Originally Posted by williams805
(Post 1157984)
I did 78 ft lbs. I thought I read from either Emilio or Andrew about not going over 85 or something like that. Don't quote me on that but it's what I recall. I figured that was close enough to 80. + The lube on thread and nut and washer I figured that was plenty.
Thanks for your input. I did 70 with assembly lube. |
Originally Posted by 18psi
(Post 1157951)
so let me get this straight: -you ask a question that has been discussed and easily found -you tell everyone to spoon feed you the info cause you're too special to adhere to the rules everyone else does -you call people out -you conclude the thread with calling everyone a bs'er Congrats. I don't think you coulda been more of a douche if you actually tried. Listen guy, you've been up my ass since I've started this forum. I've done nothing but ask questions and all I get is shit from you and a select few others. I don't care how many times a question has been asked and discussed or how many thread repeats I create. There is always someone new to input their thoughts. Novelty to a stale topic and that's what I look for when searching for answers on a forum. It apparent so far that every newbie or junior member has positive input to my questions and most of the senior\elite I've encountered have bitterness and insults. |
What the hell is a Hear Stud?
|
2 Attachment(s)
This thread is now about SCUD
TL;DR Take a German V2, make it simpler, put it on a truck, make a million of them http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-scotland1.jpg Scud is a series of tactical ballistic missiles developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was exported widely to other countries, in particular third world countries. The term comes from the NATO reporting name Scud which was attached to the missile by Western intelligence agencies. The Russian names for the missile are the R-11 (the first version), R-17 and R-300 Elbrus (later developments). The name Scud has been widely used to refer to these missiles and the wide variety of derivative variants developed in other countries based on the Soviet design. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1408167551 (I've been to this museum when I was 6) The first use of the term Scud was in the NATO name SS-1b Scud-A, applied to the R-11 ballistic missile. The earlier R-1 missile had carried the NATO name SS-1 Scunner, but was of a very different design, almost directly a copy of the German V-2. The R-11 used technology gained from the V-2 as well, but was a new design, smaller and differently shaped than the V-2 and R-1 weapons. The R-11 was developed by the Korolyev OKB[1] and entered service in 1957. The most revolutionary innovation in the R-11 was the engine, designed by A.M. Isaev. Far simpler than the V-2's multi-chamber design, and employing an anti-oscillation baffle to prevent chugging, it was a forerunner to the larger engines used in Soviet launch vehicles. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1408167551 DAT ASS Further developed variants were the R-300 Elbrus / SS-1c Scud-B in 1961 and the SS-1d Scud-C in 1965, both of which could carry either a conventional high-explosive, a 5- to 80-kiloton nuclear, or a chemical (thickened VX) warhead. The SS-1e Scud-D variant developed in the 1980s can deliver a terminally guided warhead capable of greater precision. All models are 11.35 m (37.2 ft) long (except Scud-A, which is 1 m (3 ft 3 in) shorter) and 0.88 m (2 ft 11 in) in diameter (DAT GIRTH). They are propelled by a single liquid-fuel rocket engine burning kerosene and corrosion inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA) with UDMH, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (Russian TG-02 like German Tonka 250) as liquid igniter (self ignition with IRFNA) in all models. The missile reaches a maximum speed of mach 5. |
Originally Posted by jandjracing_58
(Post 1158002)
Listen guy, you've been up my ass since I've started this forum. I've done nothing but ask questions and all I get is shit from you and a select few others.
I don't care how many times a question has been asked and discussed or how many thread repeats I create. There is always someone new to input their thoughts. Novelty to a stale topic and that's what I look for when searching for answers on a forum. It apparent so far that every newbie or junior member has positive input to my questions and most of the senior\elite I've encountered have bitterness and insults. Learn to search like the rest of the peasants |
I just torque it until I hear a loud crack sound, then I move on to the next one and repeat until I'm done with all. Has worked great on the 50+ heads I've gone through! That means I have lots of experience with this
|
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 1158016)
What the hell is a Hear Stud?
|
Don't want to be special. I just don't have time to sit around and search through the 24 pages inside of the 2600 thread inside 9 topics, just to question who is full of shit and who knows what they're talking about.
