Torque Spec

Hi All,

I am trying to find the torque specs for the caps that hold the overhead cam in for a 2.2 ltr engine on a dodge shadow. I know this motor is in several other cars. It is not the turbo. This particular year is 1987.

Thanks for any help provided!! John

Reply to
John
Loading thread data ...

Okay, so I finally found it on a WEB page and the torque is 215 inch lbs. Great info to have so I can properly torque the bolts down. However, my torque wrench is a foot lb torque wrench. I do not know what the conversion would be???

Please help.. Thanks John

Reply to
John

Divide the torque in inch pounds by 12 to convert to ft-lbs. The problem is that you will find that your torque range may not go down far enough if the spec. is very small.

Reply to
Rajsircar

There are 12 inches to the foot last I knew. The problem is that a wrench that indicates units of ft-lb will likely not be very accurate that this low of a torque value.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

Reply to
Sharon K. Cooke

Okay, I pretty much deserved that one. As long as I have been working on cars and using a torque wrench I never had to convert before. I obviously never put two and two together and figured out that the foot lbs and inch lbs on the torque wrench were the same thing as actual feet and inches. With that said, I do appreciate the info you all provided.

Happy New Years to you all John

Reply to
John

I'd still be hesitant to use a torque wrench with units of ft-lbs to tighten a fastener with torque specified in in-lbs. This is usually done for a reason, and the reason is that the torque is likely fairly critical. Most large torque wrenches (those with ft-lb units) will handle up to 250 ft-lb or so. So 18 is at the lower limit of their capacity and their accuracy may not be all that great there. Contrast this with an in-lb wrench where 215 is probably well into its working range. I own both and use the right one for the job based on the units specified for the fastener.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

"John" wrote in news:2NQIb.277$ snipped-for-privacy@news3.news.adelphia.net:

Go to the site below John, and download the current version of Convert software, works great and it is Free.

formatting link

Reply to
tango

Yes, that is technically correct. However, the terms are used loosely and interchangeably quite often and anyone with half a brain can tell from the context what is meant.

The fact that parts aren't safety wired on cars and even self-locking fasteners are rarely used, means that some overtorquing is probably prudent. As long as the torque isn't enough to damage the fastener, who cares? I'd be much more concerned about the folks that don't use a torque wrench at all and tighten by feel or, worse yet, with an air wrench. That is a much bigger problem, IMO, than the torque values specified by Detriot.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

Nomen Nescio wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@dizum.com:

Technically speaking you may be right, but in the real world it is usually referred to as ft lbs and inch lbs by non technical people who don't have {chuckle} your vast automotive knowledge.

Reply to
tango

That may be an SI unit "rule" that doesn't apply to non-SI units. FWIW, I notice that, of the FSM's I currently have (1 Chrysler, 1 Ford, 1 Cadllillac), the Ford and Cadillac manuals list torques with SI first (force?length) with non-SI in parentheses also with the order as force-length. The Chrysler FSM is the same except they give the non-SI torque units as length-force. As you imply, sans man-made arbitrary rules about the order of the units, from a pure physics and mathematical balance of units standpoint, ft-lbs is the same as lb-ft, so it is not something that I get anal about, especially in casual conversation or on internet forums (unless the issue is specifically being discussed).

I haven't studied the mfgrs.' recommended torques vs. the engineering fasteners torque charts, but a couple of things do need to be accounted for: (1) Any given table will be for specific metals (i.e., grade 5, grade 8, etc.), and (2) What the percent of yield that that particular torque chart is for. Some are 70%, some 80%, some 90%, and for certain applications, like some cylinder head applications with specially designed bolts, there are torque-to-yield to gaurantee residual clamping forces.

To say that mfgrs.' torque specs. contradict the engineering charts, one would have to know the metals involved and the design engineer's target percent yield and any other over-riding factors in the application.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

As is the case also in my '99 Chrysler LH vehicle FSM, but only for the non-SI units (all SI torque units are given as force?length in all three of the FSM's I currently own).

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

It's likewise been a while since I looked at the engineering torque recommendations, but I believe that they often specify clean and lightly lubricated threads. Many automotic applications specifically require dry threads (lug nuts for example and many suspension fasteners). So, in addition to material, you need to ensure that you are comparing apples to apples with respect to lubrication. Dry thread torque values will be much higher than for lubricated threads to achieve the same clamping force.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

All true. My understanding is that unless stated otherwise, torque specs. are for lightly lubricated threads (one common exception being lug nuts as you pointed out).

I've always wondered about the "lightly" part of the "lightly lubricated threads". I mean, assuming that whatever the lubricant is gets squeezed down to a molecules thin layer, what the heck difference does it make if it is lightly lubed or heavily lubed. The only place I can think it would make a difference is in blind holes (incompressible fluid lock) - and perhaps it's always stated as *lightly* lubed to make it as generally applicable as possible (to cover blind hole situations).

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

That would be my guess, but it is only a guess.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.