Car Forum / Honda Cars / December 2005
to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing belt
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jacko - 26 Oct 2005 01:52 GMT Whats the easiest procedure to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing belt. Don't tell me take it to a dealer....They're horribly expensive and dont give good value for money.
SoCalMike - 26 Oct 2005 01:54 GMT > Whats the easiest procedure to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing > belt. Don't tell me take it to a dealer....They're horribly expensive > and dont give good value for money. youre going to need a service manual regardless. the easiest procedure is going to be what the book says.
Elle - 26 Oct 2005 02:01 GMT www.autozone.com 's free repair guides have instructions specific to your 1988 Accord for changing the timing belt.
These other sites also discuss the changing of Honda timing belts and have step by step instructions:
http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas/54pontiac/honda.html
http://timingbelt.soben.com/
http://www.honda.co.uk/owner/workshopmanuals2.html
The biggest hurdle is probably going to be breaking free the crankshaft pulley bolt. Take a morning or day to figure out how to do it, then break it free, using the guides above and getting input from here. Subsequently schedule a day to do the whole timing belt job.
> Whats the easiest procedure to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing > belt. Don't tell me take it to a dealer....They're horribly expensive > and dont give good value for money. TeGGeR® - 26 Oct 2005 02:17 GMT > www.autozone.com 's free repair guides have instructions specific to > your 1988 Accord for changing the timing belt. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The biggest hurdle is probably going to be breaking free the > crankshaft pulley bolt. For that reason this page exists: http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#crankbolt
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 26 Oct 2005 02:57 GMT > "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > > The biggest hurdle is probably going to be breaking free the > > crankshaft pulley bolt. > > For that reason this page exists: > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#crankbolt I don't reference this particular sub-site of your FAQ because I think the part of it on the tools one can buy or fabricate is not well done. It's mostly poor writing, and I think it doesn't get across the tool situation very well at all.
I would be happy to redo it for you, but I don't want to step on your toes.
I note this because when I was researching how to break free my 91 Civic's pulley bolt last year, I found a number of posts talked about the hex pipe homemade tool. But that isn't the type of setup my 91 Civic's pulley bolt has. Ultimately the thread got it straight that my Civic has the pulley with holes in it. Eric guided me to fabrication of an excellent tool for it, slightly modified because my Civic had the power steering pulley lip with which to contend, too.
I did a lot of other research on this, finding tools commercially available and also at Ebay. (So far I prefer the tool that I ended up making for around ten bucks, with Eric's guidance.)
TeGGeR® - 26 Oct 2005 03:47 GMT >> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> > The biggest hurdle is probably going to be breaking free the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I would be happy to redo it for you, but I don't want to step on your > toes. By all means, if it's not well written, please redo it. The whole site depends on multiple inputs.
Corrections of ANY kind NEVER, EVER step on my toes. The last thing I want is errors on the site. Errors cost credibility. Ego is not worth it if it leads to errors. I research this stuff as best I can, but sometimes I need to rely on a best-guess. I then count on others to alert me if errors get posted. You'd be amazed how few people actually let me know when they find mistakes.
I once had one TSB link that led to the wrong TSB. According to my logs, that TSB was viewed some 50 times, and only ONE person notified me that the TSB referenced was not the one it should have led to. I thanked him and changed it immediately.
Much of some portions of the site was written by others. Some is attributed, some (by request) is not. The igniter pages are prime examples: My helper there refuses to be publicly identified.
There have been submissions from others that have been impossible to substantiate. These I have not put up, erring on the side of caution and credibility.
> I note this because when I was researching how to break free my 91 > Civic's pulley bolt last year, I found a number of posts talked about > the hex pipe homemade tool. But that isn't the type of setup my 91 > Civic's pulley bolt has. Perfectly true. Some of them don't have that hex. Again, I don't know unless someone tells me. How to get those loose? I don't know unless someone tells me, or unless I read it in the groups.
I'm not a machine, and I will miss stuff as I read through the group's messages. I was away for three weeks back in the summer. I have no idea what I missed then.
> Ultimately the thread got it straight that my > Civic has the pulley with holes in it. Eric guided me to fabrication > of an excellent tool for it, slightly modified because my Civic had > the power steering pulley lip with which to contend, too. Please elaborate.
By the way, I wish you'd got pics of your spark plug tube seal replacement. I'm going to add your text to a new section on that, but I'll have to rely on diagrams instead of photographs. It's a question that comes up often enough to warrant addition to the FAQ.
> I did a lot of other research on this, finding tools commercially > available and also at Ebay. (So far I prefer the tool that I ended up > making for around ten bucks, with Eric's guidance.) You may not believe this, but I have no ego whatsoever when it comes to this site. I was asked by John Ings to take it on before he died, and it's become sort of a part-time job for me as I keep my promise to John.
I am a home mechanic, and not a professional, a fact that has not ever been any kind of secret. I have repeatedly and freely acknowledged (and solicited) the input of other's experiences, and have posted them as needed. What is not mine is openly attributed to those who have submitted it.
You have publicly objected to several parts of my site, but have so far offered no corrections. A number of others have both objected AND offered (even with diagrams and photos) corrections, ALL of which I have posted as updates.
An example: The igniter test that required a dwell meter. John Ings wrote that part. He had incorrectly attributed the test procedure to someone named "Oak". You pointed this out as a criticism of the site, but offered no correction at all, even after I requested that you do so. I asked you to tell me who had actually written that quote, and received no reply. I then did some digging myself, and discovered the quote actually came from "Rob Relf". I then corrected that page, as you'll notice if you go there. http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/startproblems.html (3/4 of the way down)
The Unofficial Honda FAQ is supposed to be CORRECT, PERIOD. It is NOT supposed to be a forum for my own opinions. Some pages are my opinions, based on fact as far as I can determine, and I stand ready to correct that which can be shown to be wrong.
You find mistakes? TELL ME. I NEED submissions. I only have one car myself. Any other experiences I have come from working on others' cars, or from submissions I receive from others. I have NO ego and a very thick skin. I've been on Usenet for quite a few years and am very used to criticism and MORE than eager to fix mistakes.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 26 Oct 2005 05:35 GMT > "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Corrections of ANY kind NEVER, EVER step on my toes. The last thing I want > is errors on the site. Errors cost credibility. It's not errors (at least not in this instance), IMO, just lack of clarity.
> Ego is not worth it if it > leads to errors. I research this stuff as best I can, but sometimes I need [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > attributed, some (by request) is not. The igniter pages are prime examples: > My helper there refuses to be publicly identified.
> There have been submissions from others that have been impossible to > substantiate. These I have not put up, erring on the side of caution and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Perfectly true. Some of them don't have that hex. The sub-site does note this, just not all that clearly, IMO.
> Again, I don't know > unless someone tells me. How to get those loose? I don't know unless > someone tells me, or unless I read it in the groups. > > I'm not a machine, and I will miss stuff as I read through the group's > messages. My intent, believe it or not, was not to shoot down your site or you. I hope you bear in mind all the praise people routinely and understandably heap upon the "Unofficial FAQ" site. I think I'm the only one who has some hesitancy to refer people to it. Obviously, I'm a rookie in most of these areas, compared to Curly, SoCalMike, Jim, Eric, NE Ohio Bob, several others I regret I can't name off the top of my head, and of course yourself. So arguably my opinion should count even less.
My standards for communicating technical material are high. In addition, because of what I think is a very different background, I think I communicate in a way that a lot of old hands (mostly men, by coincidence) find different.
> I was away for three weeks back in the summer. I have no idea > what I missed then. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > on diagrams instead of photographs. It's a question that comes up often > enough to warrant addition to the FAQ. I agree that the spark plug tube oil leak problem etc. should be an FAQ, touching upon both the easy upper seal and the more involved lower seal.
IMO, Majestic's (or slhonda.com's) diagram of the lower seals, combined with the instructions for removing the rocker arm/shaft assembly, with maybe a bit of tweaking from my notes and/or your notes, treat the subject quite well.
I am halfway to buying a digital camera because I want to show off my Eric-patented, Elle-modified crankshaft pulley holder and bolt removal tool.
> > I did a lot of other research on this, finding tools commercially > > available and also at Ebay. (So far I prefer the tool that I ended up [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You have publicly objected to several parts of my site, but have so far > offered no corrections. You're right that one who criticizes should certainly offer to correct the problem him/erself. Also, I realize it's no easy task to maintain such a site.
By way of some sort of explanation, and FWIW: We had quite a row over the PCV valve issue some years ago. I remain at a loss over it. I am not happy with what your site says about it. I don't want to repeat this row. Hence my silence on this point. I appreciate what you say about not wanting to inject ego, but if you are really convinced the PCV valve FAQ discussion is fair to the subject, then you're entitled to your opinion and so should stick by what's at the site.
> A number of others have both objected AND offered > (even with diagrams and photos) corrections, ALL of which I have posted as > updates. That's a lot of work, and again, I hope you remember all the people who compliment your efforts as incredibly useful.
> An example: The igniter test that required a dwell meter. John Ings wrote > that part. He had incorrectly attributed the test procedure to someone > named "Oak". You pointed this out as a criticism of the site, but offered > no correction at all, even after I requested that you do so. First, I thought you could groups.google and easily find out who had written the test procedure.
Two, hate me, but there was another person involved in the igniter discussions here at the newsgroup who sent me a private email that was do distasteful I wanted no affiliation with anything he did. I mentioned this in the past. I think he's involved with this part of your site. Plus, I don't have anything in particular to offer the ignitor section, anyway, without one helluva lot of effort. Electronics is my weak point, besides. To me, ignitors break. There's a test or two out there to confirm they're broken. Once confirmed, slap another in there. OTOH, having my own engineering subject area passions (e.g. thermodynamics and mechanics of materials), I can understand how someone would love dissecting the operation of the ignitor and comparing it to the old fashioned way ("points").
> I asked you to > tell me who had actually written that quote, and received no reply. I then > did some digging myself, and discovered the quote actually came from "Rob > Relf". I then corrected that page, as you'll notice if you go there. > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/startproblems.html > (3/4 of the way down) Well done.
> The Unofficial Honda FAQ is supposed to be CORRECT, PERIOD. It is NOT > supposed to be a forum for my own opinions. Some pages are my opinions, > based on fact as far as I can determine, and I stand ready to correct that > which can be shown to be wrong. Aside from the helpful technical info, I got a kick out of NE Ohio Bob's camshaft table photos. (Been wanting to mention that for a while!) ;-)
I'll put together a site on the crankshaft pulley bolt, temporarily post it (like for the next year or so), and you can use it as you like. I'll try to make it blend with what you have already at your site, so you can copy and paste as easily as possible.
Seems like the two Usenet Honda auto newsgroups have a rather amazing reputation among auto newsgroups for helping people with their cars. You should take a lot of credit for that.
jim beam - 26 Oct 2005 06:00 GMT <snip>
> My standards for communicating technical material are high. In addition, > because of what I think is a very different background, I think I > communicate in a way that a lot of old hands (mostly men, by coincidence) > find different. i'm sure i'll regret such a dumb question, but wtf has gender got to do with it??????????
Elle - 02 Nov 2005 17:18 GMT > Elle wrote: > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > i'm sure i'll regret such a dumb question, but wtf has gender got to do > with it?????????? Women use the F word less?
;-)
It's not a dumb question. My take, FWIW:
Boys as youngsters are encouraged to explore the workings of mechanical, electrical, and electronic gadgets more than girls. (With some exceptions.) Girls quickly become accustomed to not showing curiosity, because it's seen as unfeminine. It doesn't get them attention the way dressing up and finding the perfect haircut etc. do. And guys feed this to some extent, though I doubt it's an entirely conscious thing. E.g. girls on the softball field who are best remembered by some of the men are the bona fide babes, not the athletes. (Again there are exceptions.)
Hence many of the women who ultimately do want to do much more with mechanical, electrical, etc. gadgetry start fiddling with--putting their hands on--such gadgets at a much later age than men.
The consequence of this is females' less intuitive (so to speak) understanding of mechanical leverage, circuits, etc. They don't "get" things as quickly as guys do. I speak not just for myself but from educating college engineering students, both boys and girls. The difference is very noticeable. I reached the point where I could quickly discern the gals who flat out could not imagine certain stress concepts and needed more graphic or hands on examples to help them understand. (Some of the boys would have problems and need these aids, too, but it tended to be the girls moreso.) Supporting this is also an observation from a former, elderly colleague of mine: The guys weren't even as adept as mastering concepts in the 1990s, because fewer and fewer were working on cars, the farm tractor, around the house, carpentry, whatever, and instead were spending more of their boyhood on computers.
I did some fidgeting with gadgets as a young girl. E.g. I built my own radio using a relative's old Navy radar basic textbook. I got stuck where it said to install a "cat whisker." (It was an /old/ textbook!) My relative helped and said a crystal diode would work fine instead. He got one for me. I put it in. The radio worked! Very cool, but not something I ever advertised as having done until I was in my 30s, cause it was, ya know, geeky. I still remember the weird looking old capacitor I used to tune the radio to different stations. Granted I got only a few stations.
But I never worked on cars as a kid. I did my first oil change at the age of 23. I had a lot of hands on experience in college, turning a lot of wrenches, for one, due to the nature of the unusual program I was in. But I was way behind the learning curve when taking that hands on experience and applying it in the engineering classroom. The way forces work together was something that was often obvious to certain boys who were poor at mathematics (unlike myself). I had to read and reread descriptions in textbooks, and eventually would devise little desktop experiments, where possible, to prove, reinforce, and then master a concept to the point I could teach it or publish it in reputable places. (And I mean that literally.)
So in a nutshell, if the words describing a technical concept aren't dead on accurate, I will be more likely than a lot of men to scratch my head and wonder, say, 'Did he mean this? Or could this phrase instead mean that?'
Not to say my technical writing is perfect.
I'm not asking you to buy any of this. It's just my take, based on years as an engineering educator yada. In no way do I profess to know as much about auto repairs and maintenance as many of the regulars here.
Matt Ion - 03 Nov 2005 09:17 GMT >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Women use the F word less? Hah! You should meet some of the women I know!
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0544-4, 11/02/2005 Tested on: 11/3/2005 12:17:55 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com
TeGGeR® - 26 Oct 2005 13:21 GMT >> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> >> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >> > my Civic had the power steering pulley lip with which to contend, >> > too. I now think I remember a discussion of just this a long time ago before I took over the site. Somebody had posted a verbal decscription of the tool, which I had trouble following.
>> Please elaborate. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > assembly, with maybe a bit of tweaking from my notes and/or your > notes, treat the subject quite well. Exactly.
> I am halfway to buying a digital camera because I want to show off my > Eric-patented, Elle-modified crankshaft pulley holder and bolt removal [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > By way of some sort of explanation, and FWIW: We had quite a row over > the PCV valve issue some years ago. That's over and done. Time to move on.
> I remain at a loss over it. I am > not happy with what your site says about it. I don't want to repeat [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Two, hate me, I don't hate anyone. Though I do have a higher opinion of people who offer help as well as criticism.
> but there was another person involved in the igniter > discussions here at the newsgroup who sent me a private email that was > do distasteful I wanted no affiliation with anything he did. I > mentioned this in the past. I think he's involved with this part of > your site. I don't know who you're referring to, so a statement like this is unfair. No one has ever sent me "distasteful" email.
> Plus, I don't have anything in particular to offer the > ignitor section, anyway, without one helluva lot of effort. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > like. I'll try to make it blend with what you have already at your > site, so you can copy and paste as easily as possible. If you set up your own site on that, I'll link to it in the FAQ.
> Seems like the two Usenet Honda auto newsgroups have a rather amazing > reputation among auto newsgroups for helping people with their cars. > You should take a lot of credit for that. So should many others, including you.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 27 Oct 2005 05:50 GMT > > I'll put together a site on the crankshaft pulley bolt, temporarily > > post it (like for the next year or so), and you can use it as you > > like. I'll try to make it blend with what you have already at your > > site, so you can copy and paste as easily as possible. > > If you set up your own site on that, I'll link to it in the FAQ. Here is my nauseously detailed discussion of crankshaft pulleys and holder tools and oil in spark plug tubes.
http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/index.html
Pithy suggested changes are welcome.
TeGGeR® - 27 Oct 2005 13:15 GMT > > > I'll put together a site on the crankshaft pulley bolt, > > > temporarily [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pithy suggested changes are welcome. I'll check it out later, thanks for putting that up.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
TeGGeR® - 29 Oct 2005 03:16 GMT >> > > I'll put together a site on the crankshaft pulley bolt, >> > > temporarily [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'll check it out later, thanks for putting that up. OK, first impressions upon reading your site:
CRANK PULLEY ------------ 1) Nicely done up, clearly written. I /finally/ understand what that guy was trying to say a long time ago when he was attempting to describe the holder for pulleys with the ring of round holes!
2) I have very serious reservations about your assertion that the bolt tightens over time due to heat cycling. This frankly makes no sense at all. Consider that the crankshaft nose heats and cools identically with the bolt. I would like to see some citations supporting that theory.
I have linked your pages to mine in spite of this, but that paragraph really should be removed.
3) Neither does it make sense that the bolt tightens because of the way it's turning. The pulley is keyed positively in place, and the bolt has far less mass than the crankshaft. The crank cannot spin up faster than the bolt for the simple reason of greater inertia. It is impossible for the bolt to tighten as the engine spins unless it's been severely undertorqued in the first place (as in finger-LOOSE), and even then it would tend to vibrate out instead.
That crankshaft bolt is hard to undo for two reasons: 1) The well-known phenomenon that it takes a lot more than tightening torque to break the static friction between the surfaces of the bolt and its receptacle, and 2) corrosion. This is why a blow from an air-hammer is almost 100% effective even on the worst bolts. The blow breaks the rust seal.
I suppose it's possible for rust to form between the pulley and the crankshaft nose (similarly to the way it does between brake rotor and hub), which would have the effect of putting a tremendous amount of force on the bolt as it pushes the pulley outwards.
4) Jamieson's and Curly's homemade pulley holder is for the pulley with a hex, not the one with no hex and no lip.
OIL IN THE PLUG HOLES --------------------- 1) There is an even easier way of determining #1 cyl compression TDC if you've already got the valve cover off: Just make sure the #1 cyl's valves are closed as the timing marks are lined up. That way nothing has to get stuck in the spark plug hole.
If the person doing the operation can not tell if the valves are closed by that method, then he shouldn't be doing this kind of work anyway.
REMOVING THE CRANK BOLT, from http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas/54pontiac/honda.html ---------------------
The page contains some good info, but also a couple of fairly poor things that mark the author as somewhat inexperienced. Specifically these two:
1) "Use the starter motor to loosen the bolt once your wrench is secure (strips flywheel teeth)" This is utter nonsense. It's a method used all the time in non-Honda vehicles and is quite effective indeed. The starter and ring gear are not at risk. The method can NOT be used on most Hondas because the engine turns the wrong way, and for no other reason.
2) "Use an air hammer _ probably damage something in the engine, drivetrain and your ears with all that pounding" Nonsense as well. You don't use the hammer to take the bolt off, you use it to break the rust seal. And you don't do it repeatedly, but deliver only one or two blows. This is also very effective.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
jim beam - 29 Oct 2005 04:38 GMT >>>>>I'll put together a site on the crankshaft pulley bolt, >>>>>temporarily [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > in the first place (as in finger-LOOSE), and even then it would tend to > vibrate out instead. in this instance, it /can/ tighten because of crank rotation direction. the pulley /is/ keyed as you say, but it still has a small degree of lash, and the pulley/bolt still have momentum. and crank rotation velocity spikes with each cylinder combustion.
when i was messing about with my crx, i played with the bolt tightness a little bit and found that i could have the bolt done to torque and easy to undo again, [i forgot something and had to remove the pulley a couple of times] yet one high speed test drive later, the bolt's one super-tight sob again!
bottom line, sure, rust plays a part and the threads may even be treated with some form of locker, but if you think about crank rotation and tightening direction vs. pulley momentum, it /can/ progressively tighten over time.
> That crankshaft bolt is hard to undo for two reasons: 1) The well-known > phenomenon that it takes a lot more than tightening torque to break the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > to break the rust seal. And you don't do it repeatedly, but deliver only > one or two blows. This is also very effective. Elle - 29 Oct 2005 17:53 GMT > when i was messing about with my crx, i played with the bolt tightness a > little bit and found that i could have the bolt done to torque and easy > to undo again, [i forgot something and had to remove the pulley a couple > of times] yet one high speed test drive later, the bolt's one > super-tight sob again! As usual, great test; great anecdote for the archives.
TeGGeR® - 30 Oct 2005 00:49 GMT <snip>
> in this instance, it /can/ tighten because of crank rotation > direction. > the pulley /is/ keyed as you say, but it still has a small degree of > lash, and the pulley/bolt still have momentum. and crank rotation > velocity spikes with each cylinder combustion. Sorry, but this is dead wrong. Once tightened to spec, that bolt does not move.
> when i was messing about with my crx, i played with the bolt tightness > a little bit and found that i could have the bolt done to torque and > easy to undo again, [i forgot something and had to remove the pulley a > couple of times] yet one high speed test drive later, the bolt's one > super-tight sob again! It did not rotate to cause this. There are other factors at play here, but rotation is NOT one of them. This identical same thing happens with Toyotas and other cars where the engines turns the other way around from Hondas.
The crank pulley has a tiny bit of play even when keyed, but it does not have nearly enough rotational displacement to ave any significant effect on torque.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
jim beam - 30 Oct 2005 03:02 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sorry, but this is dead wrong. Once tightened to spec, that bolt does not > move. dude, it can and it does. that's why drive shaft nuts are peened - same thing. one will tighten, the other loosen. the amount of movement is restricted to the lash on each side of the key, but it doesn't even need a thou to slowly rotate. just because it doesn't /look/ like it's moving, doesn't mean it won't!
>>when i was messing about with my crx, i played with the bolt tightness >>a little bit and found that i could have the bolt done to torque and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have nearly enough rotational displacement to ave any significant effect on > torque. again, untrue. q: how much rotation is attributable to each hammer blow in a pneumatic impact driver a: not much! it's the extremely high blow count that gets it moving and then the turbine can take over the job of winding the nut/bolt off.
TeGGeR® - 30 Oct 2005 15:50 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > dude, it can and it does. that's why drive shaft nuts are peened - > same thing. one will tighten, the other loosen. Do you havre any references to this?
> the amount of > movement is restricted to the lash on each side of the key, but it > doesn't even need a thou to slowly rotate. just because it doesn't > /look/ like it's moving, doesn't mean it won't! Then explain why the exact same thing happens to Toyotas, Fords and other vehicles that turn the engine such as to LOOSEN the bolt.
I have been unable to find any references to your alleged phenomenon in Google searches.
