A"MUST Read For Anyone About to Repair a Head Gaskets or a Valve Train Noise. - Page 3 - Land Rover Forums : Land Rover and Range Rover Forum
 6Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 40 (permalink) Old 07-31-2017, 02:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,578
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
Another move I would definitely recommend against. As marginal as the Rover V-8's head/block interface and fastening system is, cheap gaskets is pretty much Russian Roulette. The third leg in this trifecta is having the heads machined by someone that doesn't know what Ra is.
CT090 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 40 (permalink) Old 07-31-2017, 03:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfingRat View Post
Well, for anyone doing this job. If you get the head gasket kit from Lucky 8, you get new TTY bolts with the kit and the whole thing is like $80. Unfortunately for me, having them in possession was too much temptation to put them on, instead of paying $200 for the ARP (especially when I wasn't even sure the head gasket was my main problem, was worried block was bad but turns out that's not the case).

ARP studs are definitely going on the next one, and current cheap angle gauge is going for a swim.
When most quality head sets are as much as $160 or more & TTY bolts are about $80, you can't be serious about quality. But it's your truck and the experience is valuable for doing it again. There's no reason to explain if advice based upon experience is not valuable to you.

Doug
Doug Myers is offline  
post #33 of 40 (permalink) Old 08-10-2017, 04:25 AM
Senior Member
 
p76rangie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 5,656
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
You have to be careful with using ARP studs.

They have a lot more clamping force that the old Rover head bolts for the same torque.

If you tighten to the specs recommended by ARP you WILL distort your heads and severely crush the gaskets.

From experience, I would not recommend tightening them past 70ft/lb
p76rangie is offline  
 
post #34 of 40 (permalink) Old 08-10-2017, 04:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,578
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
http://arpinstructions.com/instructions/157-4301.pdf

TORQUE PROCEDURE
9. Following the manufacturers recommended torque sequence, shown below, torque the nuts per steps 1-4

1- Tighten nuts 1 through 10 to 25 ft-lbs
2- Tighten nuts 1 through 10 to 50 ft-lbs
3- Tighten nuts 1 through 10 to 70 ft-lbs
CT090 is offline  
post #35 of 40 (permalink) Old 08-10-2017, 04:50 AM
Senior Member
 
p76rangie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 5,656
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT090 View Post
http://arpinstructions.com/instructions/157-4301.pdf

TORQUE PROCEDURE
9. Following the manufacturers recommended torque sequence, shown below, torque the nuts per steps 1-4

1- Tighten nuts 1 through 10 to 25 ft-lbs
2- Tighten nuts 1 through 10 to 50 ft-lbs
3- Tighten nuts 1 through 10 to 70 ft-lbs
Obviously they finally changed them in Dec 2016. They use to have it set up around 100ft/lb which was way too high

I was not the only one that had issues with the torque specified by ARP https://forums.lr4x4.com/topic/95290...ad-stud-issue/
p76rangie is offline  
post #36 of 40 (permalink) Old 08-10-2017, 05:22 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,578
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
That's the trouble with getting information on Internet forums. Alot of folks are posting information that's either incorrect or out-of date.
CT090 is offline  
post #37 of 40 (permalink) Old 08-10-2017, 06:06 AM
Senior Member
 
p76rangie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 5,656
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT090 View Post
That's the trouble with getting information on Internet forums. Alot of folks are posting information that's either incorrect or out-of date.
It was not out-of-date until 7 months ago and ARP have been selling the studs for decades. So if someone buys a kit that was manufactured more than 7 months ago, it will have the old torque figures in the kit.

ARP originally made studs that did not go far enough into the block and they were ripping out. Due to consumer complaints, they increased the length of them, but increased the torque to 100ft/lb. So after decades of consumer complaints it appears that they finally came to their senses in December last year.

The studs are good, the tech advice from the manufacturer, not so good.
p76rangie is offline  
post #38 of 40 (permalink) Old 08-10-2017, 06:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,578
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by p76rangie View Post
\

ARP originally made studs that did not go far enough into the block and they were ripping out. Due to consumer complaints, they increased the length of them, but increased the torque to 100ft/lb. So after decades of consumer complaints it appears that they finally came to their senses in December last year.

\
To anyone considering studs, please be aware that this is incorrect information. The third or fourth party information this poster is repeating is in reference to the Buick studs that many people attempted to use on the Rover engine. As many know, the Rover engine was purchased from Buick many years ago. It shares many attributes with the Buick but there are many differences. ARP made studs for both engines and cataloged them under different numbers. However, the Buick stud was shorter. The Buick studs were somewhat less expensive and some tried to use them in the Rover engine. These people experienced failures due to the lack of proper thread engagement depth. At no time has ARP changed the length of the studs in the Rover kit.

Additionally, many of the failures related to the Rover studs were caused by incorrect installation. The original head bolt was cut for a standard head bolt using a taper tap. When studs, which are longer, were screwed to the bottom of this bore, it caused binding in the form of the stud forcing the bore to expand due to the tapering nature of the last few threads. Several of the bolt holes are very close to the edge of the block which adds to the susceptibility for cracking. The correct procedure is to fully cut the bottom threads with a proper bottoming tap. This allows full engagement without binding.

The spec sheet on any individual part cannot turn a neophyte into an experienced, competent engine builder.
CT090 is offline  
post #39 of 40 (permalink) Old 08-10-2017, 06:39 AM
Senior Member
 
p76rangie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 5,656
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 384 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT090 View Post
To anyone considering studs, please be aware that this is incorrect information. The third or fourth party information this poster is repeating is in reference to the Buick studs that many people attempted to use on the Rover engine. As many know, the Rover engine was purchased from Buick many years ago. It shares many attributes with the Buick but there are many differences. ARP made studs for both engines and cataloged them under different numbers. However, the Buick stud was shorter. The Buick studs were somewhat less expensive and some tried to use them in the Rover engine. These people experienced failures due to the lack of proper thread engagement depth. At no time has ARP changed the length of the studs in the Rover kit.

Additionally, many of the failures related to the Rover studs were caused by incorrect installation. The original head bolt was cut for a standard head bolt using a taper tap. When studs, which are longer, were screwed to the bottom of this bore, it caused binding in the form of the stud forcing the bore to expand due to the tapering nature of the last few threads. Several of the bolt holes are very close to the edge of the block which adds to the susceptibility for cracking. The correct procedure is to fully cut the bottom threads with a proper bottoming tap. This allows full engagement without binding.

The spec sheet on any individual part cannot turn a neophyte into an experienced, competent engine builder.
You are so full of it.

Originally ARP only made studs for the Buick motor, which they listed as being suitable for the Rover V8 as well. They did not make ones specifically for the Rover V8. The buick ones were the shorter ones I was talking about. After they were continually ripped out of the rover blocks, they then increased the length and referenced them as studs for the Rover V8. The longer studs were no longer suitable for a buick block.

Most people are not like you and use things because they are cheaper. The Buick studs were actually more expensive than the later introduced ones. The Buick Kit had 26 studs compared to 20 in the later rover kit so they were around 30% more expensive.

Up to December 2016, ARP had the torque for the Rover studs listed at 100ft/lb. The old Buick studs were set at around 75 ft/lb.

Rover did not use taper head bolts. I have many of them here.

Do you actually ever do any research or do you just post whatever comes into your head. I do not know how you come up with this stuff
p76rangie is offline  
post #40 of 40 (permalink) Old 08-10-2017, 07:09 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,578
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 531 Post(s)
For those who have no experience with machining and hole threading, this is a good reference that describes the difference between a taper, plug and bottoming tap. Threads, Taps, and Tapping - 6: Taper, Plug, Bottoming, and Pipe Taps

It also describes the difference between a taper tap and a tapered pipe thread tap. A common confusing point for the uninitiated.
CT090 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Land Rover Forums : Land Rover and Range Rover Forum > Land Rover Model Forums > Discovery Series II

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Land Rover Forums : Land Rover and Range Rover Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ticking in valve train back after a year of silence! heatherlynn Discovery Series II 29 03-22-2010 06:45 PM
Replacing Head Gasket and rebuilding valve train williambrea Range Rover Classic 6 10-08-2009 06:24 PM
Head Gaskets & Valve Grinding Drahthaar Discovery Series II 10 09-29-2009 02:05 PM
Valve Train Issues!! DiscoveryHV Discovery Series I 19 07-13-2009 02:10 PM
Valve Train Work RageRover Range Rover Classic 1 04-04-2007 08:35 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome