[Edmisten1]

I don't have a KB Jeff so I can't say with certainty but I do have a Whipple and I can say, with certainty, the plenum has to be removed to get the passenger side valve cover off. While I always recommend the re-torque, and I know its a PITA, in the end it is the car owner's call whether or not they want to go through the pushups.

Ed

Ed, on the Whipple, does the plenun remove from the rear of the blower?

 

[eschaider]

It does, Jeff and it is a PITA.

 

[Edmisten1]

It does, Jeff and it is a PITA.

Okiedoke....now we are getting somewhere KB is the same way. Yep...I'm prolly gonna be a guinea pig. If I am just being honest, and like I said I may live to regret it, but there is no way I am going to go thru that to re-torque. It would be a logical assumption that from the factory the fasteners were not re-torqued after initial warm up and these were bolts not studs. I sure am going to hope that with the MLS perma torque style gasket and ARP 2000 studs that it seals up and remains so but in the spirit of transparency, does this fall into the same category as the oil scraper..? Sure, use it if you have it; certainly won't hurt anything. But more than likely will never be an issue without it. Or does anyone know of a head gasket failure that can be directly attributed to not re torquing the head studs?

 

[eschaider]

Okiedoke....now we are getting somewhere KB is the same way. Yep...I'm prolly gonna be a guinea pig. If I am just being honest, and like I said I may live to regret it, but there is no way I am going to go thru that to re-torque. It would be a logical assumption that from the factory the fasteners were not re-torqued after initial warm up and these were bolts not studs. I sure am going to hope that with the MLS perma torque style gasket and ARP 2000 studs that it seals up and remains so but in the spirit of transparency, does this fall into the same category as the oil scraper..? Sure, use it if you have it; certainly won't hurt anything. But more than likely will never be an issue without it. Or does anyone know of a head gasket failure that can be directly attributed to not re torquing the head studs?

These are the mechanics behind the problem, Jeff,

...

The problem is less of an issue on engines with iron blocks and iron heads because iron has a relatively low co-efficient of thermal expansion. Put on a set of aluminum heads and now you have a fair amount of growth attributable to the temperature increase in the head and aluminum' s higher co-efficient of thermal expansion. Go to an aluminum block and aluminum heads and something very special happens.

With an aluminum block and aluminum heads you have the greatest expansion possible, that is attributable to heating aluminum. The head studs however are not aluminum - they are ARP steel and their co-efficient of expansion is relatively low comparatively speaking. When the block and heads grow but the studs don't all the expansion has to be absorbed by the head gaskets through additional compression of the gasket. This additional gasket compression creates a new stack height for the gasket that is less than when you assembled the engine.

If you don't retorque the heads, the now thinner stack height of your head gaskets reduces the clamp loading of the head studs and when you put the engine under load you push out a head gasket - a real PITA!! The retorquing of the gaskets after the first heat cycle properly re-loads the head gasket after that first heat cycle providing the type of and quality of gasket seal you originally tried to create. ...

Even with aluminum blocks and aluminum heads the problem may not manifest itself if you never hook up and load the engine. On the other hand if you run tall gears, hook up and load the engine you have a very high probability of pushing out a gasket.

In the end it is a judgement call predicated on how you drive your car. If you don't use the horsepower the engine produces or run deep gears like 3.73, 4.10 or deeper with street tires, the possibility of pushing out a gasket is relatively low. If you put on slicks and hook up or run tall gears like 3.55, 3.27 or taller you have an increased chance of pushing out a head gasket.

 

[Edmisten1]

These are the mechanics behind the problem, Jeff,

Even with aluminum blocks and aluminum heads the problem may not manifest itself if you never hook up and load the engine. On the other hand if you run tall gears, hook up and load the engine you have a very high probability of pushing out a gasket.

In the end it is a judgement call predicated on how you drive your car. If you don't use the horsepower the engine produces or run deep gears like 3.73, 4.10 or deeper with street tires, the possibility of pushing out a gasket is relatively low. If you put on slicks and hook up or run tall gears like 3.55, 3.27 or taller you have an increased chance of pushing out a head gasket.

Ed

Very good. Thanks Ed.

