Mustang and Ford Performance Forums banner

Upgrade head studs??

2 reading
396 views 27 replies 4 participants last post by  painlessauto  
#1 ·
I'm planning my next build for the upcoming winter months (mod season). I am ditching my 5.4 iron block and going with a sleeved 5.8 block using 5.4 sleeves. I want the extra material between bores.

Twin 67mm turbos on e85 running 25# boost or possibly more.

Head studs...
Do I run ARP2000 11mm studs or do I machine the block for the 9/16" ARP studs? My understanding is the 9/16" threads are loaded at or just below the deck surface rather than down near the crank. I've been told they can distort the deck and bores. I've been told they are much better than the 11mm factory design.

11mm studs are torqued to 85ft/lbs vs the 9/16" which I believe are torque to 110 ft/lbs.

Can anyone shed any light on this from personal experience?

Oh yeah, I will be using cometic MLX .040" gaskets. No fire rings or protruding sleeves. Keeping it simple as it is street duty.
 
#2 ·
#3 ·
Talked this over with my tuner (he also builds big power modular engines). Quote: Some heads have an opening cast that looks like the gasket, and some just have the hole diameter of the oil passage itself. I have seen the ones with the oil passage opening like the gasket not match correctly and have issues. We just started welding the heads before resurfacing to make them all like the ones with small hole diameters (matches the block) No issues then.
 
#5 ·
Honestly, OE Ford 4 layer gaskets are looking like the way to go. I definitely dont want to go through what you had to go through. The proximity of the gasket to bore is what has me concerned. I prefer the one-and-done approach.

Thanks for the link

Anybody dabbled with the 9/16" studs on these 5.8 blocks?
 
#6 ·
... Head studs...
Do I run ARP2000 11mm studs or do I machine the block for the 9/16" ARP studs? My understanding is the 9/16" threads are loaded at or just below the deck surface rather than down near the crank. I've been told they can distort the deck and bores. I've been told they are much better than the 11mm factory design.

11mm studs are torqued to 85ft/lbs vs the 9/16" which I believe are torque to 110 ft/lbs.

Can anyone shed any light on this from personal experience?

Oh yeah, I will be using cometic MLX .040" gaskets. No fire rings or protruding sleeves. Keeping it simple as it is street duty.

Matt,

I don't believe there are any 9/16 inch studs available from ARP for the ModMotor. This is a screenshot from their 2025 ARP catalog showing the various studs they offer for the ModMotor.

Image


Which one of these do you believe is the 9/16 inch stud you are speaking about? Do you have an ARP part number for the 9/16 inch head stud you are speaking about?
 
#8 ·
Matt,

I don't believe there are any 9/16 inch studs available from ARP for the ModMotor. This is a screenshot from their 2025 ARP catalog showing the various studs they offer for the ModMotor.

View attachment 178098

Which one of these do you believe is the 9/16 inch stud you are speaking about? Do you have an ARP part number for the 9/16 inch head stud you are speaking about?
Ed,

Here is a listing from Accufab.


And a picture of a 5.8 block prepped for 9/16 sruds
Image
 
#9 ·
Matt,

These are custom pieces Mihovitz had ARP make a few years ago, initially for his own use. They are step studs with a 9/16" anchoring side and a 1/2 inch stud diameter and top thread. Notwithstanding the pic, you have access to, the studs are the same length as OEM Modmotor studs (~9 inches) and anchor at the bottom of the cylinder bank blocks just above the main webbing.

These studs are quite good and add considerable strength to the engine assembly compared to the 11mm OEM studs. The OEM studs and their aftermarket replacements are 11mm in diameter with a metric nut. Essentially a 7/16 inch fastener. The Mihovits replacements are 1/2 inch diameter studs with a 9/16 inch diameter and anchoring thread at their bottoms. They require more than a little patience to put in, but again, they are quite good.
 
#11 ·
The OEM replacement ARP 2000 studs with their new fancy waffle-faced (on the bottom side) washers are a very good choice. The Mihovitz studs are about half again as much, but require block machining to use. The block machining is the tender spot. You want the new studs to be exactly where the old studs were. The 9/16 inch thread on the anchoring end is a very nice touch from both a strength and durability perspective.
 
#12 ·
This is what L&M had to say about using the 9/16 studs. I was under the impression that they dont reach the bottom of the factory holes and the larger threads are added 1" below the deck surface?


"We have had 5.8 blocks come here that have had the 9/16 conversion but we do not make that conversion as it heavily distorts the top of the block as the 9/16 threads are 1 inch deep at the deck surface.
The only block that works fair with 9/16 are filled blocks with no coolant, but they still distort inward to the bore in places but not as bad as blocks with coolant."
 
#14 · (Edited)
Just got off the phone with John at Accufab. He was on the same page as me with using a 5.4 sleeve in the 5.8 block.

