Single use head bolts vs studs

[roverandom]

A stud requires installing into the block, then the head and gasket are installed over it and then nuts are torqued. A bolt is installed in a single operation. That is where they save costs and that is why there are so many bolts, instead of studs, in any machinery that is mass produced.

There is engineering, and there is production engineering. Often they do see eye to eye.

Yep, that last little pearl of wisdom must be worth at least 2c?

 

[robertf]

Every aluminum headed engine I've ran in to required either TTY bolts or had some really frequent service interval to retorque the head fasteners.

I'll take the $80 bolts over pulling the valve covers every 10,000 miles.

 

[kennith]

Yeah, DEX-cool=NOT-cool. It has nothing to do with the engine being old as an all aluminium engine was ahead of it's time. Most modern units are all aluminium.

2 years 30,00 miles is a standard service interval for a cooling system, regardless of who makes it. Sure, it can get overlooked by some owners as a vehicle ages, just like the brake fluid....when was the last time you flushed that? But lots have failed on guy's that have performed impeccable servicing. I'm not saying that the TTY bolts don't have there place. Just saying that a high quality stud is better.

The fact that the engine is old is important, especially when coupled with it's aluminum construction.

As for coolant service intervals... No, that's not always the case. When Dex-Cool was introduced, intervals were different, and they were wrong.

Brake fluid? I push new fluid through the system every year, and also after exposure to high amounts of water. Every fluid in my Rover is religiously maintained.

My shit doesn't break.

Well, one thing broke recently, and it involved fluid, but it was my fault and I knew it was going to happen. I torched the pitman arm off my steering box, and blew the seal. Then, I tried to CB fix it for a bit, and that made it worse. So, I ended up enjoying a big Rover without power steering for a few miles. That, of course, left me questioning the pump...:rofl:

Given the annoyance of it all, I called Lucky 8, and Justin had a nice new box and pump out to me. No worries. I like Justin. He puts up with my irritating questions.

That's nice, because now I've got a new box. The old one was the only rusty part on the entire vehicle. It was rusty when I bought the thing new in '01. I kind of looked at it as the single errant thread in a fine carpet.

I've gone so far off topic now, I may as well tell you I forgot to put the ketchup back in the refrigerator.

That's what I get for not eating at a table.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[roverandom]

"Every aluminum headed engine I've ran in to required either TTY bolts or had some really frequent service interval to retorque the head fasteners.

I'll take the $80 bolts over pulling the valve covers every 10,000 miles."



That's what Land Rover thought when they decided to use TTY bolts. The problem was, being Land Rover and having almost no development money available to them at time, they were forced to make the change a retro fit to the old engine design with only small differences to the head construction. Modern engine blocks are designed to utilize TTY technology on the drawing board and the technology has come a long way.

 

[roverandom]

The fact that the engine is old is important, especially when coupled with it's aluminum construction.

My shit doesn't break.

Yes, it's an old design kept alive long past it's sell by date by a cash strapped company. Not all of the of the retro fits were an improvement.

Everyone's shit breaks eventually. If it is mechanical, it will wear out and break.

 

[seventyfive]

Yes, it's an old design kept alive long past it's sell by date by a cash strapped company. Not all of the of the retro fits were an improvement.

Everyone's shit breaks eventually. If it is mechanical, it will wear out and break.

Ese,
You realize your arguing with cats that probably believe chunky d-rings are the latest shit right? Ignore these guys.

 

[kennith]

Yes, it's an old design kept alive long past it's sell by date by a cash strapped company. Not all of the of the retro fits were an improvement.

Everyone's shit breaks eventually. If it is mechanical, it will wear out and break.

Of course it will, but I don't have problems with undue or premature failures. You'd be surprised just how long these engines will last, minus sensors and things of that nature.

I've driven a Rover with half a million miles on the engine in very difficult conditions, and observed twin-turbo rally vehicles using engines with very few of the appropriate modifications and over 200,000 miles on the clock.

I've also seen what happens to an "unreliable" engine when it finally gets proper treatment.

The RV8 is pretty damned tough when kept up properly, and I've maintained that opinion for a long time, bolstered by personal observation.

Now, I don't know all that much about 4.6 quirks, but I've used everything else quite a bit in various environments. Newer Rovers end up in the strangest places, and old ones manage to live there.

As for additions over the years, I agree, and that's my point. The engine just hasn't changed enough for many of the modern bits that have been slapped on over time. Once they started pouring that Dex-Cool crap in it, the shit hit the fan.

Underneath it all, though, it's still quite good, past it's sell-by date or not.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

Ese,
You realize your arguing with cats that probably believe chunky d-rings are the latest shit right? Ignore these guys.

