We weren't able to find a book for this car, quick question, can anyone PLEASE tell me the torque for the rocker arms on a 66 mustang 289????? Thx Kelly *growing grays in Jax*
- posted
20 years ago
We weren't able to find a book for this car, quick question, can anyone PLEASE tell me the torque for the rocker arms on a 66 mustang 289????? Thx Kelly *growing grays in Jax*
The shop manual indicates 60-70 ft.-lbs.
Glad a friend came thru with a book, so you know torque on rockers for a 66
289 is 17-23. Thanks for the quick response all the same tho. Kelly *who isn't so gray now*
Wow...I don't know where the 60-70 ft/lbs came from......kinda much for a
5/16 thread. Just kinda proves you need to be sure of "internet facts".When we are dealing with old technology motors, we can survive with SAE torque specs for the bolt size and thread pitch..... bolting cast iron to cast iron is a no brainer..... When we deal in dissimilar metals, where clamping force is a big deal, we can get exotic....
By and large, we can rely on the SAE charts for many fastening specs with little trouble.... By no means definitive,
In terms of raw computing power, the PC still wins, hands down, but in terms of inputs and outputs that the equipment must deal with and everything that needs to be precise in order for the system to function, I agree completely. It's amazing to think of all the things that the PCM is responsible for, and how reliable it must be. I'm sure most have seen the "if cars ran like Windows" jokes floating around the internet, but the truth is, if the car PCM had to be rebooted as much as your Windows box, you wouldn't be very safe nor get very far. In my years of playing with Fox Mustangs, I've seen all of two EEC-IV failures. In that time, I've passed many PCs down the line or just to the trash.
JS
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.