Studs discussion

Crack85

Active member
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
2,616
Reaction score
0
Location
Midland, Tx
I would say finger tight and then back off slightly. Bottoming out with the stud not having any tension on it is fine, but the problem is (especially with a higher friction lube) is that you often put tension on the stud against the block when tightening the fastener



When you tension the stud against the bottom of the hole, you compound that tension with the final torque applied to the fastener.


Makes sense.
 

webb06

Active member
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
3,892
Reaction score
12
Location
Seneca, MO
I would say finger tight and then back off slightly. Bottoming out with the stud not having any tension on it is fine, but the problem is (especially with a higher friction lube) is that you often put tension on the stud against the block when tightening the fastener

When you tension the stud against the bottom of the hole, you compound that tension with the final torque applied to the fastener.

The stud is pulling away from the block not pushing in to it.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
5,868
Reaction score
0
Location
Athens, IL
The problem is not that the stud pushes the bottom out the hole. They split on a casting line about 1.5" up. They only do it in two holes on each side of the block next to the lifter galley. It is thinner there and susceptible to cracking. The rest are good. I've got a few cracked blocks here to prove it.

Fwiw our pulling truck is torqued to 250 on all the holes except the four weak ones that are torqued to 225. All with arp's and the newest lube. Never used a drop of coolant. We have since been doing all of them that way and have not had one single issue to date.
 

dsberman94

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
11,571
Reaction score
65
Location
Pennsylvania
The problem is not that the stud pushes the bottom out the hole. They split on a casting line about 1.5" up. They only do it in two holes on each side of the block next to the lifter galley. It is thinner there and susceptible to cracking. The rest are good. I've got a few cracked blocks here to prove it.

Fwiw our pulling truck is torqued to 250 on all the holes except the four weak ones that are torqued to 225. All with arp's and the newest lube. Never used a drop of coolant. We have since been doing all of them that way and have not had one single issue to date.

which ones are the 2 weak ones? pics? i understand 4 are weak but only 2 per side and i assume they are the same on both sides. our instructions from ARP say 275. now thinking do all to 275 except for those weak ones at 250. opinions on this? this is on a 6.4 BTW.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
5,868
Reaction score
0
Location
Athens, IL
Yeah. The ones next to the lifter valley second from the ends. If you have the heads off and look you see the physically less material around those two studs on each side.

Give it a try, can't hurt. We run less # than that and haven't blown any.

7a6yzazy.jpg


You can see the two stud holes in this picture have noticeably less material.
 

Cknox121

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
0
Location
Augusta GA
The problem is not that the stud pushes the bottom out the hole. They split on a casting line about 1.5" up. They only do it in two holes on each side of the block next to the lifter galley. It is thinner there and susceptible to cracking. The rest are good. I've got a few cracked blocks here to prove it.

Fwiw our pulling truck is torqued to 250 on all the holes except the four weak ones that are torqued to 225. All with arp's and the newest lube. Never used a drop of coolant. We have since been doing all of them that way and have not had one single issue to date.


Answered my question!

Was going to email you concerning this. Glad to see you have figured something out that works and keeps the block from cracking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

dsberman94

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
11,571
Reaction score
65
Location
Pennsylvania
that is very noticable. thanks for the pic. i wouldn't have known what you were talking about without the pic until this weekend anyway since thats when were doing the work. might as well give it a try doing what i said. if you guys torqued a built pulling truck to less i can't see it being all that bad to do what i was saying.
 

powerstrokedkid87

Active member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
2,824
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
So just by being finger tight is enough to preload to the point to cracking?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

typically when we do them, make sure the bottom of the holes are cleaned out, run them hand tight in (no ratchets, or allen wrenched), and back it off slightly, works well from what we have seen so far. To each their own!
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
5,868
Reaction score
0
Location
Athens, IL
The problem is not that the stud pushes the bottom out the hole. They split on a casting line about 1.5" up

Ill repost this.

Once again not splitting the bottom of the hole.

They crack because of too much torque. I guarantee to I can take an arp with new line torque it too high and split a block every time. But only in those holes. 100% of the cracked blocks I see are cracked in the same spot. Only way to stop is is lower torque. I agree with not torquing the stud in the block, but it is not the cause.
 

MINK

New member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
5,714
Reaction score
0
Location
London,OH
Mine have been torqued twice, first to 285 and now 305 - Never had any issues YET LOL
 

dsberman94

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
11,571
Reaction score
65
Location
Pennsylvania
So here's another question. Did you guys back pressure off the studs before going to the next torque level. I've read some guys do it but the directions say not to. Also what increments did you go up by. Use the directions increments or you went by some of your own?
 

bigrpowr

<How I Fly
Administrator
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,240
Reaction score
1
Yeah. The ones next to the lifter valley second from the ends. If you have the heads off and look you see the physically less material around those two studs on each side.

Give it a try, can't hurt. We run less # than that and haven't blown any.

7a6yzazy.jpg


You can see the two stud holes in this picture have noticeably less material.

funny you post this, i was actually asking a buddy who was doing hg's on a 6.4 today, about using less tq in the stressed areas. he knows nothing about the block cracking problems , but it makes sense to a person such as myself.

i'm intersted to see how the h-13 works, i have faith that this will be our better option, but no mathematical data or metalurgy to back up such statements. i just like the idea of less tq stress on the block. what say you ?
 

09stroker

New member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
1,300
Reaction score
1
Location
Texas
Sh!t I snugged my studs when I installed them. If there is a crack do they alway push water to the oil? I haven't seen that so I'm assuming they aren't cracked?
Kinda goes with what Morgan is saying
 

B585Ford

New member
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
0
Location
WV
funny you post this, i was actually asking a buddy who was doing hg's on a 6.4 today, about using less tq in the stressed areas. he knows nothing about the block cracking problems , but it makes sense to a person such as myself.

i'm intersted to see how the h-13 works, i have faith that this will be our better option, but no mathematical data or metalurgy to back up such statements. i just like the idea of less tq stress on the block. what say you ?

I am glad you asked that question cause I have seen a lot of different answers. I am going to throw my best GUESS at this cause I am interested to hear where I am wrong. Initially, the lower torque values may not be reducing the clamping force and ultimately stress on the block would be same cause the stud is stretching less so less torque on the stud with the torque wrench does not necessarily mean less clamping force. BUT because the stud would be less prone to stretching when at WOT, you may ultimately be able to apply LESS clamping force initially and get away with it compared to the standard APR 2000s because they would stretch a little more during WOT. Of course, the stronger stud will only help reduce the stress on the block if the manufacturer calcuated the recommended torque values to provide less clamping force than the ARP 2000s.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
5,868
Reaction score
0
Location
Athens, IL
Well here's how it is, it takes xxxx pressure (torque) on a 16mm stud (6.4 size) to achieve xxxx clamping force for the given stretch of the psi (tensile strength) of said stud material.

Let's say it takes xxxxx psi of clamping force over the 3.87 bore (6.4 standard bore size) and three different stud brands do it at three different torques. It doesn't matter what the spec is. The fact that the same size studs apply the same clamping force over the same area = same stress in the block.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Top