 

[RussZTT]

As far as the head stud retorque...unless there is a trick I am unaware of, how do you even get the passenger side valve cover off without removing the super charger?? I may live to regret it, but it will be a cold day in hell before I yank the SC to just retorque the head studs. I think with the factory Eaton, you can remove the plenum and get to the valve cover but with the KB 2.2, the plenum removes from the back. Am I to understand you remove the plenum from the rear of a KB in order to gain access to the valve cover and ultimately the head studs...?

I could always remove my SC in 15 min. Just removed the IC adaptor plate, the 2 lines. I always kept the SC and the lower attached and removed as one piece.

 

[RussZTT]

Okiedoke....now we are getting somewhere KB is the same way. Yep...I'm prolly gonna be a guinea pig. If I am just being honest, and like I said I may live to regret it, but there is no way I am going to go thru that to re-torque. It would be a logical assumption that from the factory the fasteners were not re-torqued after initial warm up and these were bolts not studs. I sure am going to hope that with the MLS perma torque style gasket and ARP 2000 studs that it seals up and remains so but in the spirit of transparency, does this fall into the same category as the oil scraper..? Sure, use it if you have it; certainly won't hurt anything. But more than likely will never be an issue without it. Or does anyone know of a head gasket failure that can be directly attributed to not re torquing the head studs?

When I went to the Teksid block, I didn't re-torque my heads. It ran fine when I was SC'ed. Soon after I went with twins, somehow I started getting coolant in one of the pass side cylinders. Pulled the motor, put a new gasket on the pass side and that was it. Didn't think of re-torquing the drivers side. It was my DD for 5 yrs with the occasional beating on it on the weekends at 800+ rwhp and still no issues.

I firmly believe doing anything for a piece of mind or even if there is a science behind it if I'm not understanding which will lead to my question to Ed. Take the time to re-torque them even if its a pain, pulling the motor to change out the gaskets is more of a pain.

Ed. I understand what you mean by the aluminum heads and block dissipates the heat more than iron. What I don't understand is re-torquing the studs one at a time. I've always heard to loosen all the studs then re-torquing them in the proper sequence. I don't understand how only loosening them one at a time can help the gasket seal if the studs neighbor is still tight?

 

[eschaider]

When I went to the Teksid block, I didn't re-torque my heads. It ran fine when I was SC'ed. Soon after I went with twins, somehow I started getting coolant in one of the pass side cylinders. Pulled the motor, put a new gasket on the pass side and that was it. Didn't think of re-torquing the drivers side. It was my DD for 5 yrs with the occasional beating on it on the weekends at 800+ rwhp and still no issues.

I firmly believe doing anything for a piece of mind or even if there is a science behind it if I'm not understanding which will lead to my question to Ed. Take the time to re-torque them even if its a pain, pulling the motor to change out the gaskets is more of a pain.

Ed. I understand what you mean by the aluminum heads and block dissipates the heat more than iron. What I don't understand is re-torquing the studs one at a time. I've always heard to loosen all the studs then re-torquing them in the proper sequence. I don't understand how only loosening them one at a time can help the gasket seal if the studs neighbor is still tight?

It is similar to when you torque the heads in stages, Russ. The difference is the stage increment on a retorque after heat cycle is very small. Although the stack height of the gasket has decreased from the squeezing it got as the engine came up to temperature the incremental change was small. The small is small enough that you want to back off and come up on your TQ target once again. After a heat cycle a fastener can take a set that requires more torque to break loose that you can misread as properly torqued, when in fact it is not. To be sure you are actually stretching the fastener the amount you think you are and not just measuring torque to break loose a heat set fastener you need to loosen the nut and try to come up to target torque again in one smooth motion.

When you were originally torquing the heads in incremental steps to get to your target torque you didn't/couldn't release all fasteners, to a zero torque, between steps without damaging the gasket seal. In much the same manner you can't release all studs to a zero torque during a retorque without damaging the gasket seal for exactly the same reasons. Think about this as you would a first torquing that you do in steps say 60 / 75 / 85 ft/lbs. What would happen to your gasket seal after you hit 60 ft/lbs if you released all the studs before you went to 75 ft/lbs and then yet one more time released all the studs back to zero torque again and retorqued them to 85 ft/lbs. Yup, gasket leaks!

