> consequence is wrong.
>
> Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
> position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
> where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
> evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as
much
> money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause
a
> failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it
will?
> Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
> to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does
that
> from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
>
> Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
> had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
> importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
> replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary
to
> all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers
and
> no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
> difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure
from
> a right one.
>
> The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
> about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made
it
> sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think
you
> next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in
the
> trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out
to
> a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
> wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
> turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
> career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
> they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not
talking
> about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
> what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
> less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
> didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
> rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
> statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should
pay
> for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
> prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because
they
> were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any
better.
>
> So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer
or
> rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought
this
> was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
> against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
> yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen
evidence
> of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
> Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if
you've
> deemed it wrong.
>
> Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that
often.
> There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
> once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my
head.
> This was one.
>
> Not afraid to use my name,
> Steve Garner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
> what
> > you typed here.
> >
> > "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> > failure
> > > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> > suggesting
> > > numerous times.
> >
> > That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing
it.
> >
> > > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> > procedures.
> >
> > Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
> cylinders
> > to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> > trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
> posts
> > here you would have figured that out.
> >
> > > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always
used
> > this
> > > 3 step sequence you refer to?
> >
> > Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> > computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
> Does
> > that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> > conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's
go
> > back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> > while we're at it.
> >
> > >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
> >
> > Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
> >
> > >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come
to
> > > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they
did?
> >
> > Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not
right
> > for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for
someone
> > who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
> >
> > > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
> under
> > > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
> always
> > > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do
it
> > > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
> necessary
> > > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of
a
> > > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
> >
> > <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
> >
> > > The gasket serves to conform to
> > > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
> two
> > > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
> voids.
> > > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
> >
> > And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> > expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
> >
> > As you speak about changing
> > > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
> varies
> > > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure
changes
> > > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees
to
> > > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> > chamber
> > > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life.
Would
> > the
> > > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> > gasket
> > > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
> instead
> > > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression,
if
> > > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> > before
> > > it was loosened.
> > > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out
of
> > the
> > > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new
or
> > > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet
saying
> > > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed.
Not
> > > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they
also
> > put
> > > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> > bolts?
> > > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's
okay
> > for
> > > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
> >
> > Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> > take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also
wouldn't
> > consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
> out
> > the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
> >
> > Another
> > > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take
too.
> > > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and
pushrods,
> > all
> > > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run
through
> > the
> > > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
> personal
> > > best or just your average times for that job?
> >
> > In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe
a
> > bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> > pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was
done
> > improperly in my shop.
> >
> > > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost
shouldn't
> > > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
> >
> > Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
> that
> > the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
> >
> > Will the head gasket
> > > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> > yield
> > > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
> 4.0,
> > > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> > your
> > > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
> would
> > > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
> >
> > No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
> >
> > > What if you
> > > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one
bank
> > to
> > > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to
remove,
> > > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still
do
> it
> > > if it were a mere $250?
> >
> > If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right
I
> > would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he
paid
> > good money to have done properly?
> >
> > > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> > confidence
> > > in your advise.
> > > Steve
> >
> > First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> > advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> > started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> > doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> > condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
> racing
> > engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> > which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> > detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
> system
> > modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> > converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
> decking,
> > rod resizing, engine balancing.
> >
> > I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> > carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> > massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> > (mainly Holley's).
> >
> > The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> > that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car.
This
> > was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> > standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked
questions
> > when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
> own
> > to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
> assembly.
> > Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
> >
> > I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> > track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
> by
> > many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
> of
> > the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me
to
> > do my thing.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
> >
> > So is that enough for you Steve?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >
>
>
seriously....the OP posted for opinions (we know that saying) and y'all gave
them.
Don't be shooting people down cuz you say they "fail to convince you"
If you feel comfortable NOT changing the gasket...so be it! That's your
choice.
Regardless of whether it's required or not, the LEAST people will get out of
changing it is peace of mind.
As far as engineers being infallible....uh...see Tacoma narrows bridge!!
I agree Engineers do all the required calculations to get things
kicking....but we've all seen the outcome and thought....what the hell is
that doing WAY over there....or you can't work on this cuz that's in the
way.
So quit the belly aching and just give the OP the info he requires to make
his OWN decision.
"Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
news:Vwioc.452854$Ig.108727@pd7tw2no...
> Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get
the
> information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You
ask
> what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will
not
> disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
> you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
>
> Line by line:
>
> Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
> that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were
right.
>
> So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that
they
> taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
> in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
> were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
> not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
> engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
> switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
> leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
> about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built
a
> couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
> straight on head gaskets are you?
>
> I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
> refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to
have
> you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method.
not
> so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
> re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
> still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
> older thrown out?
>
> The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
> assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
> wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
> manufacturers.
>
> Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
> evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder,
gasket
> maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
> procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
> like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
> that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of
other
> arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide
any
> evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
> consequence is wrong.
>
> Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
> position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
> where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
> evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as
much
> money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause
a
> failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it
will?
> Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
> to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does
that
> from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
>
> Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
> had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
> importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
> replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary
to
> all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers
and
> no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
> difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure
from
> a right one.
>
> The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
> about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made
it
> sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think
you
> next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in
the
> trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out
to
> a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
> wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
> turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
> career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
> they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not
talking
> about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
> what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
> less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
> didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
> rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
> statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should
pay
> for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
> prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because
they
> were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any
better.
>
> So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer
or
> rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought
this
> was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
> against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
> yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen
evidence
> of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
> Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if
you've
> deemed it wrong.
>
> Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that
often.
> There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
> once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my
head.
> This was one.
>
> Not afraid to use my name,
> Steve Garner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
> what
> > you typed here.
> >
> > "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> > failure
> > > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> > suggesting
> > > numerous times.
> >
> > That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing
it.
> >
> > > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> > procedures.
> >
> > Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
> cylinders
> > to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> > trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
> posts
> > here you would have figured that out.
> >
> > > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always
used
> > this
> > > 3 step sequence you refer to?
> >
> > Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> > computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
> Does
> > that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> > conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's
go
> > back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> > while we're at it.
> >
> > >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
> >
> > Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
> >
> > >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come
to
> > > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they
did?
> >
> > Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not
right
> > for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for
someone
> > who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
> >
> > > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
> under
> > > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
> always
> > > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do
it
> > > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
> necessary
> > > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of
a
> > > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
> >
> > <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
> >
> > > The gasket serves to conform to
> > > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
> two
> > > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
> voids.
> > > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
> >
> > And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> > expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
> >
> > As you speak about changing
> > > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
> varies
> > > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure
changes
> > > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees
to
> > > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> > chamber
> > > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life.
Would
> > the
> > > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> > gasket
> > > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
> instead
> > > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression,
if
> > > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> > before
> > > it was loosened.
> > > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out
of
> > the
> > > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new
or
> > > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet
saying
> > > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed.
Not
> > > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they
also
> > put
> > > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> > bolts?
> > > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's
okay
> > for
> > > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
> >
> > Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> > take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also
wouldn't
> > consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
> out
> > the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
> >
> > Another
> > > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take
too.
> > > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and
pushrods,
> > all
> > > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run
through
> > the
> > > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
> personal
> > > best or just your average times for that job?
> >
> > In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe
a
> > bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> > pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was
done
> > improperly in my shop.
> >
> > > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost
shouldn't
> > > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
> >
> > Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
> that
> > the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
> >
> > Will the head gasket
> > > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> > yield
> > > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
> 4.0,
> > > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> > your
> > > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
> would
> > > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
> >
> > No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
> >
> > > What if you
> > > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one
bank
> > to
> > > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to
remove,
> > > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still
do
> it
> > > if it were a mere $250?
> >
> > If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right
I
> > would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he
paid
> > good money to have done properly?
> >
> > > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> > confidence
> > > in your advise.
> > > Steve
> >
> > First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> > advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> > started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> > doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> > condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
> racing
> > engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> > which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> > detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
> system
> > modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> > converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
> decking,
> > rod resizing, engine balancing.
> >
> > I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> > carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> > massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> > (mainly Holley's).
> >
> > The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> > that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car.
This
> > was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> > standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked
questions
> > when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
> own
> > to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
> assembly.
> > Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
> >
> > I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> > track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
> by
> > many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
> of
> > the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me
to
> > do my thing.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
> >
> > So is that enough for you Steve?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >
>
>
05-12-2004, 07:09 AM
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Holy crap dude.....
seriously....the OP posted for opinions (we know that saying) and y'all gave
them.
Don't be shooting people down cuz you say they "fail to convince you"
If you feel comfortable NOT changing the gasket...so be it! That's your
choice.
Regardless of whether it's required or not, the LEAST people will get out of
changing it is peace of mind.
As far as engineers being infallible....uh...see Tacoma narrows bridge!!
I agree Engineers do all the required calculations to get things
kicking....but we've all seen the outcome and thought....what the hell is
that doing WAY over there....or you can't work on this cuz that's in the
way.
So quit the belly aching and just give the OP the info he requires to make
his OWN decision.
"Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
news:Vwioc.452854$Ig.108727@pd7tw2no...
> Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get
the
> information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You
ask
> what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will
not
> disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
> you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
>
> Line by line:
>
> Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
> that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were
right.
>
> So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that
they
> taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
> in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
> were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
> not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
> engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
> switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
> leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
> about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built
a
> couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
> straight on head gaskets are you?
>
> I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
> refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to
have
> you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method.
not
> so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
> re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
> still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
> older thrown out?
>
> The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
> assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
> wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
> manufacturers.
>
> Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
> evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder,
gasket
> maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
> procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
> like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
> that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of
other
> arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide
any
> evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
> consequence is wrong.
>
> Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
> position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
> where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
> evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as
much
> money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause
a
> failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it
will?
> Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
> to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does
that
> from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
>
> Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
> had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
> importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
> replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary
to
> all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers
and
> no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
> difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure
from
> a right one.
