 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / December 2005to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing belt
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. > 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. 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. > 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  SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "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.) >> "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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "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. <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 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. >><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 >> "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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > > 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. > > > 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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> > > 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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>>>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. > 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. <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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > <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. >> <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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>><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. >>>> <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.. > 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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>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. >> 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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>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. >>>>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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > 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. > 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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "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. >> "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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > 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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "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" <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. >> "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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>> "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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "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. > 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 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. > 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. >> 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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "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. > 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. "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. >> 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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>> 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. >> "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. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "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. >>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. > 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? why? it ony needs to be initially set to hold it in place. anything subsequent to that would come out in testing. > 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! with respect, i've bounced on a day-old pulley wheel bolt. i weigh 200 lbs. at 18" from center, assuming i can exert a momentary "weight" of 300 lbs, that's 450 ft.lbs. and that shifted it. static weight alone [300 ft.lbs] didn't. > In areas where Honda suspects torque change may occur, it specifies > staking, lockwashers, bent tabs, and nylon inserts. But not at the crank > bolt. i know. i said other cars. > 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. try some fords or vw. > 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. it's the pulley, not the bolt. i invite you to either operate the engine without a woodruff key or calculate the inertia of a 10 lb pulley wheel. > 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. again, that's assuming no lash in the pulley. but there is. otherwise there would be no need for the woodruff key. > 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. but that's an example that proves my point. i don't understand how you can accept this fact that bolts move in service in one situation, but not another. you accept elastic distortion, right? if there's distortion of one component more than another, there's relative movement. it may not be large enough to see with the naked eye, but it does occur. > The relevant paragraph on Elle's page is totally wrong and needs to be > removed. >>>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 - 10 lines] > and read the section labeled "pedal" and note the reference to > precession. Ah, there's a word for what we're talkng about! Thanks. That gives me more ammunition to refute your argument. Your comparison of bike pedal and car crankshaft is not a valid one, for one major reason: A bike pedal bolt directly transmits torque as its primary function. The crank bolt simply clamps two masses together. Torque is transmittred by the mass, not the bolt. This is a very critical distinction. By your own admission, I am focusing on the bolt, not the mass attached to it. You are committing ths same sin, but in reverse. Consider that if the clamped mass can move in ONE direction, it follows that it can move BACK IN THE OTHER. And for your theory to work, the clamped masses would have to move back and forth repeatedly. Since it is much easier for the bolt to back out (releasing tension) than to screw in some more (increasing tension), the bolt in a such a joint would tend to LOOSEN. And if you do your own Google searches, you'll find ALL references to clamp-bolts and precession referring to LOOSENING. This back-and-forth causes an effect known as "fretting", which ultimately LOOSENS the bolt. The Honda bolt does not loosen because it has been tightened to a position that will remain undisturbed until somebody disturbs it. If you fail to tighten a Honda bolt sufficiently, it will FALL OUT, not tighten more. My neighbor three doors down had just that happen to his Prelude years ago. His neighbor replaced the timing belt, but lacking a torque wrench, he just tightened the crank bolt to what felt right. Well, tight it was, but NOT TIGHT ENOUGH. *Precession* from the clamped mass BACKED THE BOLT back out again and the pulley fell off on the highway! The theory that the bolt tightens flies in the face of everything I've been able to find. It flies in the face of logic. The joint, once correctly torqued, does NOT move. That bolt gets harder to remove NOT because it tightens more from engine rotation, but from corrosion, and (I think) "settling" at the surface texture level. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>>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 - 19 lines] > crank bolt simply clamps two masses together. Torque is transmittred by the > mass, not the bolt. This is a very critical distinction. sorry dude, that's fundamentally wrong. the pedal spindle is /not/ subject to torque as a function of operation. it rotates as a result of precession. as it tightens. r/h threaded wheel nuts on the left side of vehicles loosen /if/ other measures are not deployed in design. that's why big rigs /all/ have l/h threads on the left side of the vehicle. > By your own admission, I am focusing on the bolt, not the mass attached to > it. You are committing ths same sin, but in reverse. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This back-and-forth causes an effect known as "fretting", which ultimately > LOOSENS the bolt. not so if the impulse in one direction is more than the other. > The Honda bolt does not loosen because it has been tightened to a position > that will remain undisturbed until somebody disturbs it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tight it was, but NOT TIGHT ENOUGH. *Precession* from the clamped mass > BACKED THE BOLT back out again and the pulley fell off on the highway! if it's too loose, it'll wobble, not just lash. > The theory that the bolt tightens flies in the face of everything I've been > able to find. It flies in the face of logic. > > The joint, once correctly torqued, does NOT move. sorry dude, joints of this type can and do move. the woodruff key limits the degree of that movement, but it moves all the same. i don't know why this isn't taught more frequently - maybe because it freaks people out? > That bolt gets harder to > remove NOT because it tightens more from engine rotation, but from > corrosion, and (I think) "settling" at the surface texture level. i've given you a bunch of examples that don't seem to work for you, but i'll try again. next time you remove a driveshaft, on the wheel end, look closely at the splines. that cannot possibly rotate, right? it's splined and torqued. /but/ if you look closely at the splines, you'll see a distinct boundry between the face where they mesh and the face where they don't. on each and every tooth. that's the result of lash. and that lash could result in the loosening [or tightening] of the end nut - that's why it's staked [loosening being the disaster you wish to avoid]. why is the pulley bolt not staked? if it's tightening, it doesn't need to be! <snip> I must say, this thread has been very educational. Early on I had trouble explaining what I knew by logic, because I didn't know the terms. I learned about fretting, precession, recession, and the difference between direct torque and clamped-mass applications. I even learned that the name for a simple one-closed-end industrial wrench is a"slug wrench". Thanks to jim and Elle for all that. Now, back to the battle! :) > why is the pulley bolt not staked? if it's tightening, it doesn't > need to be! Then why aren't other car's pulleys staked? They're all installed so that the bolt will LOOSEN as the engine turns. The setup is otherwise identical to the Honda one: Plain washers, woodruff key, no thread locker, etc. These are just as difficult to remove as Honda bolts, and NONE comes loose once tightened properly. A bike pedal bolt's principles of operation is not the same as a clamped-mass bolt's operation. You cannot use the two as equivalants. jim, the theory of tightening after final setting is bunk. You will not find any references anywhere to *tightening* precession in a clamped-mass application because there is no such thing. You WILL find scads of references to *loosening* precession in a clamped mass, because there IS such a thing. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > are just as difficult to remove as Honda bolts, and NONE comes loose once > tightened properly. i disagree. my experience is that they're /much/ easier to remove. i've worked on many different types of vehicles over the years and i've yet to experience a pulley bolt quite like the honda. > A bike pedal bolt's principles of operation is not the same as a > clamped-mass bolt's operation. You cannot use the two as equivalants. dude, with respect, i gave you /two/ examples early on. you've latched onto pedals, and to your credit, you seem to have used it as a reason to check into some of this subject, but you've not addressed the other example i gave you, the locking ring for a fixed gear bike, which is a purely rotational reaction, not precessional like the pedal. lock rings tighten in use. if you'd ridden a fixed gear bike, you'd know. you can start riding with it loose and a couple of rides later, that thing's locked solid. no heating going on there. and more importantly, you can initially feel the drive sprocket "float" when you resist pedaling, and you can feel the float get less & less each time as the lock ring tightens. you need to look more into the whole lash concept. and check some driveshaft splines. > jim, the theory of tightening after final setting is bunk. You will not > find any references anywhere to *tightening* precession in a clamped-mass > application because there is no such thing. You WILL find scads of > references to *loosening* precession in a clamped mass, because there IS > such a thing. for precession? you're not looking. the left side of big rig wheel lugs are l/h threads and they tighten in use. that's why service techs have chuffing great 1000 ft.lb impact drivers. same for pedals on bikes. this is not related, but as a theoretical thinking question, do bike wheels get stronger as spoke tension is increased? please, no cheating by looking it up - work it through. > why is the pulley bolt not staked? if it's tightening, it doesn't need > to be! Exactly. > Your comparison of bike pedal and car crankshaft is not a valid one, for > one major reason: > A bike pedal bolt directly transmits torque as its primary function. Not the one Jim's talking about. > The > crank bolt simply clamps two masses together. As long as the bolt isn't heated such that its diameter reduces relative to its crankshaft receptacle. :-) "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message This bolt must be a special micro-thread indented with a "one-way" design. This "self-torque" design makes sense since we are not allowed to oil anywhere else except on the threads. The oiling protects the micro- threads. Here's an image of a bolt. http://square.cjb.cc/images/bolt.jpg Do not oil the the bolt's face or the washer otherwise the mechanism will not work. > Consider that if the clamped mass can move in ONE direction, it follows > that it can move BACK IN THE OTHER. And for your theory to work, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This back-and-forth causes an effect known as "fretting", which ultimately > LOOSENS the bolt. Which ultimately tightens itself once properly torque. The recommended torque is required to make the "one way" thread to work. If not torqued correctly the the mechanism will fail and the pulley will fall out. Otherwise they'd probably recommend a cotter pin or stake-in lock (found in tie rod, AT clutch, wheel hub ends, and etc.) > The Honda bolt does not loosen because it has been tightened to a position > that will remain undisturbed until somebody disturbs it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tight it was, but NOT TIGHT ENOUGH. *Precession* from the clamped mass > BACKED THE BOLT back out again and the pulley fell off on the highway! The momentum difference from the alternator, AC etc. and the transmission will allow the pulley to move back and forth, unless the pulley is torque to 300lb. The back and forth pulley movements aid the "one way" threads which ultimately "self-torque" itself under different conditions. The bolt will continue to tighten (screw in in) probably beyond 300lb until pulley stops sliding back and forth. How much it tightens differs in various driving styles, transmission shift harshness or various climates. > The theory that the bolt tightens flies in the face of everything I've been > able to find. It flies in the face of logic. > The joint, once correctly torqued, does NOT move. That bolt gets harder to > remove NOT because it tightens more from engine rotation, but from > corrosion, and (I think) "settling" at the surface texture level. If the bolt doesn't tighten itself on a part that has a potential for play then their is a potential for the bolt to unwind. Either stake it, castlenut/cotter pin it or in this case use a one-way threaded bolt. I googled using a number of different keywords and turned up only a few (and I do mean no more than two) posts to Usenet that talk about such a bolt. The posts were in automotive or motorcycle newsgroups. I even searched the academic literature. Nothing's turning up. Do you have a citation, online or offline, to back up your assertions below? (I don't reject them. I'd like to see a tad more support for them.) I agree the unusually fine thread pitch (even smaller than the standard fine thread pitch) combined with the loads on and temperature variations of the crankshaft, bolt, and pulley must have everything to do with why this bolt tightens so. I remain a little troubled at the axial load in the bolt implied by such a torque. But I suppose if you are correct below, that it's possible that this microthread design means that a certain torque correlates even less than usual to axial load. > This bolt must be a special micro-thread indented with a "one-way" > design. This "self-torque" design makes sense since we are not allowed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Do not oil the the bolt's face or the washer otherwise the mechanism will not work. T wrote > > This back-and-forth causes an effect known as "fretting", which ultimately > > LOOSENS the bolt. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is a potential for the bolt to unwind. Either stake it, castlenut/cotter pin it or in > this case use a one-way threaded bolt. > I googled using a number of different keywords and turned up only a few (and > I do mean no more than two) posts to Usenet that talk about such a bolt. The [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > microthread design means that a certain torque correlates even less than > usual to axial load. > Do you have a citation, online or offline, to back up your assertions below? They also produce a variety of versions: Quote: "The Shimmie has been used in Japan for...Railways, earthquake proofing of buildings, and in reconditioning of airplanes are just some of the applications." The Shimeru (Japanese term) is a device that can self- tighten nuts and bolts, keeping torque in tact. For example, wooden structures often contract as the wood dries with the passing of time, and gaps appear between the wood, nuts and bolts. Metal can expand and contract with variations in temperatures, causing bolts to loosen over time [or in areas] that experience strong vibration and extreme temperature changes... " "The SHIMMIE device will tighten automatically when any contraction or expansion occurs thus the cost of maintenance, is greatly reduced, and safety and structural integrity are maintained. The SHIMMIE may hold up to strong vibrations, so damage from earthquakes, hurricanes or high vibration areas are greatly reduced. The SHIMMIE can be produced in various sizes, materials and preset torque..." - SPACE COAST TECHNOLOGY Read more. http://its-mart.com/moreinfoshimmie.htm Other citations: "...Patented Self-Retaining Nut And Bolt..." http://www.boltscience.com/pages/references.htm > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > > I googled using a number of different keywords and turned up only a few (and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > http://its-mart.com/moreinfoshimmie.htm What's here (pictured at http://its-mart.com/HOWTOUSESHIMMIE.HTM ) bears no resemblance to the pulley bolt. Furthermore, this device was patented only in the last several years. > Other citations: > > "...Patented Self-Retaining Nut And Bolt..." > > http://www.boltscience.com/pages/references.htm Mere mention of a phrase is not a citation. Where did you first hear the description (or one like it) that you posted earlier? Or is it a guess of yours? > What's here (pictured at http://its-mart.com/HOWTOUSESHIMMIE.HTM ) bears > no resemblance to the pulley bolt. Furthermore, this device was patented only in >the last several years. The company produces a variety of self-locking bolts, some patents extending further back. Their Japanese partner website is down so as their PDF's. > Mere mention of a phrase is not a citation. I am merely citing (quoting) a phrase that may possibly explain the theory by a reputable site. > Where did you first hear the description (or one like it) that you posted > earlier? Or is it a guess of yours? I stated my beliefs and explained how it works. No claims made. These are educated guesses that will eventually require an experiment to unravel the mystery. I've seen these bolts in mills and laths or AC generators. Sometimes even finding them on seized (one-way) portable jacks. Like every theory, it has to be repeatedly be shown in an experiment. Try this experiment with a new bolt: Exper 1.) Coat the threads with oil and precisely mark bolt and the pulley. Torque the bolts to spec. Turn the AC on and give it some harsh transmission shifts for an undefined time and rpm. Exper 2.) Coat the face of the bolt and washer with oil and degrease the threads and precisely mark bolt and the pulley. Torque the bolts to spec. Turn the AC on and give it some harsh transmission shifts for an undefined time and rpm. (Don't just put the bolt under a microscope since the crank bore may have been specially tapped.) Explain the results. The bolt should move at least 1/200th of a millimeter on experiment 1 but not much on experiment 2. Use a flash camera with 3- megapixels and share your results. > If the bolt doesn't tighten itself on a part that has a potential for play then their > is a potential for the bolt to unwind. Either stake it, castlenut/cotter pin it or in > this case use a one-way threaded bolt. interesting... now if THIS doesnt "muddy the water" i dunno what will :) a one way threaded bolt that relies on the pulley moving to tighten it... whoda thunk it? >> If the bolt doesn't tighten itself on a part that has a potential for >> play then their is a potential for the bolt to unwind. Either stake [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a one way threaded bolt that relies on the pulley moving to tighten > it... whoda thunk it? There is no such thing in a bolt intended to be removed and reinstalled. The jpeg provided by Burt shows absolutely nothing except a fuzzy bolt. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Burt S. wrote: > > If the bolt doesn't tighten itself on a part that has a potential for play then their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a one way threaded bolt that relies on the pulley moving to tighten > it... whoda thunk it? Dunno. Burt, I am not convinced that the pulley bolt's threads are cut such that the vibrations of the back and forth motion of the pulley tighten it. I am not finding anything of this nature described on the web, and it doesn't exactly pass the common sense test. I don't have a good bolt textbook, either, so my engineering texts treat this only generally. (Usual disclaimer: No engineer knows anything special, anyway.) However, Burt, your discussion of how much force the pulley applies to the bolt head during operation does provoke thought. If that bolt weren't there, that pulley would go flying off, right? So of course the pulley exerts a force, and surely a sizable one, on the underside of the bolt head. (I think Tegger and Jim touched upon this reality, too. I was a little focused on stretching by thermal effects and should have considered stretching by mechanical effects.) The question to me is whether then the force is enough to stretch the bolt. If so, then of course since stretching a bolt is a known means of reducing its diameter, then the crankshaft will tend to screw up on the bolt. (Note for total newbies: Industry uses hydraulic devices to literally stretch certain bolts, screw them into place, then release the hydraulic pressure, all to achieve a certain force.) Once the crankshaft stops rotating, the bolt stretching ceases, the bolt length collapses as much as the thread engagement allows, and it will have a higher axial load in it, translating to a higher torque to free the bolt. The higher torque won't necessarily translate to axial loads that are standard, since the threads of the pulley bolt are non-standard in at least one way: Super fine threads. Burt, I don't want to buy a new pulley bolt, and I want to minimize taking my Civic's bolt off and putting it on. I may free it in the next month or so, when I have a tire rotation to do, torque it to spec, paint a line across pulley and bolt, then monitor the line. > Elle Nov 4, 12:09 pm show options > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > paint a line across pulley and bolt, then monitor the > line. Elle, how frequently are your class rooms filled with laughter? . WHAT A BOLT IS, AND HOW IT WORKS -------------------------------- 1) A bolt's sole function on earth is to serve as a clamp. Its job is to keep two or more things from moving relative to each other. That's it. Nothing else. 2) A bolt works /only/ because one thing happens: Its shaft rides up an incline formed by helical threads, and the shaft thereby gets "axially loaded" (stretched) in the process. 