[04DeadShort]

Could the guts out of a plastic tensioner be used in the iron ones?

 

[eschaider]

I don't know but I suspect not, Ken. The length of a piston from the cast iron tensioner is 1.348" with the additional 0.200" the spacer adds the plastic tensioner piston would need to be in the neighborhood of 1.548". I would not be surprised to find the difference in the two tensioners is in the depth of the well the piston rides in. As inexpensive as the fix is I would just make a spacer up and leave it at that. I would not use a plastic tensioner in a new build.

Ed

 

[04DeadShort]

Your probably right. Just by looking at the plastic tensioners it appears the outer housing of the piston sleeve is pressed in. Was just a idea since they dont have ratchets like the iron versions.

 

[nightmare302]

So now I need to order a new iron tensioner on the other side? Ugh.

 

[jrgoffin]

12/13 Edit (per Post #219): Thanks for adding that info for McMaster-Carr, Ed, but glad to know that Nik will be able to have more of the spacers made now. Everyone should definitely call SHM: the use of this spacer ring will be a heck of a lot easier for most guys that want to skip over all the hassle of fooling with the ratchets.

So now I need to order a new iron tensioner on the other side? Ugh.

Only if you are upgrading the plastic PRIMARY tensioners to the iron version. If you have them in iron already, it is just a matter of modifying the ratchet, or using a spacer ring beneath the plunger. Ironically, removal of the ratchet and insertion of the spacer will mimic the plastic tensioner, just in a more solid version now.

 

[nightmare302]

Thanks for adding that info for McMaster-Carr, Ed. It's a real shame that Hyland, like so many other places, has depleted stock on 4.6 items and shifted more towards the Coyote and 3V engines. At least there are still creative alternatives for tweaks to the 4.6 than can be found with some searching. The use of this spacer ring will be a heck of a lot easier for most guys that want to skip over all the hassle of fooling with the ratchets.

Only if you are upgrading the plastic PRIMARY tensioners to the iron version. If you have them in iron already, it is just a matter of modifying the ratchet, or using a spacer ring beneath the plunger. Ironically, removal of the ratchet and insertion of the spacer will mimic the plastic tensioner, just in a more solid version now.

My primary tensioners are plastic, my joke was now that I've upgraded the secondary tensioners I have no to upgrade the primaries as well. lol.

 

[CAT600]

Good instincts to err on the cautious side Jeff. These are different engines though. In some ways they have a decided edge over the old pushrod engines and in others they aren't quite so robust.

The 85 ft/lbs with ARP 2000 studs will seal up just about anything except the big bore (3.700") blocks. For reasons that have not been adequately documented the BOSS 5.0 blocks in supercharged form have a tender spot in the head gasket sealing department. There seem to be no shortage of explanations but in the end the single thread of commonality is they have problems selling up.

A site member from Australia CAT600 (Daniel) built one of the first high power (~1000 wheel) supercharged versions of the BOSS block I am aware of. Daniel had some incipient gasket seal problems and ended up having to go to 110 ft/lbs on the ARP 2000 studs to seal up. This is over the top for both the block and the studs - but it seemed to work for his BOSS block. When Daniel built a twin turbo aluminator engine he instinctively took the ARP 2000 head studs to 100 ft/lbs because of his BOSS block experience. Daniel had two blocks crack on him at the root of the head stud borings with this torque.

If you look at ARP recommended torque specs for 7/16" and 11mm studs it has, as politicians say, evolved over time. BTW 7/16" and 11mm are for all intents and purposes the same size. In decimal fractions of an inch 7/16 is 0.4375" and 11mm is 0.4331"! there is only a 4.4 thousandths of an inch difference and the nod goes to the 7/16 side of the table in the size department.

Consider the following published recommendations over time taken from ARP's own catalog;

View attachment 135817

Somehow I have managed to loose my 2010 catalog.so the 2010 figures are unavailable. What is clear form the other catalog's is ARP has 'evolved' their thinking between 2009 and 2011. The earlier years used a lower spec and were probably closer to the mark. In later years higher spec not withstanding ARP 8740 studs began to experience failure at installation. The failure may have been attributable to getting ARP anti-friction lube on the under side of the washer or it could have been for other reasons. The important thing is they began to fail at installation prior to engine startup. The ARP 2000 steel studs never exhibited this premature failure syndrome.

My recommendations for torque specs for the two different steels today are; ARP 8740 studs - 75 ft/lbs and ARP 2000 studs - 85 ft/lbs. Additionally I would not use 8740 studs on a supercharged engine, only on a n/a engine. The fear of the 85 ft/lb torque not sealing up (especially at our boost levels) is unfounded. Unless you have an abnormal combustion event like detonation the 85 ft/lb torque spec will easily seal up a supercharged mod motor. For the Doubting Thomas crowd, Mihovitz who runs substantially more boost than anyone on this site recommends and claims to use 85 ft/lbs for his ARP 2000 head stud torque spec.

There is a wonderful concept called adequacy. It is the polar opposite of an age old racer modicum. The racer modicum goes something like,"If a little is good more is better and too much is not enough"! I recommend the adequacy model, it uses up a lot less parts.

Ed

Hey Ed... I was searching for some info on here (ARP Rod bolt part number 201-6301) and this new thread came up in my returns... interesting you bring this up as im about to revisit this whole area again, going with a new Boss50 combo and aiming for a reliable 1400-1500hp which will test not only head gasket seal but the main cap mods that I finally (after all these years) pulled the trigger on.

So.... just to throw a spanner into the works here... the Coyote 11mm (yes its shorter than 11mm Modular) headstud is 100lbft into an alloy block.

Oh yeah... I only broke 1 x 4.6L alloy block, the other was an iron 4.6L Romeo (Terminator stock block with jackscrews) so go easy on me :thongue2:

Hope you are well!

Daniel

 

[eschaider]

Good to hear from you again Daniel. Apologies for mis-accreditation on the Aluminator block failures. :bag:

The Coyote block has been through a number of revisions. I have lost count but want to say four maybe five. One of the revisions was the downgrade from its 12 mm head bolts back to 11mm head bolts. If I recall correctly they experienced block breakage down at the crankcase / cylinder bank juncture similar to the 4.6 block failures you experienced with ARP 2000 studs set to hi torque values. Prior to the down grade back to the 11 mm fastener diameter they increased the amount of aluminum in the block where the failures were occuring but to no avail hence the step back to the 11mm fastener spec. While I haven't checked recently I think they remained at the 11 mm size since. The additional material in the casting from the 12mm experience may give them the strength to survive the 100 ft/lbs torque spec now.

The step up to the 11mm mains from the 10 mm fasteners used in the 4.6 generation of the engine was a welcome upgrade to secure the mains. Sadly the 11mm solution will not cleanly work in the 4.6s because of major / minor diameter conflicts when we go up in fastener size by only 1mm in addition to the differences in fastener lengths.

When you shoot for the new power thresholds on the BOSS block, Daniel, what are you planning to do to help seal up the head gaskets?


Ed

 

[eschaider]

Lets give this a build thread of its own Daniel. I am going to give it a life and thread all its own.

Its thread name will be BOSS 5.0 Build from Down Under and it is in the 03/04 Cobra Forum

Ed

 

[jrgoffin]

The Coyote block has been through a number of revisions. I have lost count but want to say four maybe five. One of the revisions was the downgrade from its 12 mm head bolts back to 11mm head bolts. If I recall correctly they experienced block breakage down at the crankcase / cylinder bank juncture similar to the 4.6 block failures you experienced with ARP 2000 studs set to hi torque values. Prior to the down grade back to the 11 mm fastener diameter they increased the amount of aluminum in the block where the failures were ovvuring but to no avail hence the step back to the 11mm fastener spec. While I haven't checked recently I think they remained at the 11 mm size since. The additional material in the casting from the 12mm experience may give them the strength to survive the 100 ft/lbs torque spec now.