>
> The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
> about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made
it
> sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think
you
> next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in
the
> trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out
to
> a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
> wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
> turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
> career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
> they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not
talking
> about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
> what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
> less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
> didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
> rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
> statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should
pay
> for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
> prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because
they
> were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any
better.
>
> So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer
or
> rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought
this
> was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
> against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
> yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen
evidence
> of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
> Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if
you've
> deemed it wrong.
>
> Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that
often.
> There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
> once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my
head.
> This was one.
>
> Not afraid to use my name,
> Steve Garner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
> what
> > you typed here.
> >
> > "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> > failure
> > > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> > suggesting
> > > numerous times.
> >
> > That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing
it.
> >
> > > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> > procedures.
> >
> > Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
> cylinders
> > to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> > trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
> posts
> > here you would have figured that out.
> >
> > > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always
used
> > this
> > > 3 step sequence you refer to?
> >
> > Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> > computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
> Does
> > that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> > conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's
go
> > back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> > while we're at it.
> >
> > >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
> >
> > Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
> >
> > >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come
to
> > > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they
did?
> >
> > Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not
right
> > for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for
someone
> > who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
> >
> > > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
> under
> > > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
> always
> > > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do
it
> > > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
> necessary
> > > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of
a
> > > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
> >
> > <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
> >
> > > The gasket serves to conform to
> > > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
> two
> > > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
> voids.
> > > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
> >
> > And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> > expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
> >
> > As you speak about changing
> > > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
> varies
> > > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure
changes
> > > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees
to
> > > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> > chamber
> > > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life.
Would
> > the
> > > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> > gasket
> > > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
> instead
> > > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression,
if
> > > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> > before
> > > it was loosened.
> > > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out
of
> > the
> > > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new
or
> > > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet
saying
> > > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed.
Not
> > > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they
also
> > put
> > > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> > bolts?
> > > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's
okay
> > for
> > > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
> >
> > Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> > take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also
wouldn't
> > consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
> out
> > the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
> >
> > Another
> > > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take
too.
> > > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and
pushrods,
> > all
> > > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run
through
> > the
> > > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
> personal
> > > best or just your average times for that job?
> >
> > In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe
a
> > bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> > pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was
done
> > improperly in my shop.
> >
> > > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost
shouldn't
> > > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
> >
> > Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
> that
> > the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
> >
> > Will the head gasket
> > > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> > yield
> > > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
> 4.0,
> > > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> > your
> > > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
> would
> > > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
> >
> > No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
> >
> > > What if you
> > > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one
bank
> > to
> > > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to
remove,
> > > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still
do
> it
> > > if it were a mere $250?
> >
> > If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right
I
> > would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he
paid
> > good money to have done properly?
> >
> > > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> > confidence
> > > in your advise.
> > > Steve
> >
> > First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> > advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> > started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> > doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> > condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
> racing
> > engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> > which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> > detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
> system
> > modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> > converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
> decking,
> > rod resizing, engine balancing.
> >
> > I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> > carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> > massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> > (mainly Holley's).
> >
> > The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> > that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car.
This
> > was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> > standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked
questions
> > when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
> own
> > to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
> assembly.
> > Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
> >
> > I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> > track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
> by
> > many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
> of
> > the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me
to
> > do my thing.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
> >
> > So is that enough for you Steve?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >
>
>
seriously....the OP posted for opinions (we know that saying) and y'all gave
them.
Don't be shooting people down cuz you say they "fail to convince you"
If you feel comfortable NOT changing the gasket...so be it! That's your
choice.
Regardless of whether it's required or not, the LEAST people will get out of
changing it is peace of mind.
As far as engineers being infallible....uh...see Tacoma narrows bridge!!
I agree Engineers do all the required calculations to get things
kicking....but we've all seen the outcome and thought....what the hell is
that doing WAY over there....or you can't work on this cuz that's in the
way.
So quit the belly aching and just give the OP the info he requires to make
his OWN decision.
"Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
news:Vwioc.452854$Ig.108727@pd7tw2no...
> Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get
the
> information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You
ask
> what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will
not
> disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
> you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
>
> Line by line:
>
> Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
> that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were
right.
>
> So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that
they
> taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
> in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
> were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
> not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
> engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
> switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
> leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
> about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built
a
> couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
> straight on head gaskets are you?
>
> I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
> refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to
have
> you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method.
not
> so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
> re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
> still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
> older thrown out?
>
> The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
> assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
> wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
> manufacturers.
>
> Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
> evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder,
gasket
> maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
> procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
> like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
> that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of
other
> arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide
any
> evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
> consequence is wrong.
>
> Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
> position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
> where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
> evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as
much
> money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause
a
> failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it
will?
> Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
> to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does
that
> from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
>
> Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
> had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
> importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
> replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary
to
> all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers
and
> no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
> difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure
from
> a right one.