3) The one-and-only purpose of helical threads is to impart that "axial loading" (stretching). Axial loading IS what gives the torque (clamping pressure) necessary to hold the bolt's clamped parts in place, and the only thing that keeps it from eventually backing off again. And the only way the bolt can ride up the threads is if it rotates. To sum up: Rotation + stretch = torque. If no incline, then no rotation, no stretching, and therefore no torque. The sentences above are as fundamental to the concept of a bolt (or screw) as air is to life on earth. It is why the idea of a bolt can exist in the first place. If the sentences above are /not/ true, then the very concept of a bolt cannot exist. If, as some have contended, the bolt stretches/distorts with heat but does NOT rotate, then it has not ridden up the incline, cannot impart additional stretch to itself, and thus cannot apply additional torque. In order to permanently stretch, it would have to skip threads, and jump up to the next rotation of the helix. I think we all would agree this does not happen. If the bolt DOES rotate, then this should be readily apparent by placing a paint mark that crosses the bolt head and the pulley, or the pulley and the crankshaft. I GUARANTEE to you that bolt will not have rotated, and neither will the pulley. If the bolt has somehow rotated only on its shank, and not at its head, then you have torsional loading (twisting), which is something that is death to fasteners and is never allowed to happen, because a bolt that is allowed to twist will eventually snap. (In some rare, low stress cases, such as a bicycle brake, the bolt can be constructed so as to allow a small degree of bending. Also, some bolts can be specially constructed to allow shear forces, such as in a movable clevis joint. A clevis joint is loose by design though, so not applicable to this discussion.) A bolt, especially one used in a high-stress automotive application, cannot be allowed to deal with anything more than stretch. It cannot undergo torsion, shear, or bending. The parts it is clamping are supposed to deal with that load. It is critical, imperative, fundamental to the function of any bolt, that it clamp with enough force to prevent its clamped parts from moving relative to each other. If the clamped parts should start moving relative to each other or to the bolt, the joint has failed, and soon the bolt will also. Or it will come out. In the case of a Honda crankshaft pulley, the pulley itself is located by a Woodruff key. This key resists most of the torsional forces imparted by the crankshaft and the engine's accessories. The rest of the resistance is donated by the crankshaft pulley bolt. If the crank pulley bolt is not tight to the point where no relative movement is possible, the Woodruff key will get hammered flat from constant shock loading, and/or the bolt will eventually come out. The bolt will not work as a clamp if it is insufficiently tightened, even if it "looks" like it's tight enough. So why are crankshaft pulley bolts so hard to remove when they've been tightened properly? 1) Corrosion around the perimeter of the bolt head and washer. When a clutch disc seizes to its flywheel, it's not held by very much pressure, but it is held enough that you won't be able to free it without some effort. Same thing happens with that ring of rust. It's not holding by much, but getting the seal to break takes effort. The more rust, the more effort needed. 2) Breakdown of the friction stabilizer coatings on the bolt. High-stress bolts are coated with materials ranging from cadmium to Teflon. These coatings make actual friction more predictable, so the engineers have better control over actual bolt stretch in the real world. When these coatings break down, as they can with time and heat, friction will tend to increase. 3) "Embedment", which is when the thread mating surfaces deform with time and vibration, and mesh more closely together at a microscopic level. Embedment, believe it or not, actually results in BOTH a slight /decrease/ in actual bolt tension as well as an /increase/ in removal torque. Much of the information above comes from the Web site www.boltscience.com , which is run by Bolt Science Limited, a consulting firm in Great Britain. The rest comes from a series of emails between me and an individual at Bolt Science Ltd., and some conversations with my mechanic, who has owned his own shop since the early '80s, and has some thirty years of experience as a licensed mechanic specializing in Japanese cars. Finally, there is no such thing as a "one way" thread in a bolt that is intended to be removed and reinstalled. > WHAT A BOLT IS, AND HOW IT WORKS > -------------------------------- <snip!> > Finally, there is no such thing as a "one way" thread in a bolt that > is intended to be removed and reinstalled. I'm in the middle of my front brakes as I type (by candlelight, so to speak; it's so romantic...) Each wheel has, of course, 4 nuts. Each lug nut was tightened by me to 75 ft lbs back in the summer. Well, I just measured the torque necessary to break them loose just now, in two pound increments on the click-wrench. Guess what? Each one required about 90 lbs to crack free. No corrosion, no friction coatings to break down, little time, and still a 20% increase in torque needed to release. Now what happens to that crank bolt? It's undisturbed for years, suffers rust, and is done up to almost twice the torque figure. No wonder thay're so hard to undo. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> WHAT A BOLT IS, AND HOW IT WORKS >> -------------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > suffers rust, and is done up to almost twice the torque figure. No > wonder thay're so hard to undo. You also need to consider the difference between static and dynamic coefficients of friction, which could account for at least some of your difference in torques. If you have a sensitive beam style torque wrench you can see it if you watch carefully. Torque a bolt, stop moving the wrench , and tighten it further. It will take more torque to start it moving, but once it is moving, torque decreased as long as it is moving. WARNING do not loosen torqued fasteners with a click style torque wrench, when you see this difference in a loosening direction, the sudden change in torque as it starts to move can impart enough of a jolt to the torque wrench that it may be damaged. Remember that loud click as the bolt came loose? That was it.(Experienced it, Paid for it. $40 to recalibrate wrench.) Keep up the good work, T! Scott > Remember > that loud click as the bolt came loose? That was it.(Experienced it, > Paid for it. $40 to recalibrate wrench.) Yeah, but all my bolts came loose slowly. At 88 lbs, the wrench clicked. At 90 lbs, they turned, slowly, easing their tension gradually. No snaps, crackles or pops, no sudden-ness anywhere. Kinda odd, actually. You get bolts that are rusted in place, and when they finally (sharply) let go, they can send a shock wave through your fingers that you'll still feel days later. *My* wheel nuts are never like that. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> Remember >> that loud click as the bolt came loose? That was it.(Experienced it, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 90 lbs, they turned, slowly, easing their tension gradually. No snaps, > crackles or pops, no sudden-ness anywhere. Most torque wrenches are designed to measure dynamic torque accurately, not static. Is yours different? > Each wheel has, of course, 4 nuts. Each lug nut was tightened by me to 75 > ft lbs back in the summer. Well, I just measured the torque necessary to > break them loose just now, in two pound increments on the click-wrench. > > Guess what? Each one required about 90 lbs to crack free. For the archives, I think it's important to note that the torque wrenches accessible to the ordinary consumer are not supposed to be used to measure loosening torque. I'm not saying your measurements are necessarily wrong. They sound reasonable and not inconsistent with the reality that loosening torque tends to be a little higher (according to boltscience, among others) than tightening torque, due to the differences in dynamic friction (while tightening) vs. static friction (while loosening). I am saying from my reading, this is inappropriate use of a tool, leading I suspect either to incorrect measurements, abnormal wear and tear on the torque wrench, or both. >> Each wheel has, of course, 4 nuts. Each lug nut was tightened by me >> to 75 ft lbs back in the summer. Well, I just measured the torque [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Hi, go to this link and click on the "safety" icon, where they say not to break fasteners loose with a torque wrench It probably was in the manual, and I try to read it all, but I sure didn't remember it when it counted. But on the bright side, it only cost me $40 and I didn't damage the customer's machine. http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/item.asp?P65=&tool=all&item_ID=55265&group_I D=954&store=snapon-store&dir=catalog >> Each wheel has, of course, 4 nuts. Each lug nut was tightened by me >> to 75 ft lbs back in the summer. Well, I just measured the torque [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wrenches accessible to the ordinary consumer are not supposed to be > used to measure loosening torque. It's not supposed to be used to measure loosening torque because of the possibility of overloading the mechanism. 90 ft lbs is well within my wrench's maximum of 150 lbs. I started at 75, and worked my way up in 2 lb increments. There is no harm done to a torque wrench used in such a manner. --------------------- An update to yesterday: I picked up a nail in one tire two weeks ago. I brought it to a tire place to get the puncture repaired, and watched while the tire guy used a torque wrench to tighten the lug nuts. I noticed /all/ the tire guys were using torque wrenches as a matter of course. By the pressure he appeared to be applying, I'd /guess/ the force used was on the order of 100 lbs before the wrench clicked. I did not ask to see what the setting was. When I tried to undo the nust on that particular wheel yesterday, I reached 100 lbs with the torque wrench, with no apparent movement visible at the nuts. I then laid aside the torque wrench, for fear of the very damage you mention. I enmded up having to STAND on an extended wrench, and bounce up and down on it! I weigh 180 lbs, so I must have been applying removal torque of over 200 lbs before nuts came loose. I'm wondering if removal torque increases exponentially compared to tightening torque once you get closer to maximum tension. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >> Each wheel has, of course, 4 nuts. Each lug nut was tightened by me [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It's not supposed to be used to measure loosening torque because of the > possibility of overloading the mechanism. > 90 ft lbs is well within my > wrench's maximum of 150 lbs. > > I started at 75, and worked my way up in 2 lb increments. > > There is no harm done to a torque wrench used in such a manner. I don't agree. Using a torque wrench as you describe puts a lot more wear and tear on it for each assessment of a bolt's loosening torque (as opposed to the one-time application of tightening torque). The wrench "allows" only so many clicks before calibration becomes a concern. Without good calibration, the torque wrench is useless. > An update to yesterday: I picked up a nail in one tire two weeks ago. I > brought it to a tire place to get the puncture repaired, and watched while [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm wondering if removal torque increases exponentially compared to > tightening torque once you get closer to maximum tension. Off the top of my head, I would say the removal torque probably varies more at higher axial loads than lower axial loads. That is, if one takes several measurements of loosening torque at a given lower axial load, this collection of "low load removal torques" will have a lower standard deviation than that of a corresponding collection of "high load removal torques." The thread mating surfaces are closer together at higher axial loads. So static (as opposed to dynamic) friction effects should prevail increasingly more the closer one gets to the maximum allowable axial load in the bolt. In addition, surface conditions can vary a lot due to wear, how lubricant was applied, temperature, even the manner in which the bolt was tightened. The variability of surface conditions from one tightening to the next should increase the unpredictability of loosening torque at higher axial loads. By contrast, at lower loads, the thread mating surfaces are farther apart, so the mating surfaces' condition should have less of an effect on the friction between them. Below a certain axial load, it's more likely to be, say, oil molecules sliding over oil molecules. Whereas at higher loads, one can't say with as much certainty whether it's oil sliding over oil or steel sliding over steel, with imperfections in the steel and wear in the threads at work as well. Otherwise, if your car were just for lab experiments, I would be tempted to repeat the experiment with a torque wrench of reasonably-well known calibration. This sounds fishy, like those guys are abusing their highly sensitive torque wrenches, to me. Regardless, yours is a good example of why folks should probably do their own torquing of their lug nuts, even after they've been torqued at the shop. >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> >> Each wheel has, of course, 4 nuts. Each lug nut was tightened by [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Without good calibration, the torque wrench is useless. And how often am I going to do this? Every week? I did this with 16 wheel nuts on one occasion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the wrench as I did. Remember that torque wrenches are meant to be used on an hourly basis. Garages use the same wrench every few minutes. What they refer to in the warning is that some people try to use torque wrenches as breaker bars, since they are long and provide lots of leverage. In use, the wrench's maximum torque can thereby get drastically exceeded. <snip> > The thread mating surfaces are closer together at higher axial loads. > So static (as opposed to dynamic) friction effects should prevail [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > By contrast, at lower loads, the thread mating surfaces are farther > apart, There is no gap between mating threads when the bolt is tight, no matter how much/little tension is present. When the bolt's threads ride up the incline, the threads are squeezed together with more pressure as tension on the bolt's shank increases, but the the threads can not get any /closer/ together. "Embedment" after final tightening torque DOES occur, and results in a reduction in bolt tension (not the same as torque!) of about 5-10%. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the wrench as I did. Wow. You do dig in. I am happy to agree to disagree. > Remember > that torque wrenches are meant to be used on an hourly basis. Garages use > the same wrench every few minutes. I am confident that garage torque wrenches tend to be far more out of calibration than the average home DIYer. If you think differently, whatever. The number of clicks counts. > What they refer to in the warning is that some people try to use torque > wrenches as breaker bars, since they are long and provide lots of leverage. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There is no gap between mating threads when the bolt is tight, no matter > how much/little tension is present. The bolt threads and female side threads are perfect, eh. We disagree. > When the bolt's threads ride up the incline, the threads are squeezed > together with more pressure as tension on the bolt's shank increases, but > the the threads can not get any /closer/ together. It's not so black and white, like an "on/off" situation. But you believe what you want. I gave you a theory that supports your idea. Throw it out. I don't care. > The number of clicks counts. There is only one click. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > > The number of clicks counts. > > There is only one click. The torque wrench has only about so many clicks in its life before its calibration becomes too far off to be useful. Your measurement of breakloose torque requires several clicks per measurement. >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> > The number of clicks counts. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Your measurement of breakloose torque requires several clicks per > measurement. There is only ONE click. You've never actually used a click-type torque wrench. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > There is only ONE click. You proceeded in 2 ft-lb increments. Are you saying you don't let it click after each increment. > You've never actually used a click-type torque wrench. Right. And I lie about my 91 Civic averaging 40+ mpg. And I lied about Grade 8 bolts being available at popular hardware stores. And what I said (with others) about clogged PCV valves reducing fuel mileage is a lie, too. All these things you said were lies, and you were shown wrong. Torque wrenches do not stay calibrated forever. One crude measure of when one requires calibration is how many clicks it's seen. >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote >> >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You proceeded in 2 ft-lb increments. Are you saying you don't let it > click after each increment. Of course I did. Tht's the only way I knew it passed that figure without breaking loose. After the click, you can keep turning if you like, and the wrnch will apply torque to the bolt, but that would be pretty stupid. >> You've never actually used a click-type torque wrench. > > Right. <snip> Well, have you? SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Well, have you? Of course. I own two click torque wrenches (one high range; one low range) and have mentioned them several times here. We're probably having a miscommunication. You posted that you attempted to estimate the breakloose torque of a wheel lugnut by using your torque wrench on a lugnut you originally tightened to IIRC 75 ft-lbs. You set the torque wrench (in reverse; flipped the lever on the head, probably) to I presume something like 73 ft-lbs. the first time. The "click" was heard, whence you raised the setting to 75 ft-lbs. The "click" was heard whence you raised it to 77 ft-lbs. Etc. until you got to a setting of 90 ft-lbs. The lugnut loosened, and no click was heard. That's a buncha "clicks" to get to the 90 ft-lbs whence the bolt finally loosened. >> >> You've never actually used a click-type torque wrench. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Of course. I own two click torque wrenches (one high range; one low > range) and have mentioned them several times here. Apologies. I misinterpreted what you meant when you said "number of clicks matters". Of course you're right, they do. But that's independent of what you do with the wrench so long as you're not overloading it. This is why torque wrench calibration services exist. You're supposed to get them recalibrated once in a while to compensate for normal wear. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>>>The number of clicks counts. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > All these things you said were lies, and you were shown wrong. come on kids, play nice or don't play at all. > Torque wrenches do not stay calibrated forever. One crude measure of when > one requires calibration is how many clicks it's seen. actually, it's not that crude. clicking torque wrenches that get regularly used in factory assembly work get recalibrated based on usage. > Elle wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > come on kids, play nice or don't play at all. Son, you should have called out Tegger. He is in the habit of insisting someone is lying when he doesn't understand something posted. Indeed, one of your posts tonight shows your own irritation with his saying as much of one of your claims. > > Torque wrenches do not stay calibrated forever. One crude measure of when > > one requires calibration is how many clicks it's seen. > > actually, it's not that crude. clicking torque wrenches that get > regularly used in factory assembly work get recalibrated based on usage. Noted. >>>>>>>The number of clicks counts. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > your posts tonight shows your own irritation with his saying as much of one > of your claims. kid_S_ is plural. that means BOTH of you. >>>Torque wrenches do not stay calibrated forever. One crude measure of > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Noted. > >>>>>>>The number of clicks counts. > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > kid_S_ is plural. that means BOTH of you. Sorry, Jim, but you're not being fair. You too called out Tegger for saying you were lying in a post tonight. It's a bad habit of his. He needs a bit of patience and tenacity in ensuring he understands what's being said. Though he'll likely never give in on the PCV valve matter. Which I note time and again you don't call him out on. But you're quick to call me out if I post something erroneous. I on the other hand look the other way at your really poorly thought-out theory re precesssion. It is not happening. You've confused "precession" with something much simpler: Shaft turns. Bolt doesn't turn as quickly. Relative motion occurs between the two. Bolt tightens. In theory. <shrug> "Son" is singular. That means you are behaving like a child along with Tegger. Some time someone will mark their pulley bolt and pulley and report back on relative motion (and I have in mind more than the angular lash of the key). There may not be any. Yet there may be. Dunno. I am not satisfied that galling, aggravated by heat cycling, is the only thing at work here. But it could be. That's the difference between Tegger's and my approach, so far. I return to our regularly scheduled programming, after the usual flames in retort. <snip> > Sorry, Jim, but you're not being fair. who cares? i'm just sick of the pair of you squabbling. if you think i'm somehow singling you out for special attention, you're mistaken - you just happened to be at the end of the thread when i got home and chose to reply. you are /way/ too ready to wear that "victim" teeshirt your daddy gave you. > Elle wrote: > <snip> > > Sorry, Jim, but you're not being fair. > > who cares? Evidently you do. > i'm just sick of the pair of you squabbling. I'm sick of Tegger calling people liars. I'm sick of him asserting diagnoses as fact rather than a best guess. > if you think > i'm somehow singling you out for special attention, you're mistaken - You're consistent in this habit. > you just happened to be at the end of the thread when i got home and > chose to reply. you are /way/ too ready to wear that "victim" teeshirt > your daddy gave you. This is the ready defense of someone who disputes the evidence of prejudice in the world and practices it himself. <shrug> You're still wrong about the precession. Way wrong. > <snip> >> Sorry, Jim, but you're not being fair. > > who cares? i'm just sick of the pair of you squabbling. I'm not squabbling, I'm debating. She's the one accusing me of saying that she lied. I said she was WRONG, not mendacious. I'm not going to suddenly say she's (or you are) right just to be nice. I am convinced you guys are incorrect and will continue to say so. (Back OT for a moment: That '91 pulley you found was undertorqued, had Loctite on it, and was severely galled on the back. I'd suggest that managed to find a car that's had unusually inept servicing.) > if you think > i'm somehow singling you out for special attention, you're mistaken - > you just happened to be at the end of the thread when i got home and > chose to reply. you are /way/ too ready to wear that "victim" teeshirt > your daddy gave you. I noticed that too. She's awful quick to get angry at somebody. It's just a debate, fer chrissake. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote > > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm not squabbling, I'm debating. She's the one accusing me of saying that > she lied. You asserted I'd never actually used a torque wrench, implying I was bsing my way through this. You pull this crap a lot. Here's a tip for you: Don't make assertions when something someone posts doesn't make sense to you. Ask questions. > I said she was WRONG, not mendacious. > > I'm not going to suddenly say she's (or you are) right just to be nice. I > am convinced you guys are incorrect and will continue to say so. Obsessively, and to the detriment of your site and this newsgroup. > (Back OT for a moment: That '91 pulley you found was undertorqued, had > Loctite on it, and was severely galled on the back. I'd suggest that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I noticed that too. She's awful quick to get angry at somebody. When you implicate a person as a liar (which you often do) or accuse them of dissembling about their experience, you shouldn't be surprised that they get a little hostile. It's nothing like the venom that comes through your site when you insist on posting a dispute between a few people there, unrelated to actually repairing Hondas. > It's just a debate, fer chrissake. Yes, it is, and during it, you asserted as fact that I couldn't have bought Grade 8 bolts at a local hardware store and have never used a torque wrench. Implying I was bullsh-tting my way through a technical discussion. When I'm wrong, I say it or note something like "Oops. John is right. What I said is erroneous." "Debate" like this should be reserved for Usenet, IMO. I am very disappointed in you. IMO you need to stop posting things like, "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." I thought you'd shaped up since the PCV valve discussion. You have a ways to go. >>I said she was WRONG, not mendacious. > When you implicate a person as a liar If I may be so bold as to point out that there is a world of difference between lying and being