My personal theory is that with heat and vibration, the bolt and its threads "settle in" and thus increase their static friction.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
jim beam - 30 Oct 2005 19:11 GMT >>><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > My personal theory is that with heat and vibration, the bolt and its > threads "settle in" and thus increase their static friction. bolts can loosen on side loads - as is the case with l/h wheel nuts on cars where r/h threads are used. or they can tighten - as is the case with pedal spindles on bikes. bikes have r/h thread on the right and l/h thread on the left to prevent loosening, and often these continue to tighten with use. side loads cause what's called "precession" and that works both ways.
we don't have much side load here, so the only movement is angular. an example of angular tightening is the locking ring on a fixed gear bike. it's l/h thread vs. the drive cog which is normal r/h thread. the drive cog can move back & forth slightly in use [resistive braking] and this tightens the locking ring. in fact, because soft alloy hubs are used, it's not uncommon for the locking ring to strip after a time, even though the initial tightening torque of the cog & ring are well within normal spec.
regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have anything immediately to hand. you have to go back to basic engineering principles. if you can accept that there is some angular lash in the pulley, you can figure out the inertial predominance of that lash as the crank rotates.
i absolutely agree, other factors such as rust do undoubtedly have a significant impact on tightness of fasteners, but that's not the case with my crx and messing about with the pulley bolt on two seperate disassemblies on consecutive days with only one run in between. [initially to replace the locked water pump and determine whether the motor worked at all, and the second day, having decided that the motor ran like a champ, deciding to re-do the job properly and put in a new pump, not the junker i'd used before.]
i'll also say that having worked on a number of other "right way" motors and loosened their pulley bolts as well, i've never come across anything as tight as the honda bolt. the difficulty with an ordinary pulley bolt is simply holding the wheel so the bolt can be undone. once the pulley wheel is held, it's not that much of a problem. and you'll note that most of them have locking washers under them [the honda doesn't]. the starter motor trick is a great quick convenience if you don't want to bother with a holding tool or have an impact driver. but even if the motor turned the right way for the starter motor to try unscrewing this bolt, i'm not sure it would work in this case. starter motor cranking torque i believe to be in the range ~200 ft.lbs, [which /would/ shift an unstuck bolt] but i think estimates of these honda bolts being stuck at over 400 ft.lbs completely reasonable based on me needing to bounce my full weight on an 18" [3/4"] breaker bar.
Jacko - 31 Oct 2005 00:26 GMT >>>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > over 400 ft.lbs completely reasonable based on me needing to bounce my > full weight on an 18" [3/4"] breaker bar. Wow the replies are overwhelming. Thanks Dudes... Its like bing in Honda knowledge heaven..
TeGGeR® - 31 Oct 2005 14:45 GMT > regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have anything > immediately to hand. you have to go back to basic engineering > principles. if you can accept that there is some angular lash in the > pulley, you can figure out the inertial predominance of that lash as > the crank rotates. It's still wrong. That bolt does NOT turn.
Honda is very particular about the treatment of this critical fastener. They specify that oil be applied to the /threads/, but not to the /bolt face or washer/. Not only that, but they also specify that if a new fastener is used, it should be pre-stretched to a higher-than-final-torque before being loosened and final-torqued to the lower number.
If the bolt could tighten and stretch itself some unknown amount, do you really think Honda would risk such an unknown variable in such a critical area? What if the bolt tightened too much? Disaster!
And if that final higher torque /were/ predictable, don't you think Honda would specify that final torque to begin with, and simply tell you to set it to that in order to eliminate that variable?
Also, if you look at bolt torque charts, there is NO bolt of that size, not even an aircraft-grade M10.9, that is intended to be torqued to anywhere close to the 300 ft lbs that Elle guesses at. The highest rating I can find in my charts is for a 12mm 11T with 1.25mm pitch. It's rating is...130 ft lbs, exactly what Honda specifies for the crank bolt, which I'm pretty sure is that size!
In areas where Honda suspects torque change may occur, it specifies staking, lockwashers, bent tabs, and nylon inserts. But not at the crank bolt.
Incidentally, our Toyota Tercel's engine runs so as to LOOSEN the crank bolt. The bolt is tightened to 114 ft lbs. There is no lockwasher.
And as far as relative movement due to inertia? Consider this: The bolt is less than one pound. The combined reciprocating and rotating mass of the engine is about 50 lbs. It is physically /impossible/, even considering firing pulses, for a 50lb mass to accelerate faster than a one-pound mass given the same impulses to both.
Even considering the frictional resistance of the PS pump, A/C compressor, and alternator, there is no way all that exceeds the inertial mass of the engine. It is physically /impossible/ for the crank to force the bolt to tighten.
It is true that there are certain circumstances where a fastener can be forced to tighten or loosen even when tightened properly, such as knock-off wheels. In that case, the weight of the entire car is pulling and pushing the fastener around. That, combined with splines that are a less-than perfect fit, and wheel flex, means the wheel's knockoff nut is subject to unique stresses that a crankshaft bolt is not.
The relevant paragraph on Elle's page is totally wrong and needs to be removed.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
jim beam - 31 Oct 2005 15:09 GMT >>regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have anything >>immediately to hand. you have to go back to basic engineering [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > firing pulses, for a 50lb mass to accelerate faster than a one-pound mass > given the same impulses to both. so how does an impact driver work then?
> Even considering the frictional resistance of the PS pump, A/C compressor, > and alternator, there is no way all that exceeds the inertial mass of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The relevant paragraph on Elle's page is totally wrong and needs to be > removed. TeGGeR® - 31 Oct 2005 21:10 GMT >> And as far as relative movement due to inertia? Consider this: The >> bolt is less than one pound. The combined reciprocating and rotating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > so how does an impact driver work then? By delivering many heavy, but short-duration blows in rapid succession.
With its internal gearing having been specifically designed for this, the driver's mechanism is capable of rapid acceleration. However, you need a certain amount of air volume being delivered at a certain speed, otherwise the impact driver's internals cannot spin up properly and will be unable to deliver the proper blows. Hook the driver up to a low-volume compressor and you'll see what I mean. You'll be able to hold the chuck still with your hand as you pull the trigger.
Also, the driver is trying to move ONLY the bolt. If the /engine/ tries to move the bolt, it's working at a mechanical disadvantage, being much heavier, and being unable to accelerate as fast as would be required. The bolt has then plenty of time to leisurely spin up with the engine.
If you use an impact driver to loosen the bolt, you'll find that the crankshaft moves not at all. This is because the engine has too much inertia, and it would require the impact driver's blows to be of MUCH longer duration in order to overcome the inertia, and at that point it would twist right out of your hands.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
jim beam - 01 Nov 2005 05:46 GMT >>>And as far as relative movement due to inertia? Consider this: The >>>bolt is less than one pound. The combined reciprocating and rotating [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > longer duration in order to overcome the inertia, and at that point it > would twist right out of your hands. ok, i see your conceptual problem - you're focused on the bolt. it's /not/ the bolt that's lashing here tegger, it's the pulley wheel. if you don't believe me, run the car without the woodruf key and tell me whether the pulley rotates or not. /then/ figure out which direction the pulley is receiving the highest velocity impulse. once you've done that, you'll see which way the bolts turns as it goes along for the ride.
and btw, the impact driver has a very low mass anvil, compared with a real hammer. and have you tried hammering a wrench to break bolts free? sometimes it works, sometimes it just messes up the bolt. my point is, the impulses an impact driven bolt receives are very high torque and very short duration. to say that you can't get these in a crankshaft is incorrect. that's why you have springs in the middle of your clutch drive plate. without them to mitigate high impulse, you hammer out bearings, gear cog tooth facings and drive shafts.
TeGGeR® - 01 Nov 2005 13:36 GMT >>>>And as far as relative movement due to inertia? Consider this: The >>>>bolt is less than one pound. The combined reciprocating and rotating [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > you don't believe me, run the car without the woodruf key and tell me > whether the pulley rotates or not. That's what the Woodruff key is for. If there was any relative motion between the clamped parts, the bolt would LOOSEN, not tighten.
The theory that it tightens is so much total hokum I can't believe anyone is falling for it.
After investigating this for myself in Google, I an even more convinced you guys are barking up the wrong tree.
> /then/ figure out which direction > the pulley is receiving the highest velocity impulse. once you've > done that, you'll see which way the bolts turns as it goes along for > the ride. The engine's rotating/reciprocating mass is greater than the resistance offered by the various things added on to it.
The bolt does not turn. Period.
I've been doing some extensive digging in Google, and I can find ZERO ZERO ZERO mentions of this supposed thing.
IT DOES NOT EXIST.
> and btw, the impact driver has a very low mass anvil, compared with a > real hammer. and have you tried hammering a wrench to break bolts > free? > sometimes it works, sometimes it just messes up the bolt. my point > is, the impulses an impact driven bolt receives are very high torque > and very short duration. YES! But the impact wrench's anvil is travelling at HIGH SPEED when it makes its impact. Remember HORSEPOWER? You can make lots of horsepower with very little torque and little mass.