A newbie member with 2 total posts maybe the best engine builder this site has ever seen and a member with .. Say, 18000 posts may be an incompetent tit with regurgitated information. So numbers and member title mean nothing on any forum. So far I've met 2 members I can trust and it's because I know their background and what they do. |
Originally Posted by jandjracing_58
(Post 1157734)
First off, please don't give me shit about repeat threads, it takes 10 second to reply this post.
Originally Posted by jandjracing_58
(Post 1158057)
I just don't have time to sit around and search through the 24 pages inside of the 2600 thread inside 9 topics, just to question who is full of shit and who knows what they're talking about.
As to who is full of shit, everyone is full of shit. This is the goddamn internet, are you new here? We already know who is full of shit and who knows what they are talking about because we don't just come here to mooch knowledge, we participate and engage in lively discussion on a daily basis. This is where the guys with the 1k+ post counts come from. Read and follow along and participate. Don't just barge in here, demand help and then get butthurt when we decide we don't want to spoon feed you. We have invested the time to be participating members here on the forum, why is it unacceptable for us to desire the same of you? Also, dude... I'm not sure I would trust the word of a bunch of random dudes on the internet about torque specs for an engine build project without spending some significant time verifying that data.
Originally Posted by jandjracing_58
(Post 1158057)
So far I've met 2 members I can trust and it's because I know their background and what they do.
|
Originally Posted by asmasm
(Post 1157931)
Above thread should be a must read for anyone using ARP fasteners - All 4 pages. Its interesting that ARP has a "one size fits all instruction sheet" that just does not work for the BP cylinder head. Torque to yield should be the stud or bolt not the head casting... |
Originally Posted by EO2K
(Post 1158084)
Great! I'm sure they warned you about this place too. Join the "community" here at MT and get to know some more people. I briefly searched back through your post history and discovered you are in the middle of naturally aspirated PTE type build that I'm sure a lot of people would love to read about. Go start a build thread and link it in your sig. Fill it with pics and tell us all about your plans. We will be much more likely to help you after we get to know you. It's not that hard, this isn't You know, I think your right. I will compile a write up and post it. Your also right about expecting answers, my apologies.. Sometimes I get too busy to take the time. I figured inside this forum there is some one with the knowledge on hand or knows it well. |
Originally Posted by 99Racer
(Post 1158117)
Above thread should be a must read for anyone using ARP fasteners - All 4 pages.
Its interesting that ARP has a "one size fits all instruction sheet" that just does not work for the BP cylinder head. Torque to yield should be the stud or bolt not the head casting... |
For what its worth I've done the 3-step method (30lb, 45lb, 60lb) on at least 2 BP's with ARP head studs with great results.
|
Originally Posted by 18psi
(Post 1158137)
For what its worth I've done the 3-step method (30lb, 45lb, 60lb) on at least 2 BP's with ARP head studs with great results.
|
Originally Posted by 18psi
(Post 1158137)
For what its worth I've done the 3-step method (30lb, 45lb, 60lb) on at least 2 BP's with ARP head studs with great results.
|
Originally Posted by concealer404
(Post 1157887)
You're going to use an ARP product because they're superior, but choose to ignore their instructions?
Curious choice. I torque ARP studs to 65ft.lbs. |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 1158317)
I torque ARP studs to 65ft.lbs.
|
I just did a fresh rebuild with ARPs. Haven't even fired it up. I torque to the sheet indicated 80. Any reason to undo it and go back to the 65 since nothing bad happened?
|
If it did any damage, it's already been done. Go with it and hope for the best. 80 sounded way to high, I torqued mine at 70 which is 5 pounds over factory recommended and I'm nervous to see what happens. I will report back with the result of the tune.
|
Originally Posted by ILoveOffRamps
(Post 1158412)
I just did a fresh rebuild with ARPs. Haven't even fired it up. I torque to the sheet indicated 80. Any reason to undo it and go back to the 65 since nothing bad happened?
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands