Land Rover Forums : Land Rover and Range Rover Forum - Reply to Topic
Thread: A"MUST Read For Anyone About to Repair a Head Gaskets or a Valve Train Noise. Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
08-10-2017 07:09 AM
CT090 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.
08-10-2017 06:39 AM
p76rangie
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
08-10-2017 06:25 AM
CT090
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.
08-10-2017 06:06 AM
p76rangie
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.
08-10-2017 05:22 AM
CT090 That's the trouble with getting information on Internet forums. Alot of folks are posting information that's either incorrect or out-of date.
08-10-2017 04:50 AM
p76rangie
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/
08-10-2017 04:41 AM
CT090 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
08-10-2017 04:25 AM
p76rangie 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
07-31-2017 03:05 PM
Doug Myers
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
07-31-2017 02:34 PM
CT090 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.
07-31-2017 11:48 AM
SurfingRat 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.
07-31-2017 07:00 AM
CT090 TTY is a production technology. It works lust fine in the closed, close-tolerance environment of an engine production facility. It doesn't lend itself to the repair industry, where so many variables exist, including technician errors, unwillingness to follow directions or lack of skill. TTY is a complex piece of metallurgical technology that the average wrench-thrower likely isn't even aware of or has taken the time to understand, hence the lack of concern for following the procedures precisely.

The ARP solution is pretty much bulletproof. And I simply don't comprehend the resistance. They're under $200 and replace an item with a known propensity for failure. I guess if your time has no value to you and you have a thing for re-doing jobs you've just recently done then they are a waste of money, but I can't say I know anyone with the skill to do head gaskets on a Rover V-8 that would do it for $200.

On the topic of TTY, I find it comical that since the manual doesn't specify, many believe there is no need to replace TTY rod bolts in these engines. Again, it reflects a total lack of understanding on how these fasteners function.
07-31-2017 06:33 AM
Doug Myers I have a digital "beeping/vibrating" Matco torque wrench, used mostly for BMW & Mercedes work in the past, ARP has the solution to Rover TTY inaccuracies, ARP is what I used on both my D1, D2 and will use on the current D2 I just purchased. IMO, take the boutique store angle gauge and see how many "skips" you can get on flat water, they are not accurate based on loose calibration, tight operating spaces on the truck and poor build quality.

Doug
07-31-2017 05:49 AM
CT090 Hope so.

I have found yet another D2 with a somewhat-recent head gasket job done to it and that back bolt on the left side snapped off. The only theory I can come up with is the failure to use an angle gauge on that one due to clearance. Why else would there be regular breakages on that bolt onlynot long after head gasket replacement? If it was a design issue, the right front is exactly the same.
07-30-2017 04:25 PM
SurfingRat Ahhhh, yeah thanks for calling me out CT. My angle gauge was crap and not working right (operator error I'm sure), so I just used a framing square to make a mark. 2k miles and no problems so far - fingers crossed.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

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