And since the anvil is so light, the impact must necessarily be of short duration, since the anvil lacks the mass to be able to sustain the impact for long.
Comparing the effect of a short-duration, high-speed impact wrench to the slow, lazy, massive engine is to compare apples to horse puckies.
> to say that you can't get these in a > crankshaft is incorrect. that's why you have springs in the middle of > your clutch drive plate. without them to mitigate high impulse, you > hammer out bearings, gear cog tooth facings and drive shafts. Apples to horse puckies again. In this case, you have the weight of the entire car behind those clutch springs, not just a few pulleys.
How come NOBODY can come up with ANY references to this? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST. There are treatises commonly available on all sorts of bolt tightening problems (I linked to two), but this rotation after final tightening thing DOES NOT EXIST.
It's WRONG, jim. WRONG. The theory behind it is WRONG. Have you discovered a new mechanical phenomenon that nobody else has in 300 years? I think not.
Bolts do NOT tighten, they LOOSEN if there is relative movement between its clamped parts.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 01 Nov 2005 18:40 GMT > The theory that it tightens is so much total hokum I can't believe anyone > is falling for it. > > After investigating this for myself in Google, I an even more convinced you > guys are barking up the wrong tree. I have found no explanation for the pulley bolt's excessive tightening on the web by anyone that sounds the least bit like it came from a bona fide expert.
The explanations that do exist predominantly speculate it's either "heat cycling," rust, or both.
Whatever heat cycling means insofar as it causes the bolt to tighten. My theory re the heating up of the bolt, and so its stretching, etc. is the only one that makes sense to me.
Your claim that the breakaway torque tends to be higher than the tightening torque is true. Problem is, your boltscience site says the breakaway torque, if higher, should be only a little higher.
You are just repeating yourself at this point. I won't torture the newsgroup and repeat myself. I assure you, your opinion is heard.
I would still prefer you not link my "pulley holder tool" site to yours. I may change its location if you continue to do so. The reason for this is what you wrote on October 25th. You posted, "The last thing I want is errors on the site. Errors cost credibility. Ego is not worth it if it leads to errors. I research this stuff as best I can, but sometimes I need to rely on a best-guess... You may not believe this, but I have no ego whatsoever when it comes to this site.... I have NO ego and a very thick skin. "
All this led me to believe that if I went to the trouble of providing information to you on certain subjects, then you would throw out ego and treat it fairly.
I don't think you've kept up your end of the implied deal.
Your statements about my theory at my site are derisive and IMO ego-laden. Yet you have only your own theory to rebut my theory.
If you said instead something like, "I disagree with Elle re why the bolt is so tight, and this is why... ", then that would be one thing. But instead you flat-out assert my theory is wrong. It subtracts from the credibility and authority of the site, IMO.
You can't prove my theory is wrong. Nor can I prove yours is wrong. I'm going on my best guess, just as you're going on yours.
Just saying.
TeGGeR® - 01 Nov 2005 21:00 GMT > If you said instead something like, "I disagree with Elle re why the > bolt is so tight, and this is why... ", then that would be one thing. > But instead you flat-out assert my theory is wrong. It subtracts from > the credibility and authority of the site, IMO. Reasonable enough.
I'll change the text to that.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 02 Nov 2005 02:19 GMT > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > > If you said instead something like, "I disagree with Elle re why the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'll change the text to that. I changed my site earlier today to indicate that this matter was my theory.
Much as I want to believe that there's no way the bolt is actually axially loaded per what 300+ ft-lbs of torque would produce, no other explanation makes sense to me.
If this bolt is truly "special," then I'm betting what's special about it is the material.
Anyway.
TeGGeR® - 02 Nov 2005 05:29 GMT >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> > If you said instead something like, "I disagree with Elle re why [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I changed my site earlier today to indicate that this matter was my > theory. And I've changed mine. http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#crankbolt
I think it's only fair I be allowed to include a new page expanding on my reasons for my beliefs, which have been greatly strengthened by my research.
Additionally, I have emailed the Bolt Science website at the email address on their Contact page. Getting a repply is hit-and-miss with most Web sites, but if I get an answer I'll share it here. And if it can be determined that I'm wrong, I will issue a public apology to you, and make the necessary corrections to my site. If you're wrong, I expect the same from you.
> Much as I want to believe that there's no way the bolt is actually > axially loaded per what 300+ ft-lbs of torque would produce, no other > explanation makes sense to me. My next door neighbor is a graduate physicist (no kidding!). He'd be ideal to ask this question of, but unfortunately he's one of the least approachable people I know. Too bad.
> If this bolt is truly "special," then I'm betting what's special about > it is the material. There are a number of "special bolts" used in various locations on many Hondas. Suspension, transmission casing to engine/body, crank bolt, and several other locations. Their "specialness" seems to differ based on their application.
In the case of the rear supension, they're normal 10.9 bolts, but they have unusual features, like fine threads, fluting on their shanks, and nylon inserts in the threads.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
TeGGeR® - 02 Nov 2005 06:03 GMT > Additionally, I have emailed the Bolt Science website at the email > address on their Contact page. Getting a repply is hit-and-miss with > most Web sites, but if I get an answer I'll share it here. And if it > can be determined that I'm wrong, I will issue a public apology On second thought, I take that back; there's nothing to apologize for.
I simply defended a sincere and strongly held viewpoint, and did so without resorting to insults, name-calling, ad-hominem arguments, or gratuitous jargon.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 02 Nov 2005 07:21 GMT > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > reasons for my beliefs, which have been greatly strengthened by my > research. Just my opinion:
I give the reasons for my beliefs at my web site, so of course you should feel free to do the same. You should also feel free to rebut every reason I give for my theory. That's in the spirit of healthy technical debate.
What I don't think is constructive, though, is simply saying, "Elle's site is wrong." Elaborate on why you think it's wrong, and I will think it fair. For whatever my puny opinion is worth. It will also, IMO, help maintain integrity.
It's not a crime to propose why some phenomenon happens.
> Additionally, I have emailed the Bolt Science website at the email address > on their Contact page. Getting a repply is hit-and-miss with most Web > sites, but if I get an answer I'll share it here. And if it can be > determined that I'm wrong, I will issue a public apology to you, and make > the necessary corrections to my site. If you're wrong, I expect the same > from you. Here's my two cents on how to promote optimal group problem solving on the internet or anyplace else:
When I'm right, I do not expect--and do not want--an apology from anyone on technical matters. Similarly, I don't generally issue apologies when a theory or hypothesis I put forward is found to be wrong.
I think that sort of display tends to discourage people from seeking the truth. It also injects ego (doesn't matter on whose side) into this. It may or may not become obvious that your or my theory is wrong. If it does, I think that the goal has been accomplished: New knowledge!
We're both operating in good faith here, as far as I can tell, re trying to explain a technical phenomenon.
I don't have confidence that the experts at BoltScience will be able to address this problem adequately, but I'll hear out whatever response they have. I do think their site is pretty good, though, for general bolt information purposes.
I would be more interested in what Honda Company says about the material.
> > Much as I want to believe that there's no way the bolt is actually > > axially loaded per what 300+ ft-lbs of torque would produce, no other > > explanation makes sense to me. > > My next door neighbor is a graduate physicist (no kidding!). He'd be ideal > to ask this question of, You already answered it, for the greater part, earlier. I checked it. (It's a bit of guesstimating, as I think you're aware, because that's the nature of much engineering/technology.) It sounds like Bozo is capable of discussing this further, with numbers, as well. Jim may be acquainted with bolt stress calculations, too.
The stress achieved in a 14 mm nominal diameter/1.25 pitch bolt (typical pulley bolt for many Hondas) torqued to 300 ft-lbs is darn near the ultimate tensile strength of Grade 8 (or for metric, 10.9) steel. Never mind exceeding the elastic strength (though this may be close to the ultimate strength for this bolt material)...
Now I don't buy rust per se getting in there at all; based on the location; the appearance of my own pulley bolt; and Jim's observations of how quickly the bolt tightens after driving.
