<VV> Head Torque

vairologist at juno.com vairologist at juno.com
Mon Sep 12 15:13:43 EDT 2005


Smitty says;  John I should have not included my last line about being
better than GM engineers.  I lost sight of my goal as you did in your
answers.  I also agree with his sequence as being better than the one in
the shop manuals.  The question was , what makes his sequence better than
anyone elses.  Long ago before I even heard of the man or his book I
reasoned that the cylinders should be treated as three individuals and
cross hatch of the three cylinders should be incorperated into the
overall torquing sequence.  looking at the shop manual for instance #5
and #6 being torqued and leaving the outer end of that cylinder un
compressed could lead to crushing the inboard edge of that gasket.  Do we
both agree on that?  My objection is to people quoting his sequence as
being the only one to use just because he wrote a book.  His sequence
should only be offered as a suggested alternative with the cross hatching
of each cylinder being the important factor.  I by the way, torque heads
in at least 6 steps of increasing torque which makes the sequence of less
importance
> From: JVHRoberts at aol.com
> Subject: Re: <VV> Locked up Engine
> I agree with his head bolt torquing sequence. For one thing, I doubt 
> the pattern used in the shop manual is actually the one GM used on the 
> assembly line. GM probably used multi socket power tools to torque
them! 
> Finch's explanation as to why he chose that pattern is quite
reasonable,  and 
> that's the one I've been using for over 30 years on Corvair engines! 
----------------------------------
> In a message dated 9/11/2005 11:50:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> vairologist at juno.com writes:
-What  makes Richard Finch an authority on torque sequences for heads. 
What  makes his
> sequence any better than any one elses and especially, what makes  
> them better than that of GM engineers?


More information about the VirtualVairs mailing list