>
> The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
> about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made
it
> sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think
you
> next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in
the
> trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out
to
> a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
> wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
> turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
> career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
> they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not
talking
> about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
> what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
> less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
> didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
> rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
> statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should
pay
> for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
> prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because
they
> were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any
better.
>
> So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer
or
> rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought
this
> was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
> against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
> yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen
evidence
> of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
> Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if
you've
> deemed it wrong.
>
> Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that
often.
> There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
> once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my
head.
> This was one.
>
> Not afraid to use my name,
> Steve Garner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
> what
> > you typed here.
> >
> > "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> > failure
> > > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> > suggesting
> > > numerous times.
> >
> > That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing
it.
> >
> > > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> > procedures.
> >
> > Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
> cylinders
> > to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> > trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
> posts
> > here you would have figured that out.
> >
> > > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always
used
> > this
> > > 3 step sequence you refer to?
> >
> > Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> > computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
> Does
> > that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> > conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's
go
> > back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> > while we're at it.
> >
> > >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
> >
> > Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
> >
> > >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come
to
> > > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they
did?
> >
> > Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not
right
> > for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for
someone
> > who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
> >
> > > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
> under
> > > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
> always
> > > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do
it
> > > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
> necessary
> > > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of
a
> > > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
> >
> > <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
> >
> > > The gasket serves to conform to
> > > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
> two
> > > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
> voids.
> > > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
> >
> > And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> > expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
> >
> > As you speak about changing
> > > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
> varies
> > > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure
changes
> > > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees
to
> > > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> > chamber
> > > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life.
Would
> > the
> > > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> > gasket
> > > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
> instead
> > > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression,
if
> > > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> > before
> > > it was loosened.
> > > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out
of
> > the
> > > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new
or
> > > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet
saying
> > > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed.
Not
> > > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they
also
> > put
> > > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> > bolts?
> > > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's
okay
> > for
> > > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
> >
> > Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> > take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also
wouldn't
> > consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
> out
> > the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
> >
> > Another
> > > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take
too.
> > > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and
pushrods,
> > all
> > > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run
through
> > the
> > > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
> personal
> > > best or just your average times for that job?
> >
> > In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe
a
> > bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> > pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was
done
> > improperly in my shop.
> >
> > > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost
shouldn't
> > > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
> >
> > Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
> that
> > the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
> >
> > Will the head gasket
> > > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> > yield
> > > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
> 4.0,
> > > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> > your
> > > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
> would
> > > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
> >
> > No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
> >
> > > What if you
> > > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one
bank
> > to
> > > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to
remove,
> > > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still
do
> it
> > > if it were a mere $250?
> >
> > If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right
I
> > would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he
paid
> > good money to have done properly?
> >
> > > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> > confidence
> > > in your advise.
> > > Steve
> >
> > First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> > advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> > started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> > doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> > condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
> racing
> > engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> > which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> > detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
> system
> > modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> > converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
> decking,
> > rod resizing, engine balancing.
> >
> > I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> > carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> > massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> > (mainly Holley's).
> >
> > The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> > that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car.
This
> > was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> > standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked
questions
> > when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
> own
> > to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
> assembly.
> > Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
> >
> > I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> > track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
> by
> > many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
> of
> > the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me
to
> > do my thing.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
> >
> > So is that enough for you Steve?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >
>
>
05-12-2004, 07:09 AM
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Holy crap dude.....
seriously....the OP posted for opinions (we know that saying) and y'all gave
them.
Don't be shooting people down cuz you say they "fail to convince you"
If you feel comfortable NOT changing the gasket...so be it! That's your
choice.
Regardless of whether it's required or not, the LEAST people will get out of
changing it is peace of mind.
As far as engineers being infallible....uh...see Tacoma narrows bridge!!
I agree Engineers do all the required calculations to get things
kicking....but we've all seen the outcome and thought....what the hell is
that doing WAY over there....or you can't work on this cuz that's in the
way.
So quit the belly aching and just give the OP the info he requires to make
his OWN decision.
"Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
news:Vwioc.452854$Ig.108727@pd7tw2no...
> Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get
the
> information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You
ask
> what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will
not
> disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
> you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
>
> Line by line:
>
> Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
> that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were
right.
>
> So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that
they
> taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
> in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
> were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
> not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
> engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
> switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
> leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
> about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built
a
> couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
> straight on head gaskets are you?
>
> I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
> refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to
have
> you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method.
not
> so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
> re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
> still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
> older thrown out?
>
> The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
> assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
> wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
> manufacturers.
>
> Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
> evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder,
gasket
> maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
> procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
> like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
> that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of
other
> arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide
any
> evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
> consequence is wrong.
>
> Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
> position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
> where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
> evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as
much
> money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause
a
> failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it
will?
> Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
> to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does
that
> from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
>
> Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
> had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
> importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
> replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary
to
> all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers
and
> no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
> difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure
from
> a right one.