Now think about how you actually torque the head incrementally to its 85 ft/lbs target torque. After each torque threshold is reached, you begin the very next one, one fastener at a time in torque order sequence. As you do this the stud you are tightening has all its 'neighbors' still tight at 60 ft/lbs but you are tightening only that one stud to 75 ft/lbs. The new and higher tensile load in the fastener produces an increased clamping load on the head casting and also the gasket local to that fastener. The increase in loading starts at the beginning of the torquing sequence because thats where you start. As you progress through the sequence the entire head squeezes the gasket progressively tighter.

When you retorque after the first heat cycle it is exactly the same, except you do not want a heat set fastener to trick you into thinking it is properly torqued when it is not. To prevent the error you want to loosen and retorque each stud in torque sequence order one at a time. The torquing process should be a single smooth sweep to target torque if at all possible.

BTW it is not that the aluminum heads dissipate heat faster than cast iron (which they can) it is that the co-efficient of thermal expansion for aluminum is much greater that the co-efficient of thermal expansion for the steel ARP studs. Aluminum's coefficient of thermal expansion is 22.2 x 10[SUP]-6[/SUP] m/(m K) and Steel is 12 x 10[SUP]-6[/SUP] m/(m K). Ignore the units for a second and look at the co-efficients. Aluminum is 22.2 and steel is 12. That means for each 1˚ rise in temperature Aluminum expands almost 100% more than steel! An aluminum block and an aluminum head will sandwich a gasket and substantially crush it even more during the engine's first heat cycle. If you do not retorque those heads you are playing a game of Russian Roulette with your engine and those head gaskets.

Unlike a light switch, that is either on or off, the head gaskets will not automatically fail if you do not retorque. But, if you load your engine sufficiently, the combustion chamber pressures will rise to the threshold necessary to push out a gasket. Will you do it? Depends on how heavily you load your engine and how soon in the rpm range you load it. Other factors are contributing actors also. Some of those include fuel octane, boost, timing, rear axle ratio, how sticky your tire is and certainly how heavy your car is.

In the end the decision to retorque a street car is a judgement call. If you feel uncomfortable not doing it, that is a correct decision, for you. If you feel comfortable not doing it then that is an equally correct decision, for you. If you choose wisely you will have no problems. If not you will have problems and they should be fairly evident if and when they rear their heads.

 

[jrgoffin]

Thanks for posting all that, Ed! Hopefully this easy mod to the tensioners will become more of the rule rather than the exception (the same goes for that arduous re-torque procedure!!!!). It really is a no-brainer, especially now that you showed everyone how straight-forward it is. I'll hopefully get to report in as to the effectiveness real soon.

I also wanted to add a bit more about the pre-engine removal process, in the sense that it's just a matter of either dropping it out the bottom or pulling it from the top. I chose the latter, and so far, have led up to that by getting everything off the block (as shown in the pics from the previous page). Without getting in to detail there, plenty of info exists in the service manual and most is no secret, especially when it comes to draining fluids, removing the blower, getting the cooling components out of the way, etc. I will add that the removal of most was made a heck of a lot easier thanks to the Steeda K-Member I have:

Since the engine is coming out the top, I also didn't have to discharge the A/C or power steering and just disconnected the pumps and set them to the side. I had initially dreaded the removal of the pulley cage, but mine came off quite easily, with the aid of this OTC tool locking the flywheel (getting the starter out was a cinch as well with the extra room):

On an specialty tool note, I had also acquired the Rotunda lifting eyes which will make removal of the long block pretty straightforward. Here's a look at them:

They are also shown on the engine in Post #249 from the previous page (passenger side at back, and driver's side up front). That's where I'm at so far, and with any luck, I'll be on the swap this week once I get back home. Glad everyone had been able to benefit from all the information from everyone that has been contributed to this thread!

 

[04DeadShort]

Mind me asking you the price of lifting eyes? Better yet, where you got them?

 

[Wicked46]

^^^ I'm wondering the same. I'd like to find a set of those!

 

[jrgoffin]

Since they are Rotunda "specialty tools", big dollars are automatically part of it. I think the last time I saw them for sale, the set was over $450. I got lucky and scored these used for about $150 and couldn't pass up the deal.

These guys used to sell them, but they are not in stock at the moment and who knows if and when they'll be back:

http://www.denlorstools.com/home/dt...s.com/home/dt1/page_52199/rotunda_303-d074_ford_engine_lifting_bracket_set.html

Here's also an article from a while back about an Aluminator engine transplant at Rehagen Racing, and even these guys are using the lifting eyes.

http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-...m/how-to/engine/m5lp-1109-ford-racing-performance-parts-aluminator-engine-swap/

A pic from that article showing one (although an earlier version), and also listing the Ford part numbers. I suppose it is also possible for a dealer to get them, but I'd still hate to see the price. Maybe Tousley or Tasca would have more info.

 

[RussZTT]

It is similar to when you torque the heads in stages, Russ. The difference is the stage increment on a retorque after heat cycle is very small. Although the stack height of the gasket has decreased from the squeezing it got as the engine came up to temperature the incremental change was small. The small is small enough that you want to back off and come up on your TQ target once again. After a heat cycle a fastener can take a set that requires more torque to break loose that you can misread as properly torqued, when in fact it is not. To be sure you are actually stretching the fastener the amount you think you are and not just measuring torque to break loose a heat set fastener you need to loosen the nut and try to come up to target torque again in one smooth motion.

When you were originally torquing the heads in incremental steps to get to your target torque you didn't/couldn't release all fasteners, to a zero torque, between steps without damaging the gasket seal. In much the same manner you can't release all studs to a zero torque during a retorque without damaging the gasket seal for exactly the same reasons. Think about this as you would a first torquing that you do in steps say 60 / 75 / 85 ft/lbs. What would happen to your gasket seal after you hit 60 ft/lbs if you released all the studs before you went to 75 ft/lbs and then yet one more time released all the studs back to zero torque again and retorqued them to 85 ft/lbs. Yup, gasket leaks!

Now think about how you actually torque the head incrementally to its 85 ft/lbs target torque. After each torque threshold is reached, you begin the very next one, one fastener at a time in torque order sequence. As you do this the stud you are tightening has all its 'neighbors' still tight at 60 ft/lbs but you are tightening only that one stud to 75 ft/lbs. The new and higher tensile load in the fastener produces an increased clamping load on the head casting and also the gasket local to that fastener. The increase in loading starts at the beginning of the torquing sequence because thats where you start. As you progress through the sequence the entire head squeezes the gasket progressively tighter.

When you retorque after the first heat cycle it is exactly the same, except you do not want a heat set fastener to trick you into thinking it is properly torqued when it is not. To prevent the error you want to loosen and retorque each stud in torque sequence order one at a time. The torquing process should be a single smooth sweep to target torque if at all possible.

BTW it is not that the aluminum heads dissipate heat faster than cast iron (which they can) it is that the co-efficient of thermal expansion for aluminum is much greater that the co-efficient of thermal expansion for the steel ARP studs. Aluminum's coefficient of thermal expansion is 22.2 x 10[SUP]-6[/SUP] m/(m K) and Steel is 12 x 10[SUP]-6[/SUP] m/(m K). Ignore the units for a second and look at the co-efficients. Aluminum is 22.2 and steel is 12. That means for each 1˚ rise in temperature Aluminum expands almost 100% more than steel! An aluminum block and an aluminum head will sandwich a gasket and substantially crush it even more during the engine's first heat cycle. If you do not retorque those heads you are playing a game of Russian Roulette with your engine and those head gaskets.

Unlike a light switch, that is either on or off, the head gaskets will not automatically fail if you do not retorque. But, if you load your engine sufficiently, the combustion chamber pressures will rise to the threshold necessary to push out a gasket. Will you do it? Depends on how heavily you load your engine and how soon in the rpm range you load it. Other factors are contributing actors also. Some of those include fuel octane, boost, timing, rear axle ratio, how sticky your tire is and certainly how heavy your car is.

In the end the decision to retorque a street car is a judgement call. If you feel uncomfortable not doing it, that is a correct decision, for you. If you feel comfortable not doing it then that is an equally correct decision, for you. If you choose wisely you will have no problems. If not you will have problems and they should be fairly evident if and when they rear their heads.

Ed

Ed, thank you very much for the explanation, even though I had to read it twice ha! I didn't re-torque them when I pulled the motor out simply because lack of knowledge. After your explanation, it only makes sense to do the steps. I didn't realize the expansion rate for the aluminum was that much! Aluminum head against aluminum block absolutely makes sense to re-torque.

Thank you sir!

 

[jrgoffin]

^^^^^^^Great stuff for sure. Ed always comes through!