All told, these realities make me think that maybe the bolt material, under high stress and at high temperatures, is, over time, being melded with the metal of the crankshaft. That "crack" sound and the dust rising feed into this a bit. (OTOH, it's a helluva lot of torque needed to break the bolt free. I have heard smaller cracks with smaller bolts.)
Maybe this "melding" is what people have in mind when they talk about "heat cycling" of the bolt.
But then on the third hand I would think the head of that pulley bolt would shear off the way the heads of some of the suspension bolts so readily do when it's being torqued to free it. The suspension bolts are only 10 mm IIRC, but still, it doesn't take much torque at all to tear off one of their heads.
> but unfortunately he's one of the least > approachable people I know. Too bad. My two cents again: The work of physicists is more black and white than engineers' and technicians'. Indeed, I imagine he'd have a huge hurdle to overcome with the reality that torque on real bolts rarely correlates to a precise axial load. S I wouldn't look at this person as an authority.
I would trust BoltScience people a lot more, but still have doubts they can take the time to really study what's behind this high torque needed to remove the Honda pulley bolt.
> > If this bolt is truly "special," then I'm betting what's special about > > it is the material. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > several other locations. Their "specialness" seems to differ based on their > application. Well they don't seem to be labeled "special bolt" at the www.slhonda.com and in the manuals the way the pulley bolt is. I was looking at my 91 Civic's suspension bolts at www.slhonda.com earlier, to see if they're as expensive as the pulley bolt (at about $6). Some are. They're longer, but they also have splines on them. As you note below.
I agree that there are bolts that have "special" applications though, and are accordingly spec'd by Honda and then purchased from a bolt manufacturer.
> In the case of the rear supension, they're normal 10.9 bolts, Do you know this based on trying to drill/saw these recently?
I am sure you're right, but it's based only on my own attempts to drill/saw them.
On my pulley holder tool, before I was tuned into the differences between pulleys, and so before I used the hose as a spacer, I actually bent a Grade 8 bolt trying to get the thing to work. I had to buy a third one. This to me is evidence (imprecise, but ballpark) of what kind of forces we're talking about being applied to the pulley bolt when we try to free it. It's stunning, IMO, that one rarely, if ever, reads of pulley bolts being damaged during the removal process. Now why is that? Like you, I can't believe it's made of something stronger than 10.9. And yet...
So I don't know. Oughta grab one from the junkyard and have it tested somewhere. I wish I had hope Honda Company would respond to a query like this, but I don't know that they would, for a few reasons.
Car Talk's Tom and Ray might entertain it. (I recall you're not wild about them, but I think they're honest and say when they don't know.)
> but they have > unusual features, like fine threads, fluting on their shanks, and nylon > inserts in the threads. Agreed.
Elle - 02 Nov 2005 08:29 GMT > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > > I changed my site earlier today to indicate that this matter was my > > theory. > > And I've changed mine. > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#crankbolt Looked it over. You've drug a whole Usenet battle unrelated to the goal of fixing Hondas onto your site.
I don't support Jim's precession theory.
You have not represented my position accurately.
You did much more than you said you were going to do.
You're frustrated. I'm annoyed. I don't want my site linked to yours.
But I remain happy to agree to disagree, FWIW.
TeGGeR® - 02 Nov 2005 13:46 GMT >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> > I changed my site earlier today to indicate that this matter was my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't support Jim's precession theory. OK.
> You have not represented my position accurately. So then your theory revolves completely around heat distortion?
The only way heat could affect torque is if the bolt screwed itself in further while it heated, and if its receiving hole did not also grow longer. Simple elongation will not do anything unless that elongated material can creep around the threads and stay elongated for evermore.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
TeGGeR® - 02 Nov 2005 14:30 GMT >>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >>> > I changed my site earlier today to indicate that this matter was my [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > longer. Simple elongation will not do anything unless that elongated > material can creep around the threads and stay elongated for evermore. Opinion page taken down pending clarification.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 02 Nov 2005 16:27 GMT > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > longer. Simple elongation will not do anything unless that elongated > material can creep around the threads and stay elongated for evermore. I have responded to this point more than once already. Bozo did also, and I agree with what he said. I don't know what words to use to make it anymore clear.
I took my web site down.
I don't agree with everything on your site or on the (at least) two technical, homemade sites to which my web site pages link. But I feel no need to reproduce battles over minor disagreements when all these sites do far more good than bad.
If you have a better solution to resolve what I think is a trivial conflict gone out of control, I will hear it out.
SoCalMike - 02 Nov 2005 06:27 GMT > The explanations that do exist predominantly speculate it's either "heat > cycling," rust, or both. if you want the best possible automotive example of heat cycling or rust on a honda, look at the exhaust system and its multiple fasteners.
feel free to discuss...
Elle - 02 Nov 2005 08:07 GMT > Elle wrote: > > The explanations that do exist predominantly speculate it's either "heat > > cycling," rust, or both. > > if you want the best possible automotive example of heat cycling or rust > on a honda, look at the exhaust system and its multiple fasteners. True. There must be lofty (and valid) explanations of why certain exhaust bolts are so tough to remove after years of operation. I wouldn't buy that it's just rust. (So far though PB Blaster has dealt with all the exhaust bolts I've needed to free just fine.) Chemical action between the bolt metal and the female side, abetted by heat? Whatever minerals (or whatever) are on the threads at the start have the potential to thoroughly seize the bolt up at high temperatures?
Just checked the parts site and I see one of the exhaust bolts is called a "special bolt" too.
I suppose "special" may be a 10.9 designator. Or it's a fine thread designator, since the 91 Civic's pulley bolt is 14 mm/1.25 mm pitch. The standard fine thread pitch for a 14 mm nominal diameter bolt is 1.5 mm.
The exhaust "special bolt" is a fine thread, but a standard one.
> feel free to discuss... I don't want to drag you into an online battle.
Elle - 31 Oct 2005 17:57 GMT > jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote > > regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have anything [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Honda is very particular about the treatment of this critical fastener. > They specify that oil be applied to the /threads/, True.
> but not to the /bolt face or washer/. This may be prudent, but it's not important enough to be mentioned in all the UK site manuals.
I suspect the concern is to prevent dripping oil (from the washer and bolt faces) onto the other drive belts.
> Not only that, but they also specify that if a new > fastener is used, it should be pre-stretched to a higher-than-final-torque > before being loosened and final-torqued to the lower number. > > If the bolt could tighten and stretch itself some unknown amount, It's not "unknown." The bolt can only heat so much. The crankshaft can only have so much horsepower applied to it, and so forth.
The torque on the pulley bolt isn't just going to keep going up and up as the years and miles on the car pass.
> do you > really think Honda would risk such an unknown variable in such a critical > area? What if the bolt tightened too much? Disaster! The bolt at the UK site's manuals is referred to as the "special bolt." I don't think that's just to be cute. I don't know if it's grade 10.9, something that you or I could buy in a hardware store (at no small cost compared to lower strength bolt materials) and is designated for many automotive uses. I suspect it's 12.9.
> And if that final higher torque /were/ predictable, don't you think Honda > would specify that final torque to begin with, and simply tell you to set > it to that in order to eliminate that variable? No, because it's not a variable without limit.
> Also, if you look at bolt torque charts, there is NO bolt of that size, not > even an aircraft-grade M10.9, that is intended to be torqued to anywhere > close to the 300 ft lbs that Elle guesses at. So you reject the many posts to this newsgroup stating that greater than 300 ft-lb rated air wrenches would not break the bolt free? These people all were using wrenches whose rating was far less than what was advertised for the tool?
You disbelieve the folks who estimate the force they use to break it free, using their body weight at a distance of X from the centerline of the bolt?
Are you aware that factors of safety are a part of the design process? This should be particularly obvious to you if you are aware that, even using a torque wrench and following directions for torquing, cleaning the threads in advance, etc., the actual tensile load applied to a bolt can vary greatly for a given setting on the torque wrench.
It's cold hard fact that people who work on cars routinely apply over 300 ft-lbs of torque to these bolts, and the heads do not shear off. I suspect this is due to the design factor of safety being quite large, or else they use a higher strength material, even stronger than grade 10.9. I'd have to investigate further.