>
> The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
> about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made
it
> sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think
you
> next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in
the
> trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out
to
> a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
> wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
> turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
> career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
> they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not
talking
> about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
> what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
> less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
> didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
> rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
> statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should
pay
> for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
> prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because
they
> were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any
better.
>
> So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer
or
> rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought
this
> was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
> against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
> yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen
evidence
> of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
> Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if
you've
> deemed it wrong.
>
> Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that
often.
> There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
> once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my
head.
> This was one.
>
> Not afraid to use my name,
> Steve Garner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
> what
> > you typed here.
> >
> > "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> > failure
> > > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> > suggesting
> > > numerous times.
> >
> > That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing
it.
> >
> > > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> > procedures.
> >
> > Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
> cylinders
> > to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> > trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
> posts
> > here you would have figured that out.
> >
> > > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always
used
> > this
> > > 3 step sequence you refer to?
> >
> > Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> > computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
> Does
> > that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> > conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's
go
> > back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> > while we're at it.
> >
> > >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
> >
> > Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
> >
> > >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come
to
> > > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they
did?
> >
> > Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not
right
> > for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for
someone
> > who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
> >
> > > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
> under
> > > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
> always
> > > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do
it
> > > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
> necessary
> > > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of
a
> > > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
> >
> > <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
> >
> > > The gasket serves to conform to
> > > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
> two
> > > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
> voids.
> > > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
> >
> > And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> > expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
> >
> > As you speak about changing
> > > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
> varies
> > > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure
changes
> > > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees
to
> > > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> > chamber
> > > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life.
Would
> > the
> > > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> > gasket
> > > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
> instead
> > > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression,
if
> > > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> > before
> > > it was loosened.
> > > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out
of
> > the
> > > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new
or
> > > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet
saying
> > > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed.
Not
> > > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they
also
> > put
> > > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> > bolts?
> > > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's
okay
> > for
> > > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
> >
> > Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> > take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also
wouldn't
> > consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
> out
> > the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
> >
> > Another
> > > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take
too.
> > > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and
pushrods,
> > all
> > > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run
through
> > the
> > > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
> personal
> > > best or just your average times for that job?
> >
> > In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe
a
> > bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> > pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was
done
> > improperly in my shop.
> >
> > > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost
shouldn't
> > > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
> >
> > Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
> that
> > the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
> >
> > Will the head gasket
> > > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> > yield
> > > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
> 4.0,
> > > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> > your
> > > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
> would
> > > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
> >
> > No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
> >
> > > What if you
> > > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one
bank
> > to
> > > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to
remove,
> > > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still
do
> it
> > > if it were a mere $250?
> >
> > If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right
I
> > would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he
paid
> > good money to have done properly?
> >
> > > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> > confidence
> > > in your advise.
> > > Steve
> >
> > First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> > advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> > started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> > doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> > condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
> racing
> > engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> > which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> > detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
> system
> > modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> > converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
> decking,
> > rod resizing, engine balancing.
> >
> > I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> > carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> > massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> > (mainly Holley's).
> >
> > The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> > that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car.
This
> > was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> > standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked
questions
> > when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
> own
> > to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
> assembly.
> > Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
> >
> > I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> > track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
> by
> > many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
> of
> > the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me
to
> > do my thing.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
> >
> > So is that enough for you Steve?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >
>
>
seriously....the OP posted for opinions (we know that saying) and y'all gave
them.
Don't be shooting people down cuz you say they "fail to convince you"
If you feel comfortable NOT changing the gasket...so be it! That's your
choice.
Regardless of whether it's required or not, the LEAST people will get out of
changing it is peace of mind.
As far as engineers being infallible....uh...see Tacoma narrows bridge!!
I agree Engineers do all the required calculations to get things
kicking....but we've all seen the outcome and thought....what the hell is
that doing WAY over there....or you can't work on this cuz that's in the
way.
So quit the belly aching and just give the OP the info he requires to make
his OWN decision.
"Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
news:Vwioc.452854$Ig.108727@pd7tw2no...
> Actually not enough for me Chris. You never did identify where you get
the
> information that removing those head bolts compromises the gaskets. You
ask
> what proof I have that loosening the head bolt and retightening it will
not
> disturb anything. What proof do you have that it will? What evidence to
> you have to refute the engine manufacturers and rebuilders?
>
> Line by line:
>
> Getting away with it doesn't make it right, the manufacturers telling you
> that you can do it does. Getting away with it proves that they were
right.
>
> So tell me Chris, where did you get your Journeyman's papers from that
they
> taught you this? Why are their teachings contrary to the biggest and best
> in the industry. Where I got my schooling the engineers in these positions
> were seen as the authorities. All the race engine experience you have is
> not enough to convince me that the people that manufacture and rebuild
> engines don't know what they're doing when they allow head bolts to be
> switched in the field. They're millions of engines worth of experience
> leads me to be more inclined to believe them. I have never seen a caution
> about this practice from the makers of head gaskets either. So you built
a
> couple of engines for stump pullers and now you're going to set the world
> straight on head gaskets are you?