The step up to the 11mm mains from the 10 mm fasteners used in the 4.6 generation of the engine was a welcome upgrade to secure the mains. Sadly the 11mm solution will not cleanly work in the 4.6s because of major / minor diameter conflicts when we go up in fastener size by only 1mm in addition to the differences in fastener lengths.

When you shoot for the new power thresholds on the BOSS block, Daniel, what are you planning to do to help seal up the head gaskets?

Ed

Ed, I wonder if there are similarities in any potential "revisions" to the Aluminator blocks that would have pertained to the head bolt bores? I'd almost like to get my hands on another just to measure and compare with regards to my extra 1/4" that protrude above the nut. Probably trivial, but it's curious anyway.

 

[eschaider]

Usually the design ECO's find a way to leak out to the public, Joe. Sometimes that leak is intentionally as a controlled leak that addresses a known problem. Other times it is purely accidental as a reporter investigating something else for a story and discovers the change. After the Aluminator's introduction the block itself never encountered any publicly known operational or reliability problems that would have required engineering attention.

The one exception to this was the thrust bearing failures on the crate engines that in the end was not a block problem but a combination of a timing cover out of spec and an assembly whoops at Ford.

I think one of the second shift tool makers just set the CNC up a millimeter or so short of the mark on the head bolt holes and your block likely was one of those produced like that. It certainly is not significant enough to worry about. You still have somewhere approaching five diameters of thread engagement where the usual spec is typically three. You easily have more than enough strength to properly seal up the head block interface.


Ed

 

[jrgoffin]

It's unfortunate about the thrust bearing failures, but I always try to point out that it was an assembly issue and does not detract from the strength of the block. Hopefully that stigma has passed, but there are still plenty of guys out there that are convinced that the only way to go for a build is a Teksid block. Not that they aren't great blocks, but I'm doing my part to spread the Aluminator word. Even with the slight difference in my head bolt bores on this one, I imagine all will be well. It is curious though.

 

[jrgoffin]

Another update with regards to these primary tensioners since I splurged and decided to snag the last set of spacers that Hyland Motorsports could dig up. I would have been fine with the modified ratchet, but since the rep over there searched and cobbled together a couple of the spacers, I figured I would take them off their hands and re-modify mine.

Off with the timing cover. Here's the first set showing the ratchet partially extended, but still at its minimum distance:

Just for comparison, once the spacer ring is inserted under the plunger, here is the minimum it will retract in contrast to when they are compressed as new (the spring is removed from the one on the right to make this easy):

For a peek back at them with the modified ratchet, you can see the roughly the same distance from the tensioner body (although the plungers are removed in this pic from Post #209):

Both are back in now, and with the plungers seated, the chains are quite snug (as expected with all new parts). Even if the oil pressure dropped and the plungers were retracted fully, the spacers will give them adequate extension to hold the chains securely under the guides.

The timing cover is back on and I'm about ready to pull the "old" 22,000 mile engine. Once the cam covers come back from being coated, the new engine will be just about ready for the transplant. More good stuff soon.

 

[eschaider]

Very nice job illustrating the modified versions Joe. The spacer at 0.200" essentially holds the chain guide in the same position the ratchet would have but more securely.

With a choice between the two methods (grinding ratchet teeth and using the spacer) my personal preference, now that we know spacer dimensions would be to use the spacers.

For those contemplating this mod, you might want to consider upgrading the fasteners to studs to make the assembly process a little easier. Without the ratchet to hold the tensioner's piston in place you must maintain a compressed piston spring and simultaneously place the tensioner in position and bolt it down. Sounds easier than it might be in actual practice. This is one of those situations where a third hand would be a welcome addition to the process. The studs work like about a half a hand, allowing you to slide the tensioner body in place over the studs and free up your hands to tighten down the nuts.