Your claim that the problem is rust is at least as much a guess.
> The highest rating I can find in my charts is for a 12mm 11T with 1.25mm > pitch. It's rating is...130 ft lbs, exactly what Honda specifies for the > crank bolt, which I'm pretty sure is that size! From the manuals:
1984-87 Civic: 12 mm diameter, 1.25 pitch, spec 83 ft-lbs 1988-91 Civic: 14 mm diameter/1.25 pitch, spec 119 ft-lbs 1992-95 Civic: 14/1.25, spec 134 ft-lbs
1990 Accord: 14/1.25 spec 166 ft-lbs 1991-93 Accord: 14/1.25 spec 159 ft-lbs 1994-95 Accord: 16 mm, spec 181 ft-lbs
It's a 16 mm bolt for many of the more recent Hondas as well.
> In areas where Honda suspects torque change may occur, it specifies > staking, lockwashers, bent tabs, and nylon inserts. But not at the crank [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > firing pulses, for a 50lb mass to accelerate faster than a one-pound mass > given the same impulses to both. Only the crankshaft and pulley (which is keyed to the crankshaft) get the impulse.
The bolt gets the "impulse" /in/directly.
It's like putting a 1 foot square, 3/8-inch thick wood board on the roof of one's car and then accelerating the car. The board flies off. Why? Because it's not fastened to the car roof, and because the coefficient of friction and board's weight are too small to cause the board to move with the car.
This is why one can screw the bolt into place with the crankshaft/pulley fixed.
Of course, there is an important difference once the pulley/crankshaft/bolt assembly is running at normal operating temperatures: The bolt heats up, and the geometries are such that it could very well loosen as it heats.
It's like initially super-gluing the board to the top of one's car roof, then slowly dissolving the glue. The board slowly loosens, and the car starts to move at a different speed from the board, even though just moments ago, when the board was glued to the car, they moved at the same speed.
TeGGeR® - 31 Oct 2005 21:32 GMT >> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote >> > regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > This may be prudent, but it's not important enough to be mentioned in > all the UK site manuals. Where the joint was designed for a lubricated fastener, it is /very/ important.
> I suspect the concern is to prevent dripping oil (from the washer and > bolt faces) onto the other drive belts. The oil is there so the friction coefficient will be more constant. You don't dump a gallon of oil on the threads, you just put a few dabs on them.
The problem is that the bolt's own thread friction can dramatically affect torque. Honda is controlling that as best it can. The threads, and the specified torque, have been calculated with a lubricated fastener, not a dry one.
It is possible that crank bolts used in situations where oil is not required are already plated with a friction-modifying coating, such as cadmium.
>> Not only that, but they also specify that if a new >> fastener is used, it should be pre-stretched to a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The torque on the pulley bolt isn't just going to keep going up and up > as the years and miles on the car pass. The why wouldn't Honda just specify the final torque to begin with? Your statements make no sense. There is NO fastener on the car that is asked to stretch to a new torque figure AFTER final user torqe has been applied by the user. NONE. Not even connecting rod bolts, which undergo the highest stresses of ANY bolt on ANY car.
>> do you >> really think Honda would risk such an unknown variable in such a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > no small cost compared to lower strength bolt materials) and is > designated for many automotive uses. I suspect it's 12.9. There was no such thing when Honda built my car or yours. 11.9 was the highest Metric bolt strength went. 10.9 is /not/ something you can buy at a corner hardware store. It's equivalent to SAE Grade-8. That is, aircraft grade.
>> And if that final higher torque /were/ predictable, don't you think >> Honda would specify that final torque to begin with, and simply tell [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > free, using their body weight at a distance of X from the centerline > of the bolt? Of course not. As I stated before, it is common knowledge that the force needed to overcome /static/ friction is far greater than the original tightening torque. Add corrosion to that, and you've got yourself a real pickle.
Not all bolts get that tight, either. Mine (originally tightened to 130 ft lbs) came loose easily with a 250lb electric impact gun.
And you cannot use your theory to explain why crank bolts are equally as hard to undo on engines that run so as to LOOSEN the crank bolt, which is pretty much all engines other than Hondas.
<snip>
Your assertion is wrong, Elle. Completely and utterly. That bolt does NOT turn after final torquing. It cannot and it does not.
I'm adding a paragraph to my link to your page to warn people of your misinformation.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 31 Oct 2005 22:17 GMT > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > > The torque on the pulley bolt isn't just going to keep going up and up > > as the years and miles on the car pass. > > The why wouldn't Honda just specify the final torque to begin with? Because the bolt is /not heated/ when a technician or DIYer applies that final torque.
Again, many large bolts (I'm talking over an inch in diameter) are routinely torqued into place not with a torque wrench; not with slug wrenches (which may be a new type of wrench to you, but anyway); but instead by first hand tightening the bolt, then inserting an electric heater into a hole drilled in its center. The temperature of the bolt rises, the coefficient of thermal expansion works as designed, the bolt gets longer but the diameter gets smaller. The bolt is screwed in X # of turns further, then the heater is removed. Guess what happens?
> Your statements make no sense. If you're a relative layperson to certain engineering topics, then they'll be hard to digest on the first go-around.
> There is NO fastener on the car that is asked to > stretch to a new torque figure AFTER final user torqe has been applied by > the user. NONE. Not even connecting rod bolts, which undergo the highest > stresses of ANY bolt on ANY car. What I think you're missing is that the alternative is to put the bolt on so that the rotation of the engine loosened it. And that I believe the engine would, all else being equal, on these Hondas.
> There was no such thing when Honda built my car or yours. 11.9 was the > highest Metric bolt strength went. 10.9 is /not/ something you can buy at a > corner hardware store. It's equivalent to SAE Grade-8. That is, aircraft > grade. Now that's enough. Soon I will post photos at my site showing the two grade 8 bolts that my pulley holder tool uses, including the six marks on the top that show them to be Grade 8. I bought these at my corner hardware store, which happens to be True Value. And they were expensive, as far as bolts go, as one might expect.
You don't know that these bolts are not special order.
> >> And if that final higher torque /were/ predictable, don't you think > >> Honda would specify that final torque to begin with, and simply tell [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Not all bolts get that tight, either. Mine (originally tightened to 130 ft > lbs) came loose easily with a 250lb electric impact gun. If you loosen it regularly, this wouldn't surprise me.
> And you cannot use your theory to explain why crank bolts are equally as > hard to undo on engines that run so as to LOOSEN the crank bolt, which is > pretty much all engines other than Hondas. Jim says otherwise.
> <snip> > > Your assertion is wrong, Elle. Completely and utterly. That bolt does NOT > turn after final torquing. It cannot and it does not. Funny how you didn't address my points re the key connecting the pulley and shaft, but not the pulley/shaft and bolt.
I think the thread speaks for itself at this point.
If you are going to deride my site beyond saying you have a different opinion on the manner in which the bolt becomes so tight, then I think it would be best if you didn't link my page to yours. Because you're just reproducing Usenet drivel by deriding my position.
OTOH, since the goal is to help DIYers etc., if you want to redo the information that is at my page and present it as your own, I will take no offense.
I said I wouldn't criticize further unless I came up with an alternative. I think I've kept up my end of the deal. You are of course free to reject my alternative.
Bozo - 31 Oct 2005 22:32 GMT > tightening the bolt, then inserting an electric heater into a hole drilled > in its center. The temperature of the bolt rises, the coefficient of thermal > expansion works as designed, the bolt gets longer but the diameter gets > smaller. The bolt is screwed in X # of turns further, then the heater is > removed. Guess what happens? Sorry to jump in, but if you heat something, it gets bigger in all directions. Think about how a ring gear would fit to a flywheel, you heat it and it gets bigger so it will drop on, it does NOT just get wider (as opposed to bigger diameter) which is the implication of what you are saying. Heat a bolt and it gets bigger.
However if it's a long bolt the percentage expansion will be the same in all directions, but the actual length change in inches (or mm) will be greater along the long axis. So when it cools the shrinkage is more along its length - as an amount NOT as a percentage. So of course the axial load will increase.