I posted the Ketchup picture just for you.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[seventyfive]

I posted the Ketchup picture just for you.

Cheers,

Kennith

Kennith,
Anyone cultured enough, as you, knows its spelled Catsup.

 

[kennith]

Kennith,
Anyone cultured enough, as you, knows its spelled Catsup.

Damn it all, that's what it says on the bottle! I actually thought about how to spell it, tried it both ways, and then just followed instructions. :rofl:

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[seventyfive]

The Heinz family wouldn't know the difference between a pickle and a cucumber.

 

[aliastel]

Of course it will, but I don't have problems with undue or premature failures. You'd be surprised just how long these engines will last, minus sensors and things of that nature.

I've driven a Rover with half a million miles on the engine in very difficult conditions, and observed twin-turbo rally vehicles using engines with very few of the appropriate modifications and over 200,000 miles on the clock.

I've also seen what happens to an "unreliable" engine when it finally gets proper treatment.

The RV8 is pretty damned tough when kept up properly, and I've maintained that opinion for a long time, bolstered by personal observation.

Now, I don't know all that much about 4.6 quirks, but I've used everything else quite a bit in various environments. Newer Rovers end up in the strangest places, and old ones manage to live there.

As for additions over the years, I agree, and that's my point. The engine just hasn't changed enough for many of the modern bits that have been slapped on over time. Once they started pouring that Dex-Cool crap in it, the shit hit the fan.

Underneath it all, though, it's still quite good, past it's sell-by date or not.

Cheers,

Kennith

Agree with all. Overall, I like the RV8. It has some nice traits, such as good broad torque band for its displacement and a very light weight/compact size. Extremely versatile engine, like the Chevy small-block V8, which it is the equivalent of in the UK. Treated well, this engine will keep going a long time. 3.9 and earlier seem to be the most reliable to me, despite the block redesign in 1996.

David

 

[seventyfive]

Having a burger with Kennith
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GpL7I8xQA6A

 

[antichrist]

A stud requires installing into the block, then the head and gasket are installed over it and then nuts are torqued. A bolt is installed in a single operation

Huh? You have to place the gasket on the block, place the head on the gasket (making sure the gasket hasn't shifted) then install the bolts in 3 steps.

I really don't care what people use. I just made the OP because I thought some people might be interested in the opinions of people who make their livings dealing with the science of fasteners and who aren't trying to sell you something.

 

[antichrist]

Ese,
You realize your arguing with cats that probably believe chunky d-rings are the latest shit right? Ignore these guys.

A pretty red one for the troll

 

[p m]

Mike is back with a vengeance!
Keep them old commercials coming!

 

[roverandom]

Your preaching to the choir about the virtues of the Rover V8. I think they are great engines overall. I don't want to come come across as a "been there, done that" kind of guy, but this ain't my first Rodeo. I've been around Land Rovers for well over twenty years.

I think by the time the DII and P38 came out the Rover engineers were getting desperate to come up with some new tricks for the old dog. Most of the competition had a cheaper product with more powerful V6 engines out by this time and LR's ace in the hole, the TD5, was not allowed to be used in NA because of the US party poopers. Add to that the ever more stringent emissions limits (USA again....) and lack of development money to design a new petrol engine and you end up with stop gap engineering.

It is difficult to explain the factory engine assembly procedure without writing a 100,000 word easy. I got to see a GM plant a while back and apparently the process is similar for all OEM's. The heads are lowered into place, gasket already on and aligned. A pneumatic machine loaded with the bolts drives in all the fasteners and torques them simultaneously in a single operation. If the Company bean counters can save 1c on every operation it takes to manufacture and engine, they stand to reduce build costs significantly over it life cycle.

 

[roverandom]

"I really don't care what people use. I just made the OP because I thought some people might be interested in the opinions of people who make their livings dealing with the science of fasteners and who aren't trying to sell you something."

"PS I've done training for Jaguar/Landrover engineers on the analysis of
bolted joints which includes tightening methods"

Tom, seeing as the guy you contacted was involved with training Land Rover engineers, it could be said that he vested interest?

 

[antichrist]

Tom, seeing as the guy you contacted was involved with training Land Rover engineers, it could be said that he vested interest?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that they deal with all kinds of "bolted" joints. Their business is fastener and joint analysis, they don't sell head bolts or studs. They sell joint and fastener analysis software, consulting and training services.
I seriously doubt they are going to fudge the data to convince a client to use a particular fastener if a different type will provide a better joint.
It would be like saying Redhat has a vested interest in whether you use an HP or Lenovo computer.