Cracked blocks

[Morgan@Midwest Diesel & Auto]

H11's torques less ft lb and still crack blocks. What your theory for that? Less overall torque than arp but still reached the 210k psi one the stretch it whatever it is. Lesser material sure., but lower torque number doesn't equal less stress per say given a different material. The stretch an arp 16 mm stood has at 275 ft lbs is way over what will cede be needed in a 6.4 application. I've got a well over 1000hp truck that says 225# holds just fine.

Notrius, big compounds, 100psi? That's a different story. Someone would have to try it. I will soon in another truck.

 

[Morgan@Midwest Diesel & Auto]

H11's torques less ft lb and still crack blocks. What your theory for that? Less overall torque than arp but still reached the 210k psi one the stretch it whatever it is. Lesser material sure., but lower torque number doesn't equal less stress per say given a different material. The stretch an arp 16 mm stood has at 275 ft lbs is way over what will cede be needed in a 6.4 application. I've got a well over 1000hp truck that says 225# holds just fine.

Notrius, big compounds, 100psi? That's a different story. Someone would have to try it. I will soon in another truck.

Was not trying to be a dick with that comment. Just giving examples of why a stud with a different stretch at a lower torque doesn't mean they are less likely to crack.

 

[Charles]

Was not trying to be a dick with that comment. Just giving examples of why a stud with a different stretch at a lower torque doesn't mean they are less likely to crack.

I didn't propose the suggestion, but I think I understood his intent, being that the reduced torque value on the large M16 studs might not place the fastener into it's elastic region, meaning that for the ones with severely reduced torque values the fastener might just be a rigid piece that would not react to any loss of crush volume from say headgasket thickness, head or block distortion in the heat of the moment. The other fasteners would be responsible for carrying the load at that time and keeping things in check as those under the elastic torque value might just start dropping clamp like nobody's business.

Like a chain between a truck and a concrete wall if you moved the truck back 1" toward the wall after tensioning the chain, the force would basically disappear as the chain would be inelastic and drop all tension, whereas a strap would still be very much tensioned if it were tensioned hard and then allowed to roll back an inch.

It was just a suggestion by another that seemed logical. If the fasteners never stretch, and the blocks always fail, then maybe a more elastic fastener is the answer. One that requires less clamp to begin to stretch.

This is obviously to avoid the potential issue of the fasteners not reaching this point if the initial load is too low, as might happen if the installed torque value keeps getting backed down without any change to the fastener that was originally designed for the full value.

If they are still in the sweet spot at just over 200 when originally designed for 300+ then obviously it's a non-issue.

Just seemed like maybe the fastener initial clamp to pre-stretch the studs was too much for the blocks. Maybe not. It was simply suggested, since you're already headed down that path hard given the multiple reductions in installed torque.


If a 6.0 holds the cylinder pressure with an M14 and doesn't crack the block then it's not even hypothetical. If the 6.0 studs would lift heads all day in a 6.4, then again, it wouldn't be hypothetical anymore for the opposite reason. Just seemed interesting if the 6.0's don't have block issues with studs, maybe those are better suited. Maybe an M14 shank with an M16 enlarged threaded end would work in that case. In fact, a Deutz engine I just rebuild has headbolts like that. Large threads with a reduced shank on the bolt to get the bolt into the elastic region without retarded torque/clamp.

It was just something interesting. If the 6.0 stud strength would never hold heads down on a CR6.4 then nevermind.

 

[Morgan@Midwest Diesel & Auto]

I didn't propose the suggestion, but I think I understood his intent, being that the reduced torque value on the large M16 studs might not place the fastener into it's elastic region, meaning that for the ones with severely reduced torque values the fastener might just be a rigid piece that would not react to any loss of crush volume from say headgasket thickness, head or block distortion in the heat of the moment. The other fasteners would be responsible for carrying the load at that time and keeping things in check as those under the elastic torque value might just start dropping clamp like nobody's business.

Like a chain between a truck and a concrete wall if you moved the truck back 1" toward the wall after tensioning the chain, the force would basically disappear as the chain would be inelastic and drop all tension, whereas a strap would still be very much tensioned if it were tensioned hard and then allowed to roll back an inch.

It was just a suggestion by another that seemed logical. If the fasteners never stretch, and the blocks always fail, then maybe a more elastic fastener is the answer. One that requires less clamp to begin to stretch.

This is obviously to avoid the potential issue of the fasteners not reaching this point if the initial load is too low, as might happen if the installed torque value keeps getting backed down without any change to the fastener that was originally designed for the full value.

If they are still in the sweet spot at just over 200 when originally designed for 300+ then obviously it's a non-issue.

Just seemed like maybe the fastener initial clamp to pre-stretch the studs was too much for the blocks. Maybe not. It was simply suggested, since you're already headed down that path hard given the multiple reductions in installed torque.


If a 6.0 holds the cylinder pressure with an M14 and doesn't crack the block then it's not even hypothetical. If the 6.0 studs would lift heads all day in a 6.4, then again, it wouldn't be hypothetical anymore for the opposite reason. Just seemed interesting if the 6.0's don't have block issues with studs, maybe those are better suited. Maybe an M14 shank with an M16 enlarged threaded end would work in that case. In fact, a Deutz engine I just rebuild has headbolts like that. Large threads with a reduced shank on the bolt to get the bolt into the elastic region without retarded torque/clamp.

It was just something interesting. If the 6.0 stud strength would never hold heads down on a CR6.4 then nevermind.

Oh I understand and was not making a jab.

I think there are lots of contributing factors. Like the extra material around the stud holes in the 6.0 14mm block vs 6.4 16mm block. With what we've found with the arp 2000 material even at 250 it reaches nearly all the stretch that it has. And from the research, trial and error it came down to being a non issue. Although I believe it would work with a different stud. I also don't see it to be worth the headache when compared to just dropping torque that nominal amount.

 

[FN74]

He was suggesting using a smaller fastener that would still be in it's elastic region without needing to be torqued to a value that tickles the block's structural funny bone.

Actually sounded pretty damn good to me. That or making the larger fasteners from a slightly different material, or slightly different hardening or similar that would allow the stud to reach its elastic region at a lower value.

Sounds like the studs might be a bit too strong for the application. If the studs never stretch, but the blocks always break, then the studs might need to chill a bit.


On Edit:

I can't believe I posted in this $hit storm, lol.

You put that so much more elegantly than I ever could. I figured it was time to bring this thread back to center anyway- Supposed to be about Kicking the 6.4 Crack Habit


Maybe it's just me, but after several threw around the idea of how to use a whole block from second cousin(Maxxforce), I didn't think borrowing studs from older brother was too off the wall. :shrug:


Morgan- Sounds like you have had some good luck at the 225 point, without the nuts coming loose- which Charles provided a great image using the chain scenario. Have you ever checked a 225 nut after say 5K miles to see where the torque is at?
And any luck with an R&R on the heads without causing cracks? If I'm reading this thread right, most can get away without cracks once, but never twice.

While the helicoil may not do anything for wall thickness(or lack thereof) I would think using the smaller bolt would at least shift the shear force of the bolt slightly away from the valley and toward the center of the deck.

Alright, tear it up!:thumbsup:

 

[Morgan@Midwest Diesel & Auto]

You put that so much more elegantly than I ever could. I figured it was time to bring this thread back to center anyway- Supposed to be about Kicking the 6.4 Crack Habit


Maybe it's just me, but after several threw around the idea of how to use a whole block from second cousin(Maxxforce), I didn't think borrowing studs from older brother was too off the wall. :shrug:


Morgan- Sounds like you have had some good luck at the 225 point, without the nuts coming loose- which Charles provided a great image using the chain scenario. Have you ever checked a 225 nut after say 5K miles to see where the torque is at?
And any luck with an R&R on the heads without causing cracks? If I'm reading this thread right, most can get away without cracks once, but never twice.

While the helicoil may not do anything for wall thickness(or lack thereof) I would think using the smaller bolt would at least shift the shear force of the bolt slightly away from the valley and toward the center of the deck.

Alright, tear it up!:thumbsup:

Yep we studded a truck. It ran the guy bent rods we built the engine. Still no cracks.

Max force block is more expensive from navistar and not any different.

 

[bigrpowr]

Yes, 250 is more than enough. I assume you have an engineering study to back that up?

ARP, the manufacturer of the stud that has spent tens of thousands of dollars in R&D and thousands of hours to make the stud just recommends 275 ft/lbs because they feel like it's a good number. Not because that's what it takes to yield the stud to the point where it provides proper clamping force.

Unbelievable.

actually, ARP did no R&D . none. and certainly never installed them in an engine and fired it. their original tq value was based simply on 3 things which are the basis for all bolts and fasteners which is size, material, and lube. just think they started their sets for the 7.3 at 90 ft/lbs , in just 6 months after countless headgasket failures, they had gone all the way up to 140 , and that was with NO r&d as is usual with most fastener companies.

 

[SDS97_7.3]

actually, ARP did no R&D . none. and certainly never installed them in an engine and fired it. their original tq value was based simply on 3 things which are the basis for all bolts and fasteners which is size, material, and lube. just think they started their sets for the 7.3 at 90 ft/lbs , in just 6 months after countless headgasket failures, they had gone all the way up to 140 , and that was with NO r&d as is usual with most fastener companies.

That's impossible, they did testing on thousands of engines. I read it on the interwebs

 

[Highroller54]

actually, ARP did no R&D . none. and certainly never installed them in an engine and fired it. their original tq value was based simply on 3 things which are the basis for all bolts and fasteners which is size, material, and lube.

I believe this to be 100% all there numbers are based off the fastner and not off the motors requirments at all.

 

[drunk on diesel]

actually, ARP did no R&D . none. and certainly never installed them in an engine and fired it. their original tq value was based simply on 3 things which are the basis for all bolts and fasteners which is size, material, and lube. just think they started their sets for the 7.3 at 90 ft/lbs , in just 6 months after countless headgasket failures, they had gone all the way up to 140 , and that was with NO r&d as is usual with most fastener companies.

are you suggesting that ARP revised their torque specs!??!?

 

[bigrpowr]

are you suggesting that ARP revised their torque specs!??!?

they constantly change based on real world data and results !! none of which are derived by them!!

 

[drunk on diesel]

that's unpossible!

 

[bigrpowr]

that's unpossible!

I know right ! the funny part is I don't blame them. they either wait for a customer to "need" them or somehow stumble on the need, and base the fastener on basic math. I don't blame them. there is no way they could r&d , NO WAY ! but for someone to say they spend 10's of thousands .... shows pure ignorance. I live about 20 minutes away and know a couple people there, they would NEVER claim that. I highly doubt they have ever had a 6.4 long block in there hands.

 

[SVTDanny]

For anyone interested in installing ARP studs the proper way, and not this "Make up my own torque for each stud" voodoo half assed bull****,

All 20 of my studs are torqued to 275 ft/lbs. The only cracking noise heard was the torque wrench breaking away.

Throw the lube packets that ARP sends with the studs in the garbage. Buy one of these cans. The packets are enough for maybe 2 studs each if you are doing it the right way.

Clean out the block holes with brake clean and air until it comes out clear. It took 5 rounds of this on my personal truck.

Put the heads on.

Spray the studs off with brake clean and blow off with air. Get all the oil and grime off of them from the box. Thread the studs down into the block a little ways. Slather the top of the stud in lube. Thread the stud in until it bottoms out. Slather the washers in lube. Slather the nuts in lube. This is how much lube you need to use on each stud (AKA - a LOT)

Torque them down according to ARP spec sheet, enjoy a properly installed set of studs that isn't warping your heads and that didn't crack your block.


Anyone else that wants to join the internet sheep and do this the wrong way, go right ahead. Don't say you were never shown the proper way to install ARP studs though.

 

[BBottoms]

Throw the lube packets that ARP sends with the studs in the garbage. Buy one of these cans. The packets are enough for maybe 2 studs each if you are doing it the right way.

According to all your other posts ARP is infallible and you would never deviate from the instructions even with a gun to your head.... it's funny that you decide to add your own modification but refuse to acknowledge anyone else's. Surely ARP would never spend thousands of hours and dollars in R&D and then send the wrong amount of lube with their studs...

 

[6.4strokin]

For anyone interested in installing ARP studs the proper way, and not this "Make up my own torque for each stud" voodoo half assed bull****,

All 20 of my studs are torqued to 275 ft/lbs. The only cracking noise heard was the torque wrench breaking away.

Throw the lube packets that ARP sends with the studs in the garbage. Buy one of these cans. The packets are enough for maybe 2 studs each if you are doing it the right way.

Clean out the block holes with brake clean and air until it comes out clear. It took 5 rounds of this on my personal truck.

Put the heads on.

Spray the studs off with brake clean and blow off with air. Get all the oil and grime off of them from the box. Thread the studs down into the block a little ways. Slather the top of the stud in lube. Thread the stud in until it bottoms out. Slather the washers in lube. Slather the nuts in lube. This is how much lube you need to use on each stud (AKA - a LOT)

Torque them down according to ARP spec sheet, enjoy a properly installed set of studs that isn't warping your heads and that didn't crack your block.


Anyone else that wants to join the internet sheep and do this the wrong way, go right ahead. Don't say you were never shown the proper way to install ARP studs though.

Wow kid bashing people that have a considerable amount of experience and knowledge. How many stud jobs have you done on a 6.4? Be honest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SVTDanny]

According to all your other posts ARP is infallible and you would never deviate from the instructions even with a gun to your head.... it's funny that you decide to add your own modification but refuse to acknowledge anyone else's. Surely ARP would never spend thousands of hours and dollars in R&D and then send the wrong amount of lube with their studs...

ARP says to lube them really well. They fail to provide enough lube. I said that earlier as well.

Lots of people with selective hearing problems on here.

 

[SVTDanny]

Wow kid bashing people that have a considerable amount of experience and knowledge. How many stud jobs have you done on a 6.4? Be honest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A stud install is a stud install is a stud install. People do them wrong ALL THE TIME, and crack blocks ALL THE TIME. I know this from my own "considerable amount of experience and knowledge." The 6.4 is no different, as you see by these "experts" that apparently have piles and piles of cracked blocks just laying around.


Now that I've provided an instruction manual on the PROPER way to install studs, I'm done posting. The information is there if anyone wants it. I'll make sure and come back to read what the internet experts and their sheep have to say though, always good for a laugh.

 

[4.0l sahara]

Cool story bro. Preach about lots of lube all you want. That's somthing anybody who does this a lot knows already.

 

[forcefed6.4ford]

You do not need that much lube. Period. All that is requires is a film between the surfaces. Any more and it's just waste.