 

[sparky1562]

Ed, are those spacers something you are willing to make and sell?

 

[eschaider]

It is hard to appreciate the growth,Russ when we don't have an opportunity to compare any before and after scenarios. Here is a comparison that found me (I didn't expect it) years ago. I have another engine that is not Ford but is all aluminum and uses a solid cast aluminum block (no water jackets) and billet aluminum heads. When we lash the engine it is nice to be able to set the lash cold.

The lash for the cam at running temperatures should be 0.025" on the intake and 0.028" on the exhaust. To get those clearances when the engine is lashed cold I have to set the cold lash at 0.004" on the intake and 0.006" on the exhaust to compensate for aluminum expansion! The first time you see the amount of expansion one of these engines has, you have difficulty believing your eyes.

The Modmotor will probably expand similarly, possibly a little less because it is lighter. Even at a little less the additional squeeze on the head gaskets is considerable and warrants re-torquing, almost irrespective of the gasket.


Ed

 

[nightmare302]

Ed, are those spacers something you are willing to make and sell?

What he said, I'm too busy right now to mess with attempting this.

 

[P49Y-CY]

I also wanted to add a bit more about the pre-engine removal process, in the sense that it's just a matter of either dropping it out the bottom or pulling it from the top. I chose the latter, and so far, have led up to that by getting everything off the block (as shown in the pics from the previous page).

Since the engine is coming out the top, I also didn't have to discharge the A/C or power steering and just disconnected the pumps and set them to the side.

since this is such an informative thread, do you think you can elaborate a little bit about the choice for the engine removal process? is your hood removed from the car? is that always necessary when pulling the engine out the top? seems like most guys have the hood removed when coming out the top to have ample room for the hoist.

on the other hand, if dropping it from the bottom obviously you have to be able to get the car high enough, but it does seem like it has its benefits esp since that is how the car was built from the factory. a straight drop with or without the trans and not having to worry about hitting the master cylinder, etc. but if cracking the a/c and p/s systems is always necessary using this method, it might not be worth it however.

personally i am trying to avoid pulling my hood as i am afraid i will permanently mess up the panel alignment.

I had initially dreaded the removal of the pulley cage, but mine came off quite easily, with the aid of this OTC tool locking the flywheel

that particular tool has been one of the most valuable in my toolbox for this car

That's where I'm at so far, and with any luck, I'll be on the swap this week once I get back home. Glad everyone had been able to benefit from all the information from everyone that has been contributed to this thread!

joe thanks again, as this has got to be one of the best threads on the internet for terminator owners who want to work on their own cars.

 

[RussZTT]

since this is such an informative thread, do you think you can elaborate a little bit about the choice for the engine removal process? is your hood removed from the car? is that always necessary when pulling the engine out the top? seems like most guys have the hood removed when coming out the top to have ample room for the hoist.

on the other hand, if dropping it from the bottom obviously you have to be able to get the car high enough, but it does seem like it has its benefits esp since that is how the car was built from the factory. a straight drop with or without the trans and not having to worry about hitting the master cylinder, etc. but if cracking the a/c and p/s systems is always necessary using this method, it might not be worth it however.

personally i am trying to avoid pulling my hood as i am afraid i will permanently mess up the panel alignment.

that particular tool has been one of the most valuable in my toolbox for this car

joe thanks again, as this has got to be one of the best threads on the internet for terminator owners who want to work on their own cars.

Iv'e always removed the motor from the top with the hood removed. Its not difficult at all to align the hood when its on.

To me, removing from the bottom is more work than needed. The 2nd time I removed the motor, I started doing it from the bottom. About 30 minutes into it I said screw this so I went back to the top. I was doing more work than from the top.

 

[eschaider]

Ed, are those spacers something you are willing to make and sell?

Herb, Nik up at SHM is going to have more product manufactured shortly - which I didn't realize when I went on my personal manufacturing binge. The easy way out on these is just to call SHM ask for Nik and order up as many as you want to have on hand. It beats the pants off of trying to DIY. Their toll free phone number is 888-282-2566. I think you will find Nik to be very easy to talk to. Before you call check out their website [url]www.seanhylandmotorsport.com[/URL] you will find it quite good and full of very nice pieces.

Ed

p.s. Full disclosure I bought one of their aftermarket 4.6 blocks a number of years ago for my use and I could not be more pleased with it.