Torque is not what the designer wants, he/she wants axial load. This is virtually impossible to measure & control in a manufacturing situation, hence the need to correlate axial load against torque, and therefore to control torque.
Elle - 31 Oct 2005 22:58 GMT "Bozo" <spam@spamme.com> wrote E
> > tightening the bolt, then inserting an electric heater into a hole drilled > > in its center. The temperature of the bolt rises, the coefficient of thermal > > expansion works as designed, the bolt gets longer but the diameter gets > > smaller. The bolt is screwed in X # of turns further, then the heater is > > removed. Guess what happens?
> However if it's a long Make this "long enough," for the sake of a bit more precision in this discussion.
> bolt the percentage expansion will be the same in > all directions, but the actual length change in inches (or mm) will be > greater along the long axis. So when it cools the shrinkage is more > along its length - as an amount NOT as a percentage. So of course the > axial load will increase. Correct.
> Torque is not what the designer wants, he/she wants axial load. is is > virtually impossible to measure & control axial load in
> a manufacturing situation, > hence the need to correlate axial load against torque, and therefore to > control torque. With the change above, agreed.
For the record I do not assert my theory as fact. It's my personal best guess as to why the pulley bolt becomes so tight. I do not now intend to qualify the statement at the site, because I think what's written at the many personal web sites on Honda repairs by their nature imply that they are only the author's opinion.
Also, to clarify, when I wrote, "You don't know that these bolts are not special order," I meant the crankshaft pulley bolts. Honda may very well special order these bolts from a specialized bolt manufacturer.
Grade 8 bolts at my local True Value are in bins accessible to all customers and are not special order.
If I can quickly figure out the new camera I bought this morning, I'll throw some photos up at the site, FWIW.
TeGGeR® - 31 Oct 2005 23:14 GMT >> a manufacturing situation, >> hence the need to correlate axial load against torque, and therefore >> to control torque. > > With the change above, agreed. But this has absolutely NOTHING to do with additional tightening after the final setting!
So far, /nobody/ has been able to cite references that mention this alleged additional rotational displacement of a bolt after final tightening, and I have been unable to find any references in Google.
Here's two good pages: http://www.boltscience.com/pages/tighten.htm http://www.boltscience.com/pages/info.htm Note there is no mention whatsoever of the alleged phenomenon.
> For the record I do not assert my theory as fact. It's my personal > best guess as to why the pulley bolt becomes so tight. I do not now [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > very well special order these bolts from a specialized bolt > manufacturer. Honda does not make ANY bolts. ALL of them are purchased from outside suppliers.
> Grade 8 bolts at my local True Value are in bins accessible to all > customers and are not special order. Well then maybe it's just Canada. The local Home Depot only has up to Grade-3. If I want anything higher, I need to go to a specialized fastener place.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
jim beam - 01 Nov 2005 05:46 GMT >>> a manufacturing situation, >>>hence the need to correlate axial load against torque, and therefore [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > http://www.boltscience.com/pages/info.htm > Note there is no mention whatsoever of the alleged phenomenon. and there's nothing about precession either, which is a gross omission.
>>For the record I do not assert my theory as fact. It's my personal >>best guess as to why the pulley bolt becomes so tight. I do not now [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Grade-3. If I want anything higher, I need to go to a specialized fastener > place. TeGGeR® - 31 Oct 2005 23:05 GMT >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> > The torque on the pulley bolt isn't just going to keep going up and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > routinely torqued into place not with a torque wrench; not with slug > wrenches (which may be a new type of wrench to you, but anyway); Uh-oh. An attempt at getting the upper hand by using jargon and an ad-hominem attack. Bad sign.
I just looked up "slug wrench". It's just an industrial wrench with one closed-end, like half an ordinary combination wrench. Big deal. How is that relevant to this discussion?
but
> instead by first hand tightening the bolt, then inserting an electric > heater into a hole drilled in its center. The temperature of the bolt > rises, the coefficient of thermal expansion works as designed, the > bolt gets longer but the diameter gets smaller. The bolt is screwed in > X # of turns further, then the heater is removed. Guess what happens? Sure. Since the BOLT is heated, but not its receiving piece, you get additional torque. It's called "heat tightening". If you heated both halves equally, this would not work. But even that does not involve tightening AFTER the final torque figure is achieved by the install procedure.
Also, There are no such bolts on Hondas.
>> Your statements make no sense. > > If you're a relative layperson to certain engineering topics, then > they'll be hard to digest on the first go-around. Your misunderstanding of the reason for oil on the threads does not say much for your engineeering knowledge either.
>> There is NO fastener on the car that is asked to >> stretch to a new torque figure AFTER final user torqe has been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on so that the rotation of the engine loosened it. And that I believe > the engine would, all else being equal, on these Hondas. That describes most other engines on the road! You've never tried to remove a pulley bolt on one of those, that's clear.
>> There was no such thing when Honda built my car or yours. 11.9 was >> the highest Metric bolt strength went. 10.9 is /not/ something you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > hardware store, which happens to be True Value. And they were > expensive, as far as bolts go, as one might expect. Yeah, but can you buy them /loose/ at True Value? I'm not gonna buy a pulley holder just so can get the bolts from it.
Home Depot and places like that go up to SAE Grade-3 on loose bolts.
> You don't know that these bolts are not special order. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > If you loosen it regularly, this wouldn't surprise me. I don't. Just for the timing belt.
>> And you cannot use your theory to explain why crank bolts are equally >> as hard to undo on engines that run so as to LOOSEN the crank bolt, >> which is pretty much all engines other than Hondas. > > Jim says otherwise. I say other-otherwise.
>> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Funny how you didn't address my points re the key connecting the > pulley and shaft, but not the pulley/shaft and bolt. What? Better rephrase that one.
> I think the thread speaks for itself at this point. > > If you are going to deride my site beyond saying you have a different > opinion on the manner in which the bolt becomes so tight, then I think > it would be best if you didn't link my page to yours. Because you're > just reproducing Usenet drivel by deriding my position. I am not "deriding" it, I am /refuting/ it. And refuting it by offering reasons for my disagreement.
You, on the other hand, are calling me ignorant (the slug wrench thing), and are accusing me of things I haven't done.
> OTOH, since the goal is to help DIYers etc., if you want to redo the > information that is at my page and present it as your own, I will take > no offense. Why would I do that?
> I said I wouldn't criticize further unless I came up with an > alternative. I think I've kept up my end of the deal. You are of > course free to reject my alternative. I haven't. I've just rejected the assertion that there exists a non- existent phenomenon. Everything else was fine, as I stated.
 Signature TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Elle - 01 Nov 2005 03:46 GMT > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Uh-oh. An attempt at getting the upper hand by using jargon and an > ad-hominem attack. Bad sign. No such thing was intended. A lot of people who work strictly on cars have never heard of a slug wrench. I am demonstrating that I have some specialized experience re torquing (or untorquing) bolts. I was trying to explain how bolts can be torqued without a wrench, yada yada. You're oversensitive. (Now that's an ad hominem, or a suggestion. Your choice. Just notice I didn't go ballistic when you said I was lying about the Grade 8 bolts, jerk.
> I just looked up "slug wrench". It's just an industrial wrench with one > closed-end, like half an ordinary combination wrench. Big deal. How is that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > additional torque. It's called "heat tightening". If you heated both halves > equally, this would not work. No. See the bozo guy's post.
True Value carries the Grade 8 bolts loose.
It's not worth my time to continue this discussion with you.
jim beam - 01 Nov 2005 05:42 GMT >>regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have anything >>immediately to hand. you have to go back to basic engineering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's still wrong. That bolt does NOT turn. it can and it does. for a simple citiation, check out:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_p.html
and read the section labeled "pedal" and note the reference to precession.
> Honda is very particular about the treatment of this critical fastener. > They specify that oil be applied to the /threads/, but not to the /bolt [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > really think Honda would risk such an unknown variable in such a critical > area? What if the bolt tightened too much? Disaster! it doesn't continue to tighten indefinitely - it reaches equilibrium
|
|