wrong. Whether he was being reasonable in saying / how he said you were wrong is not relevant, just that saying someone is wrong, is a NOT the same as lying. Though I know that to have ones views bluntly described as wrong is not nice, and is often only a matter of opinion, to which we are all entitled. > >>I said she was WRONG, not mendacious. > > > When you implicate a person as a liar > > If I may be so bold as to point out that there is a world of difference > between lying and being wrong. That would be fine if Tegger had merely said I was wrong. It's when he asserts (incorrectly) as fact that I've never used a torque wrench that the connection to an assertion that I am a liar begins. Both statements rely on presumptions that are attempts to disparage. Until he breaks this habit of his, the only one that will be disparaged by such remarks is himself. I asked Tegger to remove the link to my web site. I now ask that he remove my name from it, as well. Another person who provided support for his web site (re the igniter, IIRC) made the same request and was granted it. If he won't grant my request as well, well, that's just more evidence that he's a lot of talk when it comes to claims that he absents ego from his site. My web site is no longer up. I don't think the world will stop turning as a result of that, of course. I took it down because it is the cause, one way or another, of a Usenet debate now being posted at Tegger's site. The site is supposed to be dedicated to helping people fix their cars. It's less with this debate on it. I may put my site back up if anyone posts asking about ways to remove the pulley bolt. Seems like those posts have been far and few between this past year, compared to previous years. Though it's not like Eric or some of the other folks couldn't throw up a site describing these tools and it would be just as good or better as my efforts. No big deal. Just saying. Tegger, it's easy to unpublish and then publish my site. Track it down if you want if and when I do re-publish it (under different addies as I see fit), but I will remind you again that this is inconsistent with your agreeing not to name the guy who helped you with the igniter. > Whether he was being reasonable in saying / how he said you were wrong > is not relevant, just that saying someone is wrong, is a NOT the same as > lying. Though I know that to have ones views bluntly described as wrong > is not nice, and is often only a matter of opinion, to which we are all > entitled. The whole issue is "being nice." You missed the boat, AFAIC. > I asked Tegger to remove the link to my web site. I now ask that he > remove my name from it, as well. Another person who provided support > for his web site (re the igniter, IIRC) made the same request and was > granted it. If he won't grant my request as well, well, that's just > more evidence that he's a lot of talk when it comes to claims that he > absents ego from his site. Your taking your site down to spite me certainly smacks of ego. Screw all those people who may be helped by the excellent info you had up; it's more satisfying to thumb your nose at Tegger. Nice. I'll remove your name and the links. And shake my head at your irrational vindictiveness as I do it. > My web site is no longer up. I don't think the world will stop turning > as a result of that, of course. I took it down because it is the > cause, one way or another, of a Usenet debate now being posted at > Tegger's site. The site is supposed to be dedicated to helping people > fix their cars. It's less with this debate on it. If anyone cares to see the page she's referring to, it's here: http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#crankbolt Scroll down to the bottom of the "manual methods" part (green text). SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> I noticed that too. She's awful quick to get angry at somebody. > > When you implicate a person as a liar (which you often do) You are exhibiting signs of being unbalanced. > or accuse > them of dissembling about their experience, you shouldn't be surprised > that they get a little hostile. And unbalanced people ignore apologies. You'll notice an apology appeared in this thread once I realized I'd misunderstood your "multiple clicks" statment. Up to that point it did appear to me that you were embellishing your personal experience. > It's nothing like the venom that comes through your site when you > insist on posting a dispute between a few people there, unrelated to > actually repairing Hondas. The debate referred to on my Web site was a PUBLIC affair, conducted in this very PUBLIC newsgroup. You will notice I have made absolutely no reference (until now) to the PRIVATE emails exchanged between you and me on the subject of this thread. You also seem to have forgotten that I PUBLICLY removed the opinion page that you didn't like, after you raised what I thought was a reasonable objection to it. If you cannot tell the difference between public debate and private debate, well... >> It's just a debate, fer chrissake. > > Yes, it is, and during it, you asserted as fact that I couldn't have > bought Grade 8 bolts at a local hardware store Yes, and I corrected myself later after your revelation by saying "maybe it's just Canada then", as I /cannot/ buy those bolts here. Did you miss that post too? > and have never used a > torque wrench. Implying I was bullsh-tting my way through a technical > discussion. When I'm wrong, I say it or note something like "Oops. > John is right. What I said is erroneous." > > "Debate" like this should be reserved for Usenet, IMO. > I am very disappointed in you. IMO you need to stop posting things > like, "You may not believe this, but I have no ego whatsoever when it > comes to this site.... And I don't. Ask my many, many contributors, who fill in for me what I don't know. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And unbalanced people ignore apologies. You're entitled to your judgment. <shrug> > You'll notice an apology appeared in this thread once I realized I'd > misunderstood your "multiple clicks" statment. Up to that point it did [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You will notice I have made absolutely no reference (until now) to the > PRIVATE emails exchanged between you and me on the subject of this thread. You sent me one email, which was tactful and polite. The bulk of it was a reproduction of an interesting exchange you had with one of the boltscience.com guys. I responded back, with a single email, saying something about how I thought trying to get at the truth was a good idea, explaining my position again, with the understanding we wouldn't agree, and so also offering you choices so as many people would benefit as possible from our two sites. I hope my response was also tactful and polite. If not, oh well. Publication of that exchange doesn't bother me at all, unless publication is at a site that's suppose to focus on helping people fix their Honda cars. (Regardless, it's your site. You have the right to put up anything you want there, within the bounds of the law, which obviously you are completely within. I'm just telling you how I feel. And what am I? Peon, man.) You also don't reproduce my position accurately at your site. That bothers me yada. Don't be, I dunno, shy about accepting this offer to just take from my site what you'd like and putting it up at your site. I am so not into money or getting credit on an issue like this. What's important IMO is that we agree the point is to provide a kind of community service. Also, it compels me to learn more, and that's fun, pure and simple. I have no problem leaving my site up for a week or so while you copy and paste what you want. For what the offer is worth. I don't want you angry over this. I regret the argument, though I don't think it was preventable for various reasons. For the record, here's the last few paragraphs of what I emailed you several days ago, in response to your own polite, tactful note. --- As for your site, I don't know if you changed it to emphasize air impact tools or not, but in fact, I do not think air impact tools should have priority over pulley holder tools. Maybe equal standing. Or it just depends on what one has in one's garage at the moment. There are other technical things I'm not wild about, like the PCV valve discussion. (You and I duked this out a while back, while I was posting under another name, as I think you are aware.) But to me the things above on the site would be tolerable were it not also for the posting of a debate between you and me (not rendering my position very well at that). It is distracting for the pulley bolt part of your site. It's unrelated to the repair itself, which is why I think most people (probably mostly in a hurry) go to your site in the first place. Other homemade, personal honda sites don't inject debate into them. I think that's why they're so praiseworthy and really to me are such a joy to read: They overwhelm with sincerity (as in the first priority is to help others, not have a fight) and "just the facts" of what was done or needs to be done in a repair. Speculation is generally avoided. Debate between two named individuals does not occur. I took my site down and changed the pulley tool site's address, then put it back up, expecting you wouldn't link to it. Seeing you did link it, I took it down again, for the reasons I give above. As I said before, if you want to take /any/ of what I did at this site and rework it for your own needs, that's fine. But I don't want my name attached to it. Just call me "some person." Mostly that's just to get the debate off your own site. Let me know and I'll put it back up for a few days or until you can take from it whatever you want. Not that it's anything special. And, sure, your own far more extensive site does way way way more good than bad. Otherwise, you don't need a honda repair peon like me picking away at a site that, like I say, helps so many. FWIW, I agree the pulley bolt discussion has borne fruit. Also, the recent igniter and condenser discussion was fantastic. I took off my distributor housing today, as much to clean out under there, as it had gotten pretty oily-grimy for various reasons which I've since corrected, but also to find this radio noise condenser. I swear my 91 Civic, like Jim's 91 CRX distributor, also does not have one. I am baffled but not annoyed. I have some other ideas and will explore them. The journey is as fun as the destination, as they say, in these endeavors. --- > You also seem to have forgotten that I PUBLICLY removed the opinion page > that you didn't like, That paragraph (or paragraphs) you have there (or at least still did yesterday) are still way over the top, distracting and detracting from your site and its goals, in my opinion. And it's /only/ my opinion. These sites take a lot of time and effort to put together. Again, IMO you should take note of how many people praise your efforts there and how much good the 'Unofficial Honda FAQ Site' does. The hell with my efforts. > You sent me one email, which was tactful and polite. Please, guys, this has been what should be a private discussion now for some time. None of us here in the public forum need to see this. Please take it off the NG. Thanks. Abe <snip> > (Back OT for a moment: That '91 pulley you found was undertorqued, > had Loctite on it, and was severely galled on the back. I'd suggest > that managed to find a car that's had unusually inept servicing.) undertorqued??? ok, let's assume this is not a flame fest and examine this statement for what it does: it acknowledges galling. and galling /is/ the product of movement. so we agree [finally] that the pulley wheel is experiencing lash - there's no other way for that galling to occur. for torque, either i did or did not have to bounce my whole 205lbs bodyweight on the end of an 18"x3/4" breaker bar to shift that thing - as opposed to the 92 which came off with one hand /and/ had been loctited. i don't call that 91 undertorqued. you decide your own position on that one. and while you're making your selection, figure out whether it's consistent with bolt tightening in just one trip in my crx. as for deliberately "selecting" a particular example, i'll go through the whole junkyard and photograph every bolt & washer if that's what it takes. i've seen bolts like that many times. metallurgy is in substantial part analysis of situations just like this one. if you haven't seen it before, that's your problem, not mine, and with respect, it's not a foundation for criticism. finally, that 91 bolt was /not/ loctited. look again at the pics - the high res ones i sent you. i have a 20x loupe [although it won't photograph very well] and have compared both. there's no evidence of loctite on the 91, unlike the 92. i'll go through the junkyard again for you if i need to. fwiw, threadlock is /not/ specified as part of the pulley wheel re-torqe process in the 89 service manual i have to hand. > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ok, let's assume this is not a flame fest Thank you. It's not. I rarely flame people. > and examine this statement > for what it does: it acknowledges galling. and galling /is/ the > product of movement. so we agree [finally] that the pulley wheel is > experiencing lash - there's no other way for that galling to occur. But galling does not occur on pulleys that are properly torqued. And just LOOK at that pulley! That level of galling is NOT normal for ANY car. Something /real/ bad happened to that puppy. > for torque, either i did or did not have to bounce my whole 205lbs > bodyweight on the end of an 18"x3/4" breaker bar to shift that thing - > as opposed to the 92 which came off with one hand /and/ had been > loctited. i don't call that 91 undertorqued. Yeah, I had them backwards. I thought it was the '91 that came off easily. In any case, the '91's pulley has been VERY loose at one time, loose enough to spin on the crank nose and overheat to the point that the metal moved. This suggests it was once installed with no Woodruff key. Not necessarily on that particular car, but somewhere. What did the '92's pulley look like? I don't think you sent a pic of that. > you decide your own > position on that one. and while you're making your selection, figure > out whether it's consistent with bolt tightening in just one trip in > my crx. It didn't tighten. As I said earlier, and as was explained to me by bona fide experts at Bolt Science Ltd, there are other factors that explain the apparent tightening. Bolt Science categorically told me the bolt DOES NOT tighten more after proper torque. Bolts are their business. They get paid to know about bolts. I'd believe them before I'd believe myself. > as for deliberately "selecting" a particular example, I never said that. I think you just happened to get that one. > i'll go through > the whole junkyard and photograph every bolt & washer if that's what > it takes. Maybe check a half-dozen or so, and compare pulleys. That would be a more rigorous test than just one or two. One or two leaves you too open to accidentally selecting an unusual example. It might also make sense to try and get a general idea of the sort of servicing a particular car might have had. Might be hard to tell, though. I'd be looking for "next service" type stickers on the doors and suchlike, indicating the car may have had more professional servicing. > i've seen bolts like that many times. Me too. But I've NEVER seen a pulley galled as bad as that '91. > metallurgy is in > substantial part analysis of situations just like this one. if you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > photograph very well] and have compared both. there's no evidence of > loctite on the 91, unlike the 92. Like I said, I mixed them up. Sorry about that. > i'll go through the junkyard again > for you if i need to. fwiw, threadlock is /not/ specified as part of > the pulley wheel re-torqe process in the 89 service manual i have to > hand. It isn't specified in ANY manual I've seen for ANY manufacturer. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > In any case, the '91's pulley has been VERY loose at one time, loose enough > to spin on the crank nose and overheat to the point that the metal moved. eh? there's no overheating going on here. and it's not spun - just fretted within a very limited range. if it had spun, it would have looked totally different. > This suggests it was once installed with no Woodruff key. Not necessarily > on that particular car, but somewhere. absolutely not. the galling is /not/ that characteristic of the pulley having been spun. > What did the '92's pulley look like? I don't think you sent a pic of that. i didn't send a pic of either pulley. they don't tighten, just the bolt. >> you decide your own >>position on that one. and while you're making your selection, figure [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > proper torque. Bolts are their business. They get paid to know about bolts. > I'd believe them before I'd believe myself. well, that's categorically wrong. tell them to look up lash and precession. both can tighten bolts. if no one there knows that, there's something /seriously/ wrong with their credibility. i gave you examples from truck lug nuts, bike pedals and bike fixed gears, and the circular saw example cited elsewhere is just one more. most people don't worry about bolts that tighten because it's the ones that loosen that cause the problems, but to say it doesn't happen is just ridiculous. >>as for deliberately "selecting" a particular example, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'd be looking for "next service" type stickers on the doors and suchlike, > indicating the car may have had more professional servicing. like i told you, you can see how many times the bolt has been removed from the key marks. you have the fingerprints and the ballistics from the murder weapon, but you want a signed confession as well? >> i've seen bolts like that many times. > > Me too. But I've NEVER seen a pulley galled as bad as that '91. just because /you/ haven't seen it is no reason to deny reality! >> metallurgy is in >>substantial part analysis of situations just like this one. if you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It isn't specified in ANY manual I've seen for ANY manufacturer. well, it's clearly used on the 92 in factory assembly - you have the photo evidence. honda evidently figured out there was a problem - that's why they splined the pulley for that model! > i didn't send a pic of either pulley. Well that explains it. I thought I was looking at a closeup of the pulley in one photo. Now I've got to rename that directory. Could you send pulley pics? I'd like to see them. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>i didn't send a pic of either pulley. > > Well that explains it. I thought I was looking at a closeup of the pulley > in one photo. Now I've got to rename that directory. > > Could you send pulley pics? I'd like to see them. that would require another visit to the junk yard... but this: http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/jim-beam_pulley_pics/both_washer_u-side.jpg shows the regions of the bolt washers that have been against the pulleys. as you might expect, features on the pulleys correspond with resulting features on the washers, hence the keyway scars and machining ring indentations. > actually, it's not that crude. clicking torque wrenches that get > regularly used in factory assembly work get recalibrated based on usage. Time for a little anecdotal insertion. When I was responsible for calibrating torque wrenches on a hi-tech production floor, one of the engineers related how when he worked at Boeing Aircraft, all torque wrenches were calibrated twice per shift. He also added, based on his experience of how much each type of torque wrench was out of spec when calibrated, micrometer-click torque wrenches were the worst for maintaining correct torque settings. Second were dial-type wrenches, with beam torque wrenches being the most consistently accurate. My company used click style wrenches which were calibrated once per use (several days between use). But, they were the single setting type, one torque setting per wrench. This because micrometer adjust torque wrenches work over such a wide range, they were not accurate enough for our needs. Click type wrenches work on a spring and detent arrangement. The spring grows weaker with time and use and the detent wears. This degradation of components requires constant recalibration to be accurate. You start tossing in repeated adjustments up and down a 50-75 ft/lb range and accuracy is a crap shoot. nb > My company used click style wrenches which were calibrated once per > use (several days between use). But, they were the single setting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to be accurate. You start tossing in repeated adjustments up and down > a 50-75 ft/lb range and accuracy is a crap shoot. Guess I'd better get mine done soon. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>> Each wheel has, of course, 4 nuts. Each lug nut was tightened by >>> me to 75 ft lbs back in the summer. Well, I just measured the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > nuts. I noticed /all/ the tire guys were using torque wrenches as a > matter of course. of course. not only is it specified by the manufacturer, but more importantly, their liability insurance /requires/ they use torque wrenches. i used to date an accident/injury attorney, and she used to /nail/ poor sob's who couldn't prove they'd used such practices. > By the pressure he appeared to be applying, I'd /guess/ the force > used was on the order of 100 lbs before the wrench clicked. I did not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > down on it! I weigh 180 lbs, so I must have been applying removal > torque of over 200 lbs before nuts came loose. right side or left side? > I'm wondering if removal torque increases exponentially compared to > tightening torque once you get closer to maximum tension. with respect, that's straw clutching. go to a parking lot where there are some big rigs and look at their wheel lugs. see any where there are red rust marks around the nut, particularly ones where the red has streaked radially outwards? that's fretting at the interface, and fretting is movement. if there's movement, there's precession [in lateral loading] and it will either loosen or tighten, depending on the sense of rotation relative to the thread. you think your car lugs were tight? try a nice red-rusted big rig lug nut some time. why don't left side car lugs loosen? because they have a tapered interface, and as you know, tapers impart significantly higher friction. this will prevent rotation if torqued sufficiently. which brings us neatly back to accident/injury attorneys and liability insurance... "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote E > >> 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 > 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. To me, it does because (1) I am acquainted with industrial size bolts being torqued using bolt heaters; and (2) no other explanation (not rust or your other theory) seems reasonable. I do agree I should qualify my statements at the site and say something like, "My theory for the high torque after operation is... " > Consider that the crankshaft nose heats and cools identically with the > bolt. I wouldn't say that. I don't know their respective materials, for one thing. Geometry plays a role, too. > I would like to see some citations supporting that theory. Haven't seen any, beyond my knowledge of bolt heaters being used to torque down bolts in industrial applications. > I have linked your pages to mine in spite of this, but that paragraph > really should be removed. You don't have to link any of it. I won't be offended or anything. > 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 sounds like you're presuming some sort of rigid connection between bolt and pulley. One can unscrew the bolt from the crankshaft, with both crankshaft and pulley fixed (because of the key). This means one can screw the crankshaft-keyed-to-pulley onto the bolt as well, so to speak. The group (including you and me) discussed this last year, before I had actually done a TB job. Back then I agreed with you that the key prevented the crankshaft from rotating onto the bolt (so to speak). I feel I was wrong. The final word on the net seems to be it's unclear what the cause is, but heat cycling and rust are not ruled out. > 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. Or if it's heated such that it expands, as I described at the site. It does heat gradually, and simultaneous to the crankshaft turning so as to tighten the connection. It's not going to be terribly obvious. Querying about what holds the bolt steady enough so that the crankshaft screws onto the bolt is a fair question. I would say just inertia. It shouldn't take much rotation at all, at high enough bolt temperatures, to tighten that. I suppose one could do a test: After removing and torquing the bolt to spec, magic marker a line down a diameter of the bolt and pulley. Operate the engine for a few months. Check whether the line breaks up. > 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 - 6 lines] > which would have the effect of putting a tremendous amount of force on the > bolt as it pushes the pulley outwards. I remain tentative about any rust theory here. It's not like much water can get up in there. When I last removed the bolt from my Honda, it looked pretty clean. > 4) Jamieson's and Curly's homemade pulley holder is for the pulley with a > hex, Yes, this is what I say: It's for what I call category (1) pulleys. Maybe re-ordering the paragraphs could make things more clear. > 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. If you are referring to the rocker arms not riding on the camshaft lobes, and so indicating the intake valves are shut yada, the site mentions this. Again, it's no problem if you decide not to link up these pages to your site. Everyone has their opinions. Some are quickly refuted. Other issues remain controversial. I don't have a need to rehash the controversy. I think the bigger question is: Do sites like yours, mine, and the Blanchas site help people? I used the Blanchas site a lot when I did my first TB job. Your own site has obviously helped a lot of people as well. Maybe my site will be of some use some day (for as long as I keep it up). Doesn't matter. I have a number of other home-made sites bookmarked for Hondas, too, and have referred to them a lot. I think all, while maybe not perfect, are overall very helpful. (None of the manuals are perfect, either.) > I suppose one could do a test: After removing and torquing the bolt to spec, > magic marker a line down a diameter of the bolt and pulley. Operate the > engine for a few months. Check whether the line breaks up. or use nail polish, cuz youre a GIRRRRRRL! j/k... wanted to toss some neanderthal sexism in there, that's totally unwarranted. > Everyone has their opinions. Some are quickly refuted. Other issues remain > controversial. I don't have a need to rehash the controversy. I think the > bigger question is: Do sites like yours, mine, and the Blanchas site help > people? i like just about every site ive run across. ive read yours and liked it, teggers is obviously really good... and with the new TSBs, even more betterer! > I used the Blanchas site a lot when I did my first TB job. Your own site > has obviously helped a lot of people as well. Maybe my site will be of some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (None of the manuals are perfect, either.) "helm- there is no substitute" > Elle wrote: > > I suppose one could do a test: After removing and torquing the bolt to spec, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > j/k... wanted to toss some neanderthal sexism in there, that's totally > unwarranted. In my opinion, some sexism is good. This is a great suggestion. The nail polish brush size is just right. The polish may adhere just fine. Plus, what else is just laying around to paint on an easy to read line across the pulley and bolt? Pink frost glitter should be a staple of every honda technician's toolbox. IIRC, there is already a blue paint mark on my 91 Civic's pulley bolt, I should at least check its orientation relative to the pulley's timing marks. Then slap on the nail polish... :-) > > Everyone has their opinions. Some are quickly refuted. Other issues remain > > controversial. I don't have a need to rehash the controversy. I think the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it, teggers is obviously really good... and with the new TSBs, even more > betterer! I agree, with the exception of maybe some of those forums which come up so often when one is doing a search for info. Lotta junk in those. This forum (rec.yada.honda) is much cleaner, and one can easily go to groups.google and do a search of strictly it. Those forums weren't nearly as prolific around 2000. Back then, I'd get a lot more of the excellent homemade sites, like Blanchas's, when I googled. I dunno about this wiki proposal, though. It sounds like any yahoo can go in there and mess with things. I think a hman filter is needed, if only to ensure something with which Tegger (and possibly others) doesn't agree doesn't go up. It is his site, after all, as you know. He's done a lot of work on it and I don't know if the wiki feature could have brought it as far. > > I used the Blanchas site a lot when I did my first TB job. Your own site > > has obviously helped a lot of people as well. Maybe my site will be of some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "helm- there is no substitute" I remain convinced that Chilton's is a spot-on reproduction of much of Helm. :-) > Pink frost glitter should be a staple of every honda technician's toolbox. Naaaah, it would clash with my Accord's dark blue. > I dunno about this wiki proposal, though. It sounds like any yahoo can go in > there and mess with things. I think a hman filter is needed, if only to > ensure something with which Tegger (and possibly others) doesn't agree > doesn't go up. It is his site, after all, as you know. He's done a lot of > work on it and I don't know if the wiki feature could have brought it as > far. That's why I noted that some Wikis do support access controls; I've checked out a few opensource PHP-based ones this afternoon and the most promising ("Wikka") at least allows administrator locking of individual pages, or the entire site. Really, my thinking wasn't to have everyone able to muck with it... it was more to ease Tegger's workload in updating the site, and making searching more efficient and effective: most will cross-index things automatically, so, for example, in the instructions for changing the CV shafts, you don't have to include the part on how to remove the discs and hubs and control arms, but instead set those steps up as their own sub-sections and have the system automatically hot-link to them. Granted, I don't know how he does it now, if he's using HTML templates in something like Dreamweaver or FirstPage, or doing it all in Notepad, or what... --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-2, 10/27/2005 Tested on: 10/29/2005 4:45:03 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > Granted, I don't know how he does it now, if he's using HTML templates > in something like Dreamweaver or FirstPage, You mean FrontPage? > or doing it all in > Notepad, or what... I'm using Mozilla's Composer, which really really sucks, but it's quick and free. The interface is from John Ings, the founder. I never liked it (especially how it looks in Internet Explorer), but in the interests of consistency until a complete overhaul, I've kept it. My CSS conversion is being done entirely by hand in Notepad, but I've done nothing with it since the summer. :( http://www.tegger.com/honda-css/ (Only the first three work. Sort of) I've actually got the CSS stuff up on screen right now, with grand intentions of reviving it, but... SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>Granted, I don't know how he does it now, if he's using HTML templates >>in something like Dreamweaver or FirstPage, > > You mean FrontPage? Nope. FirstPage2000, from www.evrsoft.com. It's a freeware HTML editor, basically a clone of another commercial package that I've forgotten the name of (Macromedia bought out the commercial one and bundled it with StudioMX). Fr*ntpage is a filthy word, as far as I'm concerned... > I've actually got the CSS stuff up on screen right now, with grand > intentions of reviving it, but... Hmmm... I know a lot of PHP CMS (content management system) backends use CSS... an appropriately-equipped Wiki probably would as well. I can toss a couple up on my webserver if you want to take a look at the idea. If not, no biggie, was just a thought :) --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-2, 10/27/2005 Tested on: 10/29/2005 11:45:15 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > Elle wrote: > > I dunno about this wiki proposal, though. It sounds like any yahoo can go in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > promising ("Wikka") at least allows administrator locking of individual > pages, or the entire site. That's the missing link. Now I understand. > Really, my thinking wasn't to have everyone able to muck with it... I understand and did not mean to accuse you of the same. I just figured I was missing something and would have to go read up on the minutiae how Wikipedia works. No way could the main Wikipedia entries be so "clean" without some kind of controls. > it > was more to ease Tegger's workload in updating the site, and making [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and hubs and control arms, but instead set those steps up as their own > sub-sections and have the system automatically hot-link to them. I follow. Not to push Tegger around or anything, though. I've been using his igniter section (partly to parse all that condenser ( = capacitor) stuff Jim Beam's posting and see the layering and treeing etc. is getting tricky. It's still very user friendly, but I can kinda see how the editor/owner of such a site has to do a lot of work to keep it up. (I wouldn't do any better.) > Granted, I don't know how he does it now, if he's using HTML templates > in something like Dreamweaver or FirstPage, or doing it all in Notepad, > or what... Notepad. I remember those days. (Though it's not like I'm cussing any less using Earthlink's web site builder. I still get to the source code through a convenient back door it provides and make any doggone changes I want.) > 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. The Pdf http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/igniter-operation/igniter-on-car-test.pdf located here http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/igniter-operation/off-car-testing.html contains and display errors. This is what I see. http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/2397/incartest5ry.gif I've seen an original PDF like this before but can't say I have since I can't make out exactly what make/model/year the error pdf is from. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/2397/incartest5ry.gif I think this may have to do with you browser's PDF plugin. The image works fine on the two computers amd 3 browsers I've just tried it on. > I've seen an original PDF like this before but can't say I have since > I can't make out exactly what make/model/year the error pdf is from. It's a scan of a page from the '91 Integra factory shop manual. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > I think this may have to do with you browser's PDF plugin. The image works > fine on the two computers amd 3 browsers I've just tried it on. I'd recompressed the file to 136KB (originally 336KB) and reconvert it to PDF 4 which should work on old or new PDF viewers. Certain old pdf viewers have speed.) If you like you can download the 91 Integra igniter input test PDF here http://zupload.com/file.php?filepath=29622 or here. Should work on most PDF viewers. http://zupload.com/download.php?file=getfile&filepath=29622 Notice that this is an "igniter input test." This test won't test the life of the igniter. Best to label the link as "igniter input test" but not "igniter test." >> I think this may have to do with you browser's PDF plugin. The image >> works fine on the two computers amd 3 browsers I've just tried it on. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > life of the igniter. Best to label the link as "igniter input test" > but not "igniter test." I /thought/ that was the "on car" test. Is there another on-test that will check for functionality similarly to the off-car test? Or should I just label the PDF as being a /limited/ on-car test that tests input only, and state that for proper testing the igniter must be removed from the car? SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>I think this may have to do with you browser's PDF plugin. The image >>>works fine on the two computers amd 3 browsers I've just tried it on. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > input only, and state that for proper testing the igniter must be removed > from the car? you can do the dwell meter test for the igniter on the car. for mine, i just figured taking it out allowed me to clean everything up and generally poke about. > you can do the dwell meter test for the igniter on the car. for mine, i > just figured taking it out allowed me to clean everything up and > generally poke about. ...and don't forget the quality grade conducting grease. :~) If you're referring to a dwell meter test like this link http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/startproblems.html#bad then it isn't accurate for testing the igniter. Quote: "Crank the engine: No dwell, bad igniter..." should be, "Crank the engine: No dwell, likely a bad igniter." > I /thought/ that was the "on car" test. Is there another on-test that will > check for functionality similarly to the off-car test? There are no official "on car test" PDF that I can find, not one from Toyota or Honda. > Or should I just label the PDF as being a /limited/ on-car test that tests > input only, Yes. > and state that for proper testing the igniter must be removed > from the car? Yes, however an on car is also possible, but is not the safest approach considering the various sensitive electronics nearby. > 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. Have you ever thought of setting the site up using a "Wiki" back-end? Might make ongoing maintenance easier, and add better support for searching and indexing and such. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-2, 10/27/2005 Tested on: 10/28/2005 7:50:05 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >> You find mistakes? TELL ME. I NEED submissions. I only have one car >> myself. Any other experiences I have come from working on others' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Might make ongoing maintenance easier, and add better support for > searching and indexing and such. what would a wiki backend do? >>> You find mistakes? TELL ME. I NEED submissions. I only have one car >>> myself. Any other experiences I have come from working on others' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > what would a wiki backend do? allow contributors to add content directly rather than have tegger do all the work. jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in news:8LKdnTQkd9C5WP_eRVn- sA@speakeasy.net: >>>> You find mistakes? TELL ME. I NEED submissions. I only have one car >>>> myself. Any other experiences I have come from working on others' [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > allow contributors to add content directly rather than have tegger do > all the work. Ohhhh. Never mind my last reply. I'll look into it. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>> You find mistakes? TELL ME. I NEED submissions. I only have one car >>> myself. Any other experiences I have come from working on others' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > what would a wiki backend do? http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki "Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly. "Wiki is unusual among group communication mechanisms in that it allows the organization of contributions to be edited in addition to the content itself. "Like many simple concepts, "open editing" has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Allowing everyday users to create and edit any page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of the Web and promotes content composition by nontechnical users." --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-2, 10/27/2005 Tested on: 10/28/2005 10:38:52 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > SoCalMike wrote: snip > > what would a wiki backend do? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of > the Web and promotes content composition by nontechnical users." Is this how Wikipedia works? I always thought there was some person in charge of final editing, like the first author. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free for all where anyone can post anything to the main article. I think the "free for alls" should be left for this newsgroup. Tegger can pick and choose what meets with his approval. Democratic use of the web happens by allowing people to create /their own/ web sites to respond to others, IMO, not by allowing people to monkey with another person's site, so to speak. Two cents. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Is this how Wikipedia works? yes. > I always thought there was some person in charge of final editing, like the > first author. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free for all where anyone > can post anything to the main article. anyone can post anything. try it yourself. you'd be surprised at how the good stuff is persistent and the crap gets quickly fixed. > I think the "free for alls" should be left for this newsgroup. Tegger can > pick and choose what meets with his approval. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Two cents. > > snip > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > anyone can post anything. try it yourself. you'd be surprised at how > the good stuff is persistent and the crap gets quickly fixed. I reckon I should mosey over there. The occasional crap doesn't get fixed here but instead goes on perpetuating. That is, there's no "final say" as there seems to be at Wikipedia. So I don't get how Wikipedia can be superior to Usenet, unless someone's doing some editing at Wiki. OTOH, I rarely go to Wikipedia for technical questions. I use it mostly for biographies or overviews of historical events (though questioning anything that looks fishy, which I do think is not hard to find). There are a few particular women who have landed a spot in history there and who are routinely roasted (in a mean way) on other sites at the net and certainly on newsgroups. One would think that kind of crap would easily get through on Wikipedia, if what you say is true. But on the contrary, the entries are clean, making reference to controversy but generally, without more facts, withholding judgment. >>>snip >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > there seems to be at Wikipedia. So I don't get how Wikipedia can be superior > to Usenet, unless someone's doing some editing at Wiki. anyone can edit a wiki, either well or badly. but the point is, and it's an amazing phenomenon given its unregulated nature, that wiki's usually turn out just fine. > OTOH, I rarely go to Wikipedia for technical questions. I use it mostly for > biographies or overviews of historical events (though questioning anything [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > entries are clean, making reference to controversy but generally, without > more facts, withholding judgment. that's exactly my point. the good stuff generally persists. check out the editing histories on some controversial subjects. >> I always thought there was some person in charge of final editing, >> like the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anyone can post anything. try it yourself. you'd be surprised at how > the good stuff is persistent and the crap gets quickly fixed. Most Wikis store a version history as well (some indefinitely), so if someone borks a page, it's easy to revert to the last "good" version. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-2, 10/27/2005 Tested on: 10/29/2005 3:10:28 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >> You find mistakes? TELL ME. I NEED submissions. I only have one car >> myself. Any other experiences I have come from working on others' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Might make ongoing maintenance easier, and add better support for > searching and indexing and such. Don't know what you mean by "'Wiki' back-end". Could you explain briefly? I'd dig it up myself, but I'm a bit tired just now. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Don't know what you mean by "'Wiki' back-end". Could you explain briefly? something about putting it up on wikipedia, somehow. or at least a copy of it, so people can add to it. i dont know how that works, but wiki can be a pretty interesting online encyclopedia, if you take it with a grain of salt. > I'd dig it up myself, but I'm a bit tired just now. downloading all that proprietary honda technical knowledge must have been a strain :) i really hope you dont get hassled for it. been reading through some of em, and its interesting stuff. i might do the "windshield trim fix" myself. >> Don't know what you mean by "'Wiki' back-end". Could you explain briefly? > > something about putting it up on wikipedia, somehow. or at least a copy > of it, so people can add to it. i dont know how that works, but wiki can > be a pretty interesting online encyclopedia, if you take it with a grain > of salt. I installed a wiki backend once to see what it was about... that particular one, it was possible to setup access rights so editing could be limited to permitted people... my main thinking was, the wiki concept is to allow those of any skill level, even the computer-illiterate, to edit content, meaning it's typically dead-easy. Plus, most wikis have extensive indexing and search capabilities. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-2, 10/27/2005 Tested on: 10/29/2005 9:48:21 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote T wrote > > I'd dig it up myself, but I'm a bit tired just now. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i really hope you dont get hassled for it. been reading through some of > em, and its interesting stuff. i might do the "windshield trim fix" myself. As in replacing a windshield? Please do. > "SoCalMike" <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote > T wrote [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Please do. nah- the TSB about the rubber gasket wrinkling. mines been like that since day1, and slightly annoying. means pulling the gasket out, trimming the inner lip off, then laying it down with silicone. >>>You find mistakes? TELL ME. I NEED submissions. I only have one car >>>myself. Any other experiences I have come from working on others' [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'd dig it up myself, but I'm a bit tired just now. See my other reply to SoCalMike. The "biggest" and most popular example of this is www.wikipedia.org, which has actually been giving Encylopedia Britannica's website a run for its money, and creating a good bit of media buzz in the process. Google "wikipedia vs. britannica" (without the quotes) - and about all those "Britannica buys out Wikipedia" articles, do note the date on them... :) --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-2, 10/27/2005 Tested on: 10/28/2005 10:46:31 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > 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. For the archives, since it hasn't been said enough: If one does break the pulley bolt free using a pulley holding tool, spend the money for two, 3/4-inch, roughly ten inch long extensions and a 3/4-inch drive breaker bar. This is as opposed to using 1/2 inch drives. (You'll destroy 3/8-inch drives, applying over 300 ft-lbs of torque, typically, to break that pulley bolt free.) Just wanted to get this into the archives, since it's only been mentioned once I think. Credit to Jim Beam for urging this. Using 3/4-inch diameter yada instead of 1/2-inch diameter yada reduces the angular windup (angular deflection of the extensions) from something like 45 degrees, theoretically, to about 9 degrees. I have confirmed the roughly 45 degrees of windup with my 91 Civic's crankshaft pulley bolt, assuming about 300 ft-lbs of torque. Forty-five degrees of windup in a piece of steel is a lot of stored energy, ready to whip back at the operator, if s/he isn't very careful. I lay out pillows for this job, and after being hit in the leg once accidentally when loosening/tightening the bolt, I take that windup seriously. Anyone knowing a good source for 3/4-inch drives, do post. I found I think a 3/4-inch breaker bar the other day at Pep Boys, but not extensions to go with it. I haven't gone intensively looking for these, though. "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > Burt, I am not convinced that the pulley bolt's threads are cut such that > the vibrations of the back and forth motion of the pulley tighten it. Clarification: I don't think the threads are cut so as to cause relative turning motion between shaft and bolt when vibration occurs. I do think the bolt threads do tend to adhere more to the shaft threads over time though. Fine threads are used in applications with high vibrations. This means that fine threaded bolts are less likely to vibrate free. Why are they less likely to vibrate free? Because fine threads have more surface area in contact. This should produce greater adhesion (ultimately, on the way to seizure) between bolt and crankshaft threads. Under extreme loads, male and female thread sides all becomes "pressed together," if you will, more readily. So the vibrations likely increase adhesion (but don't actually rotate the bolt), and so the torque needed to free the bolt rises. I would think this would take some time to happen. I continue with the theory that some bolt stretching is also taking place. I'd reject it if I had some good calculations concerning how much force the pulley exerts on the bolt when the whole assembly is turning under normal operating conditions, yada. One reason I buy this is because it doesn't seem to take much car operation for the bolt to tighten an extraordinary amount again. I don't know which is absolutely correct. It's just a theory, and I'll hear out criticism. ello there, this is loko nigeria enterprise the best car seller in nigeria will are interested inin buying car for your company so our mode of payment is (cashier check) so we will want you mail our sale department if you ar if you are interested in doing business with us get back us as soon as ou get this mail so we can arrange for the payment and will want you to ship out once you recieve the payment so mail us back asap ................................lok -- new_world |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.