He said 30# is the max boost for mls gaskets. Larger studs will not change this as the gaskets push out between the studs, not at them. Excessive timing or bad tune will kill the gaskets, not the clamp load.

.Cometic MLX gaskets are not the way to go. The added material has nowhere to go and will keep.your head raised between the cylinders. Also said .005" fire rings pose the same issues. Eventually your head gets destroyed.

If running over 30# boost its time to switch to copper gaskets, orings, and receiver grooves.

9/16" studs can cause deck and bore distortion when torqued aggressively. He recommended a middle ground torque of 120 ft/lbs. Max torque allowed is is 130ft/lbs.

90 ft/lbs with 11mm studs will work just fine with 25# boost and 9.5:1 compression. Stresses are placed close to the crankshaft.

120ft/lb 9/16" studs will apply a higher clamp load for a higher margin of crankshaft. Stresses are placed near the top of the cylinders. Torque plate honing will account for this. The larger diameter will also lessen the cylinder head structure strength at the stud locations due to removed material for larger diameter clearance.

So, I can go either way since my goals are under 30# boost. Leaning toward the 9/16" option for the clamp load and moving stressed away from the crankshaft.
 
#15 ·
The issue with the MLX is exactly the issue I had which is why the oil leaked out of the gasket area.

Odd that he references max Boost instead of HP/Torque but I'm sure he has a HP/Torque level in mind at those boost levels.

I LOVE these types of details so keep them coming if you get them...

I do question the deck distortion of using the larger studs and higher torque. With the added bolt torque the deck will distort (?) and there's no way to deck the surface with this load on it. Cylinder distortion can be cleaned with when torque plates are used but the deck can't be squared with the plates installed so it sounds like the threads may be down far enough in the block that distortion is minimal at the deck.

..too many questions in my mind but I have no info on these larger blocks or your goals...

ks
 
#16 · (Edited)
Kevin,
My thoughts exactly. Figured if I post it, others will find it.

I'm super OCD with my builds and try to cover all the bases on the first go. This is my first aluminum block build, unchartered waters for me.

I dont feel the deck distortion is a biggie, he made it sound like an issue with the higher torque loads above 120ft/lbs.

Matt
 
#18 · (Edited)
This is the picture from Mihovitz's website.
View attachment 178102
If you accept that the studs are 1/2 inch diameter on one end (take your pick), then there is no way that the stud in the picture is less than about 9 inches long!
Let me get this sorted, Ed. I agree with you.
I have a feeling the machine shop (QMP) and Accufabs studs are not the same.

Edit: QMP who provided the block picture above uses BAE studs which are tapped near the deck. BAE supplied the billet Coyte block for Accufab. So..... looks like a phone call to Accufab on Monday to confirm where the accufab studs actually mount.

The BAE/Accufab coyote block uses a hybrid 9/16 stud and you can see the threads just below the deck. Not saying for sure this is how the 5.8 Accufab studs mount but I'm going to confirm asap. This is how the BAE 5.8 studs mount.

Matt
Image
 
#19 ·
The Accufab studs in my post#17 use a 9/16 thread on the bottom of the stud where it anchors at the bottom of the cylinder bank, like OEM studs do. The actual stud diameter above the anchoring thread is 1/2 inch, and it uses a 1/2 inch NF nut on top to hold everything together. This style of stud is called a step stud.

Given a choice between a step stud that anchors at the bottom of the cylinder bank vs a typical but short stud that anchors at the top of the cylinder bank, my personal preference would always be the step stud at the bottom of the cylinder bank.
 
#21 ·
I just talked with John at Accufab. The 9/16 to 1/2 studs are threaded just below the deck. The factory 11mm threads remain untouched and can be utilized in the future if desired.

He also said to use these studs "only" with the aluminum 5.4 and 5.8 blocks as they are a stronger casting. They don't rely on the studs to add strength to the block.

Iron, aluminum 4.6, & coyote are all thinner castings and can crack. The deep studs are required on these blocks to hold the block together.

-Matt
 
#22 ·
I just talked with John at Accufab. The 9/16 to 1/2 studs are threaded just below the deck. The factory 11mm threads remain untouched and can be utilized in the future if desired.

He also said to use these studs "only" with the aluminum 5.4 and 5.8 blocks as they are a stronger casting. They don't rely on the studs to add strength to the block.

Iron, aluminum 4.6, & coyote are all thinner castings and can crack. The deep studs are required on these blocks to hold the block together.

-Matt

Interesting to learn the taller blocks are stronger in that regard. So - is there, or isn't there a longer stud option available for the 4.6 blocks then? Never really looked into this. But I could swear I'we heard about them being used on the coyote blocks
 
#24 ·
I had a discussion with JM late this afternoon, Matt. The 9/16" x 1/2 " Step studs John offers are approximately 7 inches long, which makes them approximately two inches shorter than an OEM stud. The shorter stud and higher anchoring point were chosen because drilling, reaming, and tapping at the original stud length/depth were difficult to do correctly, and even when done correctly, it was too time-consuming to make this a viable repair methodology. The shorter stud anchoring higher in the cylinder bank was the compromise solution.

When you anchor the head stud higher in the cylinder bank, the cylinders distort when the studs are tightened to their torque specs. The distortion can be compensated for by using torque plates when you hone the cylinders. John asked what block I was thinking of using for this repair process, and I told him it was a Hyland block. He said I would probably be okay with the Hyland block; however, in his experience, the Teksid and (I don't clearly recall, but believe he also mentioned) Nemak/Aluminator blocks were not good candidates for this type of repair.

His suggestion, if I were to use this on a non-Hyland block, would be one of the FGT/GT500 blocks because of their additional strength in the basic block and the upper cylinder banks in particular.

Bottom line, I believe, is that if you damaged a proletariat 4.6L block and needed to replace head studs, you would be better advised to replace the block and start all over — you would be money ahead in the game.

This is a drawing for a 1/2 x 13 NC, 7-inch long, long-reach tap from McMaster.
Image

This is not a thread-forming tap, which is the type of tap you want to use for this type of job. The price for this tap is $109.85. You will need two plug taps and two bottoming taps, which in the thread cutting tap corral will cost approximately $439. Add another $20 to $50 each for thread-forming equivalent taps. That pricing is for a 1/2 x 13 tap. I could not easily find a long 9/16 x 12 tap (they do exist) in either a thread-cutting style or a thread-forming style, which means they are available but at an even higher price.

That's not the end of the story. You will also need two long reach drills that are a minimum of one drill size small or 25/64". McMaster prices those out at $45.64 each, and you'll probably need two, or possibly three, to be safe. Your non-thread-forming tap and drill costs have just reached $576.32!

Now that you have drilled the holes but not tapped them yet, you will need to ream the undersized hole you just drilled to size. Plan on using a minimum of two reamers, and if prudent, three. A long 27/64" reamer costs $47.19, and guess what, if you buy three, you'll probably only need two, but if you buy two, you will definitely need three. Your tooling price has just reached $717.89, and you haven't even made your first chip yet.

All the cutting tools notwithstanding, you are still in need of fixturing that accurately holds the block in place while you machine. Plan on spending $1,500 to $2,000 more before you have the fixturing in hand, ready to use. The ante at your poker table just hit somewhere between $2,200 and $2,700 to do this job.

What these numbers are telling you is that it is time to get a new block and not attempt to resurrect the old one. Once you fail, you will still need to purchase a replacement block. The only difference is that you will have flushed approximately $2,500 down the drain without any return.

By the way, you will need access to a large table Bridgeport with a Ram Riser Block sufficiently tall to accommodate the cylinder block to do all this work in/on ...
 
#25 ·
At this stage I would like to ask what power you are looking for and what your plans for the car will be?

What about a Coyote platform instead? These do take additional block work to hold a lot of power but from the bleachers where I sit the build process for these motors seem to have a solid foundation and well known amongst builders.

ks
 
#26 · (Edited)
At this stage I would like to ask what power you are looking for and what your plans for the car will be?

What about a Coyote platform instead? These do take additional block work to hold a lot of power but from the bleachers where I sit the build process for these motors seem to have a solid foundation and well known amongst builders.

ks
My current setup with an iron block is around 1000 wheel. Iron blocks have inconsistent and thinner cylinder wall thicknesses. Moving into the 5.8 block for better reliability.

It's actually a truck, bought it new back in 2000. I've had 4 different blowers on it over the years. F150 4x4 on e85 with twin 6766. Super duty transfer case and transmission. Too many chassis/drivetrain changes to list. I've done all the work to it personally except the tuning. Currently running 25# boost.


Lower boost pull while tuning it
 
#27 ·
I certainly think is appropriate for you doing the research to make sure you are building a very stout motor but I don't think the larger studs are needed for what you're wanting to do.
If it's not a race vehicle that is going to get pounded every weekend with high cylinder loading due to hard launches then all that additional cost isn't being utilized efficiently.

Personally I would forego the larger studs and just keep the build simple(r).

Either way you go I'm all in to see the build progress...🍿🍿🍿🍿

ks
 
#28 ·
I certainly think is appropriate for you doing the research to make sure you are building a very stout motor but I don't think the larger studs are needed for what you're wanting to do.
If it's not a race vehicle that is going to get pounded every weekend with high cylinder loading due to hard launches then all that additional cost isn't being utilized efficiently.

Personally I would forego the larger studs and just keep the build simple(r).

Either way you go I'm all in to see the build progress...🍿🍿🍿🍿

ks
I agree with you but sitting at 3500rpm and 10# boost at launch in 4x4 definitely adds some load to the equation. She's 5500lbs too.

I'm leaning toward the 9/16" studs and using a more conservative torque of 110ft/lbs for a little added insurance. 25 extra ft/lbs is appealing to me even if using a safe street tune.