Thanks for taking the time to illustrate this less than familiar process Joe.


Ed

 

[4vFoxx]

Thank You for sharing this build with everyone it's incredibly informing.

 

[jrgoffin]

Thank You for sharing this build with everyone it's incredibly informing.

My pleasure! Lots more to go, so keep checking back!

Very nice job illustrating the modified versions Joe. The spacer at 0.200" essentially holds the chain guide in the same position the ratchet would have but more securely.

With a choice between the two methods (grinding ratchet teeth and using the spacer) my personal preference, now that we know spacer dimensions would be to use the spacers.

For those contemplating this mod, you might want to consider upgrading the fasteners to studs to make the assembly process a little easier. Without the ratchet to hold the tensioner's piston in place you must maintain a compressed piston spring and simultaneously place the tensioner in position and bolt it down. Sounds easier than it might be in actual practice. This is one of those situations where a third hand would be a welcome addition to the process. The studs work like about a half a hand, allowing you to slide the tensioner body in place over the studs and free up your hands to tighten down the nuts.

Thanks for taking the time to illustrate this less than familiar process Joe.

Ed

Glad I can keep all the info flowing, Ed. After some thought, I also decided that I liked the idea of having the solid spacer as well - pretty much bullet-proof. Maybe we should bug James to kick these out since I have a feeling SHM has depleted their stock and may not be interested in making more.

I did actually completely forget about using studs, but re-installing them still was a cinch. On the right side, I threaded in the right-hand bolt slightly and rotated the tensioner up until I could line up the other bolt. I didn't have to compress the plunger at all until it was under the chain guide, so there was no worry about launching any parts.

The left side took just a hair more effort, but it still worked out fine. Since I already installed all the followers and had to contend with some pressure on the valvetrain, it took a C-clamp to squeeze the two guides together so there was enough room to slip the tensioner in. It was somewhat the same process: thread one bolt in loosely, then rotate the tensioner in place to insert the other bolt. Had I been thinking about this a few weeks ago, I would have left the followers out, but that was just a minor glitch.

With these spacers, there is no chance the chains are going to get loose. I hope we'll have a good source for them soon (although buying the tube stock won't be that hard) to alleviate the process of grinding on the ratchets since this is really a solid way to go!

 

[nightmare302]

I hope James or someone is listening and makes some of these within the next month or so. I was going to grind mine but would prefer some spacers.

 

[jrgoffin]

I hope James or someone is listening and makes some of these within the next month or so. I was going to grind mine but would prefer some spacers.

I think Ed ordered some tube stock already, so if he reports in that it is an easy way to fabricate these, that could be the way to go. I haven't touched base with James, but I imagine any machine shop could also whip these out, especially since the drawing is available with the exact dimensions. I am glad I got the last set from SHM, but I suppose if the demand goes up, they may crank out some more from their end as well.

 

[eschaider]

I'm going to make some up this weekend Joe. It should be pretty easy. The tube stock was 4130 so it will be a little more difficult to cut but not enough to matter. My guess is if you have a lathe available to you this should be a short order job for a weekend. I'll post up my experiences this weekend.

BTW the tubing is available from McMaster and also Aircraft Spruce. Aircraft Spruce is about half the price of McMaster for the same tubing. McMaster was $15 for a one foot length.


Ed

 

[jrgoffin]

I'm going to make some up this weekend Joe. It should be pretty easy. The tube stock was 4130 so it will be a little more difficult to cut but not enough to matter. My guess is if you have a lathe available to you this should be a short order job for a weekend. I'll post up my experiences this weekend.

BTW the tubing is available from McMaster and also Aircraft Spruce. Aircraft Spruce is about half the price of McMaster for the same tubing. McMaster was $15 for a one foot length.

Ed

Definitely looking forward to seeing how they turn out, Ed. I still think pestering James may be worth it, but if your way turns out to be exceptionally simple, then maybe it is something anyone else can tackle on their own. Be sure to post up some pics when you are all done!