>
> I should have said that not all manufacturers use the 3 step procedure you
> refer to. Your infinate knowledge of cylinder head fastening seems to
have
> you believing that all manufacturers currently use this 3 step method.
not
> so. The engine we are talking about is not babbit era yet it still uses
> re-useable head bolts and does not use torque to yield. Some principles
> still apply, no matter how old they are. Is every principle 20 years or
> older thrown out?
>
> The point of mentioning torque to yield is to illustrate that your
> assumption about all engines using this 3 step method used on the 4.0 is
> wrong. There are still many different procedures called for by different
> manufacturers.
>
> Again, who says it's not right, beside you. There is not a shred of
> evidence, not a memo, a warning , a bulletin from an engine builder,
gasket
> maker, sheep shearer. no one but you. And they got away with writing that
> procedure in their manuals and building hundreds of thousands of engines
> like that, backing off the bolts and re-tightening, in spite of the fact
> that only you have declared it wrong. Again, only you and a couple of
other
> arm chair mechanics are saying it's improper and none of you can provide
any
> evidence that a practice done for years and still done today without
> consequence is wrong.
>
> Can I verify 100% that the gasket and head return to their original
> position? No, and neither can you that it doesn't. I can site many cases
> where this has been done with no consequences and I defy you to find
> evidence that this has ever caused one failure. I said I would put as
much
> money up as anyone would cover that switching those bolts would not cause
a
> failure of that head gaskets. How much money do you have that says it
will?
> Most importantly, the guys rebuilder that's warranting the engine told him
> to go ahead and do it and he would take responsibility for it. He does
that
> from knowing it's never been known to cause a problem.
>
> Had you made the mistake you would have corrected it. I'll go one better,
> had a mistake been made and I had done it I would correct it. The
> importance is to know the difference. Would I go changing out parts and
> replacing gaskets because someone said I should even though it's contrary
to
> all logic, everything ever told to me by gasket and engine manufacturers
and
> no one can site a single case of a failure on account of it, NO. The
> difference here is that at least in this case, I know a wrong procedure
from
> a right one.
>
> The price of the job on other engines comes up because this discussion is
> about a general practice within an industry, not 4.0L engines. You made
it
> sound like at $40 he should do it, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Most people on here might believe you, and there may be some that think
you
> next to God, but that doesn't make you right or infallible. I worked in
the
> trade and stood solidly behind my work. These weren't engines taken out
to
> a track and expected to fail. These were the grocery getters, the family
> wagon that took them on their vacations and nobody was ever let down. I
> turned away more work than I did and never advertised for work once in my
> career. That happened because I did good work and never sold them anything
> they didn't need and knew how to tell the difference. But we're not
talking
> about personal integrity here, we're talking about the ability to know
> what's a correct practice and what isn't. No job ever left my shop with
> less than the best, and equelly important, nobody paid for anything they
> didn't need. That's what's under discussion. Just because it's the
> rebuilder that would be paying for the gasket doesn't disqualify the
> statement about people paying for things they don't need. Nobody should
pay
> for parts and services that are unneeded Yes, there's lots out there that
> prescribe to the "replace everything and cover your ***", some because
they
> were crooks others because they don't have the ability to know any
better.
>
> So, long and the short of it, show me a memo from an engine manufacturer
or
> rebuilder or gasket manufacturers (if the gasket manufacturers thought
this
> was defenceable they'd be all over it to increase gasket sales)cautioning
> against this or site at least one failure proven to be caused by it. Ask
> yourself why everyone is "getting away with it" yet nobody has seen
evidence
> of a failure. You can apply your logic to any procedure done on anything.
> Never causes a problem so everyone must be "getting away with it" if
you've
> deemed it wrong.
>
> Sorry for my rant. I read this group frequently, but don't post that
often.
> There's some good advise that comes out here and there's some crap. Every
> once in a while I see something so outragous I can't help but shake my
head.
> This was one.
>
> Not afraid to use my name,
> Steve Garner
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
> news:MWgoc.5130$aB5.1734@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of
> what
> > you typed here.
> >
> > "Steve G" <NospamforSteve@Steve-Garner.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rjcoc.423498$Pk3.380688@pd7tw1no...
> > > I did rebuild engines C and no, not your and never had a head gasket
> > failure
> > > even though I know for certain I've done exactly what this guy is
> > suggesting
> > > numerous times.
> >
> > That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing
it.
> >
> > > If you had enough experience in the trade you would have
> > > lived through the evolution of head (and other parts) tightening
> > procedures.
> >
> > Um, I have rebuilt literally 100's of engines ranging from stock 4
> cylinders
> > to 500+ cubic inch tractor pulling engines, so I think I have had enough
> > trade experience as you call it. If you have even read any of my other
> posts
> > here you would have figured that out.
> >
> > > Did you know that not all manufacturers on all engines have always
used
> > this
> > > 3 step sequence you refer to?
> >
> > Of course they haven't. They also haven't always used fuel injection,
> > computer engine management, tri-metal bearings, moly coated rings, etc.
