Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Charles, post: 1009813, member: 103"] I didn't propose the suggestion, but I think I understood his intent, being that the reduced torque value on the large M16 studs might not place the fastener into it's elastic region, meaning that for the ones with severely reduced torque values the fastener might just be a rigid piece that would not react to any loss of crush volume from say headgasket thickness, head or block distortion in the heat of the moment. The other fasteners would be responsible for carrying the load at that time and keeping things in check as those under the elastic torque value might just start dropping clamp like nobody's business. Like a chain between a truck and a concrete wall if you moved the truck back 1" toward the wall after tensioning the chain, the force would basically disappear as the chain would be inelastic and drop all tension, whereas a strap would still be very much tensioned if it were tensioned hard and then allowed to roll back an inch. It was just a suggestion by another that seemed logical. If the fasteners never stretch, and the blocks always fail, then maybe a more elastic fastener is the answer. One that requires less clamp to begin to stretch. This is obviously to avoid the potential issue of the fasteners not reaching this point if the initial load is too low, as might happen if the installed torque value keeps getting backed down without any change to the fastener that was originally designed for the full value. If they are still in the sweet spot at just over 200 when originally designed for 300+ then obviously it's a non-issue. Just seemed like maybe the fastener initial clamp to pre-stretch the studs was too much for the blocks. Maybe not. It was simply suggested, since you're already headed down that path hard given the multiple reductions in installed torque. If a 6.0 holds the cylinder pressure with an M14 and doesn't crack the block then it's not even hypothetical. If the 6.0 studs would lift heads all day in a 6.4, then again, it wouldn't be hypothetical anymore for the opposite reason. Just seemed interesting if the 6.0's don't have block issues with studs, maybe those are better suited. Maybe an M14 shank with an M16 enlarged threaded end would work in that case. In fact, a Deutz engine I just rebuild has headbolts like that. Large threads with a reduced shank on the bolt to get the bolt into the elastic region without retarded torque/clamp. It was just something interesting. If the 6.0 stud strength would never hold heads down on a CR6.4 then nevermind. [/QUOTE]