Ignoring the obviously low friction graphite and moly anti-seize formulations, the typical anti-seize that you'd find in the auto parts store is probably in the .16 to .18 K factor range. They don't give the lightly lubed (without anti-seize) K factor for comparison.
You *assumed* that I looked at all. All I said was that I had wondered about it - never said I searched for the answer.
OK
Thanks - you're too kind. I hope you don't lose any sleep over it. Probably the bigger problem in aerospace is the inadvertent mixing up of metric and British units.
"Looks like it very well may be" sounds like you're *assuming* again.
8^)
The page doesn't give the K factor for lightly lubed parts without anti-seize (the norm) for comparison - so we still don't know from that page other than their blanket statement that the torque for a given clamping force will be less. I will do a little search and see what comes up.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Oops - I'm noticing that the statement on Loctites page about "lower torque" with anti-seize is when compared to *DRY* parts. So it is a half-truth (marketing gimmick to catch the unwary) to say that anti-seize reduces required torque, especially when the industry norm is for lightly-lubed parts and that statement is for dry parts.
Just a quick search turned up this document:
formatting link
which they state that "torque rating of oily bolts should be reducedto 85% of listing if Nickel Anti-Seize is used". That's with a K factorof 0.13. So that means that an oily bolt (no anti-seize) would be 0.153K factor. Hmmm - that's strangely close to 0.16 for the very commoncopper based anti-seize found in auto parts stores. Sounds like myassumption was correct after all. Actually based on that, it looks like copper anti-seize requires slightly *MORE* torque for equivalent clamping.
Funny thing is that this document: http://65.213.72.112/tds5/docs/C5-ACBAS.pdfon Loctite's copper based C5-A product leaves out any comparisonswhatsoever to lightly lubed parts - only giving and mentioning K factorcompared to "solvent cleaned, not lubricated" parts. Wonder why(because then people would see that their general "lower torque" claimdoesn't really apply to properly lubed parts when compared to the copperanti-seize?).
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Not true for the garden variety copper anti-seize (and probably whatever the silver/grey looking stuff - aluminum? - that you also commonly find in auto parts stores). According to Loctite's own TSD's, the copper anti-seize torque (K) factor is almost identical to lightly lubed parts with no anti-seize (actually the copper anti-seize is slightly higher K, but not by much - probably overlapping torque vs. clamping force when non-repeatibility is accounted for). So for the type that 95+% of us (DIY'ers and professional mechanics) use, torque difference between lightly lubed parts and anti-seized parts is, for all intents and purposes, the same (with theoretically slightly more torque required for the copper anti-seize - but so close - 15 point something vs. 16 - that the difference can be ignored).
If you carefully read Loctite's generic statement about less torque required for same clamping force using their anti-seize products, you see that that is compared to *dry* (non-lubed) parts (with a K factor of
0.27 dry vs 0.11 to 0.18 over their entire line of anti-seize products). But when one digs down deeper into their product sheets (TSD's), one sees that the "less torque required" statement is only
*generally* true for their more exotic "slipperier" (to use STP's outlawed verbiage from years ago) anti-seize products, such as moly or graphited anti-seize, when compared to *lightly lubed* parts, but that their own copper anti-seize is an exception to that - and they are careful to avoid the "less torque required" statement in the TSD on their copper anti-seize because it isn't true when compared to lightly lubed parts.
See my post just prior to this one in this thread for links to Loctite's own TSD's that prove the above.
Good point. I know I generally go by my calibrated arms for spark plugs. Actually, when I change the plugs on my Concorde about 6 months ago, I believe I did use a torque wrench since they are very easily accessible and will be in there for 70 to 80k miles (and I did sparingly use anti-seize - the copper kind that I bought at the auto parts store - and avoided getting it anywhere near the electrode end of the threads).
One thing I know: After this thread, I will never have to look up "seize" to find out if it is "seize" or "sieze". 8^)
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
You made the claim that misfires are "a whole lot easier to detect" on an OBD2 system, merely brushing it off with a go pay for it doesn't do a whole lot to support your assertion.
Do you even know what hexidecimal mode needs to accessed on a Ford in order to view misfire data? Is the same hexidecimal mode data necessary to view misfire data on a GM or Chrysler product?
OBD2 is OBD2 is OBD2 for the basics. Misfire data is "the basics". How transmission, ABS, etc is addressed differs from manufacturer to manufacturer. Don't want to pay the experts? Buy yourself an "auto Xray" scanner - still cheaper than replacing un-needed parts. That's what I did.
No you don't. When I was replacing cyl heads on a daily basis (You wouldn't remember the problems Toyota had with cracked heads on the 2T
1600 back in '70-'71) I could torque to within 5 ft lbs of spec by feel. Always did the final with a calibrated torque wrench, but it was fun seeing how close I could get. Back when they used points and my eyesight was still excellent, I adjusted points by eye, and checked with the dwell meter. Got them within a degree or two virtually every time. Adjusted the valves on T and K series Toyotas without feeler guages - and got them closer than most guys got them with feeler guages.
How do you get your torque wrench onto the plugs on the back of a Trans Sport 3.8, or a NewYorker 3.0? Or the back plugs on an Aerostar? I'll tell you how - either you pull the engine, or you don't.
And for your information, on engines I serviced, I did NOT have problems. And I serviced an awfull lot over the years. I got a lot of other guys problems because they knew I didn't give up, and when I was done it was fixed. Didn't matter if it was a swather, snowmobile, Austin, VW, Chevy, Rover, Renault, or a backhoe - or just about anything in between, I've had to work on them at one time or another.
Very wrong. For proof, one need only needs to be aware of the number of different communication protocols allowed to meet OBD2 standards.
Guess what? Engine data is addressed differently from manufacturer to manufacturer just as you mention transmission and ABS.
Why would I want to take a step backwards. Occasional use certainly did not direct my OBD2 equipment buying criteria.
Fuck cheaper, you claimed that misfires were easier to detect with OBD2, you still haven't explained how. Paying an expert or buying an auto Xray scan tool do not satisfy the claim you made.
Great, now tell me which hexidecimal mode allows you to view misfire counts and on which cylinders they're occuring. (basic OBD2 stuff, which according to you doesn't change from manufacturer to manufacturer)
These cylinder heads were cracking because anti-seize wasn't used on the sparkplug threads?
Oh goody, another mechanic claiming to have a torque wrench arm, except this one managed to accomplish this skill a mere one year out of hs apprenticeship. Ya know Clare, with each passing day, you become less an less believeable.
Like, who can't/couldn't do that?
If you weren't using feeler gauges, how would you know how close you got them or how close the other guys got them? (the bull shit is getting pretty deep here)
Same way you get a ratchet handle in there.
Remove the air cleaner assembly, (two cap screws, disconnect the duct work,) tons of room.
Are Aerostars hard to do? Funny, I never had problems. Though they paid quite well...
Let's see, from my recollections, at least two of the above mentioned vehicles are ones that -you- personally own[ed]. (I smell poser)
Gee, all I can think of to say is Good Grief!
That's not the impression you gave in your earlier posts. (or were your earlier posts pointless?)
Had you pegged did they?
Well, I gotta tell you, you aren't the first person to forward his resume to me via an automotive newsgroup. How are you at changing clutches in Toyota Celica Turbo Altrac?
Whatever happened to,,, never never ever put things in your car that can get into the combustion process ....i.e. cooling system, oil, or fuel system, unless they are approved for use in those areas as to their effect on combustion sensors, mainly oxygen sensor and of course the catalysts.
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.