> Does
> > that mean that it is wrong to do so? Engines operate under more extreme
> > conditions and last a lot longer today. It is called improvement. Let's
go
> > back to babbit bearings, inefficient carburetors and bias ply tires too
> > while we're at it.
> >
> > >Do you know what torque to yield that's used a lot today is?
> >
> > Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.
> >
> > >At one time some manufacturers had you tighten to a certain
> > > torque then back them off and retighten them to next step. They didn't
> > > mention replacing the gasket each time you backed it off. Gee, come
to
> > > think of it, how would you ever have gotten past that point if they
did?
> >
> > Again, old technology. Yes, you may get away with it, but it is not
right
> > for today's standards now is it? It also doesn't make it right for
someone
> > who is being paid good money to do a job to do it improperly.
> >
> > > When you go through a tightening sequence it's like working a bubble
> under
> > > wall paper to an edge. That's why torque sequence patterns almost
> always
> > > start in the centre and work to the outside. Critical perhaps to do
it
> > > initially, but once it's done the gasket is fully seated and not
> necessary
> > > to redo it. Do you know the basic principle behind the function of
a
> > > gasket? Have you ever even replaced one?
> >
> > <sarcasm> Nope, never. </sarcasm>
> >
> > > The gasket serves to conform to
> > > the unique microscopic uneveness, pits and holes and grooves, of the
> two
> > > surfaces. Once it's been compressed it is filling all those small
> voids.
> > > If you release the pressure from it then re-apply it without moving
> > > anything, what's going to change? Nothing.
> >
> > And you can 100% verify that? If so, then you wouldn't mind footing the
> > expense if Bill's engine falters because of head gasket problems?
> >
> > As you speak about changing
> > > temps and pressures during the operation cycle think about how that
> varies
> > > the pressure on the head gasket. Do you think that the pressure
changes
> > > evenly accross the head in as precise a fashion from minus 30 degrees
to
> > > full operating temp of 210 with combustion temps at the edge of the
> > chamber
> > > as the initial tightening procedure produced? Not on your life.
Would
> > the
> > > corner of the head where the 2 bolts are removed lift enough for the
> > gasket
> > > to seperate? If it does you'd better think of replacing that head
> instead
> > > of the gasket. Any microscopic amount that it moved in decompression,
if
> > > any, would return to exactly the same shape and position as it was
> > before
> > > it was loosened.
> > > But never mind all the theoretical crap that blows your arguments out
of
> > the
> > > water. Post here again on the topic after you've uncrated a few new
or
> > > rebuild motors and read the manufacturer or rebuilders note sheet
saying
> > > that for certain aplication this or that head bolt must be changed.
Not
> > > once did I come across a sheet that said if a head bolt needed to be
> > > switched return to manufacturer for re-assembly. Why wouldn't they
also
> > put
> > > in a note that voided the warranty if the installer switched any head
> > bolts?
> > > I don't care if the gasket is $40 or $400, it's a waste. And it's
okay
> > for
> > > someone else to waste an hour, as long as it's not yours, right?
> >
> > Had I made the mistake, I would have replaced the gasket, so yes I would
> > take MY time to do it if I had been the one to improperly. I also
wouldn't
> > consider it a waste because I would not be comfortable sending an engine
> out
> > the door with a possibly compromised part of any sort.
> >
> > Another
> > > one of those cases where you'll also tell him how long it will take
too.
> > > You sure you could remove the valve cover, all the rockers and
pushrods,
> > all
> > > head bolts, clean all gasket surfaces, re-assemble including run
through
> > the
> > > torque sequence in an hour? Is that based on comparison to your
> personal
> > > best or just your average times for that job?
> >
> > In fact I probably could do the job in an hour on an engine stand. Maybe
a
> > bit more, but again I would rather do it on the engine stand than have a
> > pissed off customer stranded somewhere because of something that was
done
> > improperly in my shop.
> >
> > > Why does the cost even come into this, the mere $40? Cost
shouldn't
> > > even factor into this. It's either right or it's not.
> >
> > Exactly, and its not right. The $40 amount was stated because it shows
> that
> > the engine builder would not have a large outlay to fix the issue.
> >
> > Will the head gasket
> > > only fail if it were a mere $40 risk? What about the use of torque to
> > yield
> > > head bolts at about $50 a set? May not be used on the old technology
> 4.0,
> > > but we're talking in generalities about a general practice here. When
> > your
> > > mere $40 got up to a mere $100 with the valve cover gasket and bolts
> would
> > > it then be okay to switch them without replacing the gasket?
> >
> > No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?
> >
> > > What if you
> > > were doing a northstar 8 cyl and a bolt had to be switched from one
bank
> > to
> > > the other? DOHC, timing chain and timing sequence, four cams to
remove,
> > > hours of work, all head bolts to replace, risk of thread damage to the
> > > aluminum block every time the bolts are turned etc. Would you still
do
> it
> > > if it were a mere $250?
> >
> > If I felt the engine was compromised in any way, then you are damn right
I
> > would. Why should a customer have to assume the risk for something he
paid
> > good money to have done properly?
> >
> > > Tell us about your experience in the field and help us gain some
> > confidence
> > > in your advise.
> > > Steve
> >
> > First off, most people that read this newsgroup are comfortable with my
> > advice. So maybe the "us" you refer to includes your beagle? Second, I
> > started working in a racing engine shop when I was 15 years old, mainly
> > doing engine disassembly and cleanup so that the owner could assess the
> > condition of all the components that might be reused in a rebuild or
> racing
> > engine buildup. I then progressed to doing cylinder head reconditioning
> > which included valve jobs, seat and guide replacement, milling, crack
> > detection. From there I started doing block preparation including oil
> system
> > modifications, boring, honing, align bore and honing, cylinder sleeving,
> > converting 2 bolt mains to 4 bolt, dry sump oil system mods, block
> decking,
> > rod resizing, engine balancing.
> >
> > I have also done extensive cylinder head and intake manifold porting,
> > carburetor booster flow balancing using a Superflow flowbench. I've done
> > massive numbers of carb rebuilds for street, boat, and racing engines
> > (mainly Holley's).
> >
> > The very first engine I ever built or rebuilt was a 351C drag car engine
> > that turned over 8500RPM and ran a 9.93 quater mile in a 2600lb car.
This
> > was over 20 years ago, so the times may not be impressive by todays
> > standards. Yes this was done with supervision, but I only asked
questions
> > when I needed help and my boss watched every step. I was soon left on my
> own
> > to do racing engine design (parts selection, machining, etc.) and
> assembly.
> > Since that time I have built well over 150 engines.
> >
> > I also travelled to 3 racetracks with 3 different cars (1 drag, 2 oval
> > track) to do tuning, troubleshooting, etc. My advice was highly regarded
> by
> > many people, even at the age of 16 or so when I started doing this. Many
> of
> > the top racers in the area brought their carburetors to our shop for me
to
> > do my thing.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, and I really don't like tooting my own horn.
> >
> > So is that enough for you Steve?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> >
>
>
05-12-2004, 10:35 AM
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Throw all you books out the freaking window will you!
Have you ever put the 'wrong' head on an engine?
Have you ever put a head 'so wrong' on an engine you have to glue up the
water jacket holes so they aren't open to the air?
Have you ever put a head on made for one sized piston on a block with a
totally different piston in it? That means the valve dome doesn't match
the cylinder hole. You know, where that pesky metal compression
'holding' ring in the head gasket goes.
I have.
You are wrong, sorry.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Steve G wrote:
>
> Actually not enough for me Chris.
<snip>
Have you ever put the 'wrong' head on an engine?
Have you ever put a head 'so wrong' on an engine you have to glue up the
water jacket holes so they aren't open to the air?
Have you ever put a head on made for one sized piston on a block with a
totally different piston in it? That means the valve dome doesn't match
the cylinder hole. You know, where that pesky metal compression
'holding' ring in the head gasket goes.
I have.
You are wrong, sorry.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Steve G wrote:
>
> Actually not enough for me Chris.
<snip>
05-12-2004, 10:35 AM
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Throw all you books out the freaking window will you!
Have you ever put the 'wrong' head on an engine?
Have you ever put a head 'so wrong' on an engine you have to glue up the
water jacket holes so they aren't open to the air?
Have you ever put a head on made for one sized piston on a block with a
totally different piston in it? That means the valve dome doesn't match
the cylinder hole. You know, where that pesky metal compression
'holding' ring in the head gasket goes.
I have.
You are wrong, sorry.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Steve G wrote:
>
> Actually not enough for me Chris.
<snip>
Have you ever put the 'wrong' head on an engine?
Have you ever put a head 'so wrong' on an engine you have to glue up the
water jacket holes so they aren't open to the air?
Have you ever put a head on made for one sized piston on a block with a
totally different piston in it? That means the valve dome doesn't match
the cylinder hole. You know, where that pesky metal compression
'holding' ring in the head gasket goes.
I have.
You are wrong, sorry.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Steve G wrote:
>
> Actually not enough for me Chris.
<snip>
05-12-2004, 10:35 AM
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Switching Head bolts
Throw all you books out the freaking window will you!
Have you ever put the 'wrong' head on an engine?
Have you ever put a head 'so wrong' on an engine you have to glue up the
water jacket holes so they aren't open to the air?
Have you ever put a head on made for one sized piston on a block with a
totally different piston in it? That means the valve dome doesn't match
the cylinder hole. You know, where that pesky metal compression
'holding' ring in the head gasket goes.
I have.
You are wrong, sorry.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Steve G wrote:
>
> Actually not enough for me Chris.
<snip>
Have you ever put the 'wrong' head on an engine?
Have you ever put a head 'so wrong' on an engine you have to glue up the
water jacket holes so they aren't open to the air?
Have you ever put a head on made for one sized piston on a block with a
totally different piston in it? That means the valve dome doesn't match
the cylinder hole. You know, where that pesky metal compression
'holding' ring in the head gasket goes.
I have.
You are wrong, sorry.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Steve G wrote:
>
> Actually not enough for me Chris.
<snip>