Agree to disagree it is then...

 

TTY fasteners are technically the same as "normal fasteners", it's just that they are tightened to their yield point whereas fasteners like ARP's are tightened to roughly 75% of their yield. The TTY stuff is generally more accurate because friction is mostly taken out of the equation, and because the angle value was developed specifically for that joint by the OEM.

 

that makes sense. It seems the fasteners are definitely made up of a different metallurgy. When trying to reuse a tty fastener, It seems it definately will not "stretch" any more, but the arp fasteners never seem to have that "stretch" feel to them when torque numbers are reached. I remember talking to a gentleman at arp and he said the same thing you stated about the torque specs being 75% of their yield point. Thanks!

 

I've had one stuck in the block before. I snapped off the allen wrench in the stud trying to screw it in. Problem was caused by not cleaning/tapping the threads. Had to pull the head off and use three stacked nuts to back it out.
If you snapped it off inside the block, you are screwed. Take it to a machine shop and hope they can get it out. As said before, they are only supposed to be in the block finger tight.

 

Every set of arp head studs I ever used all said to tighten in manufacturers sequence but not there torque specs. It also says to torque studs to 60 ft ibs which I never do because I dont think 60 ft ibs is tight enough.

 

I'm afraid to ask what you tighten them to lol.

 

What do you mean you're afraid lol. Are you the design engineer for ARP?

 

I'm afraid of what the answer may be. I wouldn't need to be a design engineer to know that increasing the torque on a fastener because "I don't think" ARP's recommendation is enough is very likely a bad idea.

 

85flb here

 

I already posted the info straight from ARP's website. It clearly states 80ft/lbs for a final torque value. That's for B series head studs.

 

afraid?? Im afraid to ask what you torque them to? 60 ft ibs? I always torque to 80 ft ibs in 3 steps like it says on there website.

And that pic I posted is clearly arp's directions for there b series studs. I just posted it because lots of people have got these directions with there arp studs to torque to 60 ft ibs but like you said already the website says 80 ft ibs(which I always do).

Ive also talked to 3 different guys over the phone from arp and they all given me 3 different answers/opinions all more than 60 ft ibs but all in 3 steps.

 

Increasing torque on fastener because ARP recommends it is a lot different than if you do it because you just think it needs more. The latter makes you sound dumb.

When I look up the part numbers for B Series head studs, I also see that ARP recommends 80ft-lbs. However, I'm not so sure you have the right picture posted though, because it says they are 190ksi yield 10mm studs, whereas the website says 200ksi 7/16" studs. I hope I'm not the only one that noticed that.

 

SO Eg, just wondering if you do anything other than troll halfway technical threads (Or totally simple threads and try to make them much more than they need to be, beyond the scope of the OPS interest) and attempt to make yourself sound like the be all end all of knowledge, its not the first ive seen you do it in.


Its pretty ****in simple. Really

1. Read the MFGs instructions
2. Do what they say
3. Profit.


You dont even need to get into angles and stretch in doing so. Use the lube (The newer **** is reallly nice), Tq to spec. I agree with you, no NEED for 3 steps, but 2, or 3 isnt going to hurt **** if you do accurate TQing and follow a standard pattern of tqing them.


Follow the instructions with whatever product you buy, thats it. No guesswork. ANYONE making it more complicated than that is a moron, despite how they may view themselves.

myself included.

 

Yes I said I didn't think it was enough but that doesn't mean I went on and increase the torque on them to what I thought was enough. I just felt the directions I recieved did not seem correct so I called arp and looked it up on there website which I clearly stated I did do in my previous post. Your assumption of what t I meant by when I said I thought it needed more just makes you seem dumb.

 

Sorry I read your post but was thinking about what jdmadam was saying about how he "thinks" 60 ft lbs is not enough.

 

Are you really sitting there saying that I'm adding to much technical info? LMAO. Whatever hard on you have for me, just let it go. Seriously.

It actually can be considerably complicated given the effect the clamping load of the head studs have on things like gasket seal and cylinder bore distortion. I understand people want to just keep it simple, but you can really get into the intricacies of it and find power and reliability. Since you like things simple, go hit up Office Depot and pick up thermal fax paper, lay it over and underneath a head gasket, then put the cylinder head on and torque the studs. When you take it all back apart, post up the picture of the thermal paper. It's a pretty simple, yet thought provoking experiment.

 

Well, it is an experienced based assumption. You wouldn't be the first person on this message board that torques fasteners to what they feel it should be.

 

No worries. It looks like you got the same impression of him that I did.

 

No what I was plainly saying is that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Par for the course. Im not going to bother addressing your want to be elitist *** again... there's no reward. Its not that your knowledge is lacking, its that your attitude is **** As I see you've already corrected your contradiction, my work here is done .



capiche?


EDIT: It appears my post notating the correct tq has disapeared... maybe both of us are elitist ********.

 

It's the Internet, everyone is an *******. If you don't like my attitude, be a big boy and get over it already and bring some techincal counterpoints to the discussion. Otherwise, you're just wasting energy crying about something that will get you nowhere.

 

Understandable.