Switching Head bolts

Yes, I gave the R&R guy the jeep with the 4.2L block (head was removed). The R&R guy took out the engine and the machine shop picked it up. Machine shop took the block, honed it out to 60 over, replaced with new cam,

10/10 crank, bearings, oil pump, timing gears, other internal parts I'm probably forgetting and attached my freshly machined 4.0L head to it. Buttoned it up and sent it back to the R&R place.

Now it's being put together at the R&R place.

Bill

Yeah, but there's one downside to giving the R&R guy the jeep with the head off. Now, anything that's broken he says or can say that's the way it was when it came in.

So far I've had to replace:

Alternator bracket Starter O2 Sensor - I lost that myself :-( CCV and MAP Sensor tubing (Due to different head)

The fuel line to the fuel rail is now pinched and I know I didn't do that but what can I say.

etc, etc, etc.....

Then they tell me they need to grind the new alternator bracket because it doesn't fit that alternator correctly when the new bracket matches up perfectly to the old one.

blah blah blah ...

It's like Mike said. If I didn't have bad luck I wouldn't have any at all.

Bill

Man, I feel for you.

People like you are one of the main reasons I post so much. I really hate seeing folks being taken. I started working in garages in 67 and have seen good and bad...

I will play the devils advocate on shop fixes and 'mechanics' opinions or if I can, point out an easy fix.

The alternator bracket is a strange one Bill. It needs two different sized tube shims under it and if the timing cover was put on with RTV with no bracket, it, the cover, will leak. The bracket is part of the cover bolts and has to go on when the RTV is wet still.

If they don't have the shims, it won't line up no matter how much the fools grind it....

Mike

86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

William Oliveri wrote:

If you do this without informing the customer that he will be footing the bill prior to doing the work, then you are a thief and a part of the reason why the motoring public in general distrusts the maintenance industry. Perhaps you should consider a career selling shock absorbers at Sears.

---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:

Oh. Well, in that case, never mind.

---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- del@_kills_spammers_rawlinsbrothers.org Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:

Well, they (the R&R guys) took the alternator off so there you go. At this point I'm just happy to get the stupid thing home so I can review and 'correct' anything they might have done.

So not having my own place (garage) really hurts.

Bill

I see you have the same last name as my dad did. That explains a lot of what you typed here.

That still doesn't make it right, even if you did get away with doing it.

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.

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.

Yes, I do. What's your point? It does not apply to Bill's engine.

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.

Nope, never.

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

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

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.

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

No, but then again this doesn't apply here, does it?

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?

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

Wow, I can certainly start some interesting threads!!!!

I value everyone's info and this pro/con exchange is a great learning experience.

Thanks all.

Bill

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 ass", 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

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.

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: