<VV> Head Torque

[JVHRoberts at aol.com]

Years ago, I looked at these heads and came to exactly the same conclusion,  
given that there isn't that much metal tying all three together. So, I started 
 torquing them like it was a 911 engine. 
 
I actually don't agree. If you torque the center cylinder first, I don't  
think it'll come anywhere near fully crushing the inner edges of the outboard  
cylinder head gaskets. I don't think the head is stiff enough to do that. 
 
I also don't have the patience to torque heads in anymore than 2. MAYBE  
three steps. I don't think it buys you anything once you get past about the 1/3  
full torque point. So, I torque half way, then the rest of the way. Never had a 
 leaker!! 
 
In my ever so humble opinion... <g>
 
John
 
 
In a message dated 9/12/2005 12:37:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
vairologist at juno.com writes:

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?
_______________________________________________