351C main bearing and conrod bolts

7173Mustangs.com

Help Support 7173Mustangs.com:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Odmark

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
Location
Sweden
My Car
1972 Mercury Cougar
Hello, as most of you know im in the middle of my rebuild. Im already a little over my budget and now i read everywhere that it is a good idea to replace connecting rod bolts and nuts to ARP, and maybe also main bearing caps.

Will this be nessecary with my setup?

351c 2V block 0.30 oversize

Machined crank

Stock conrods

Sealed power flat top pistons

Elgin street cam, .512/.538 @0.50

2V heads

Edelbrock intake

Edelbrock 600 carb

Thunder HEI dist

8mm accel cables

Stock manifolds (headers later on)

Dual 2 1/2" exhaust.

Will this be a nessecary upgrade? The bolts are quite expensive in sweden.

And also, nothing to do with this subject but maybe someone can answer anyway.

When i torque the rocker arms, i need that cylinder in TDC right?

Appreciate the help.


Also, further Reading on this subject i learned that only changing the con rod nuts to ARP is good enough. What thread size etc are they?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Further reading on this subject taught me that only replacing the con rod nuts is good enough.

I called my local parts dealer and they did not have the ARP nuts separetly, but they had Pioneer nuts as a pack of 16, and he said its not as strong as ARP but close, and more than enough for my setup.

Second opinions on that? :p

 
The Pioneer nuts are fine but, I'd replace the bolts as well. If the bolt has been stretched beyond it's limit it won't torque properly during assembly (may break) and you will be disappointed by another delay. The Pioneer bolts and nuts will work fine and should be considerably cheaper than ARP.

Chuck

 
Rod bolts and nuts - YES Pioneer are fine

Main Caps - Nope.

Technically if you replace the rod bolts you should have the big end of the rod resized. Many if not most do not and do not have any problems. It is not expensive if you choose to have it done.

- Paul of MO


Edit:

Might be more expensive in Sweden.

If you have standard non adjustable rocker arms you can simply tighten them down with a HAND TOOL. Do not use an air powered or electric tool to do this. Go slow and steady to give everything a chance to move and settle in.

- Paul of MO

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If your engine was stock and you don't rev it past around 5200 rpm, the stock bolts won't be stretched and can be reused and can actually take a lot of rpm, however, if your revving it much more than that I would replace them just for peace of mind . Yes, it seems that the nuts sometimes fail before the rod bolts, so just replacing the nuts is typically good enough unless you rev it pretty high or unless they somehow got stretched as c9zx mentioned.

If you are referring to main bearing cap bolts, I have reused the stock ones many times . They seem quite durable.

You do not need the piston on tdc fire/compression stroke to tighten the rockers.

 
I have no idea how the engine has been driven before, so maybe im better off replacing the bolts as well and not just the nuts... :-/

Is there some way of measuring if the bolts are stretched?

What does "resizing of the big end" of the rod mean? Never heard of that before :huh:

And big thank you for all the answers!

 
You do not need the piston on tdc fire/compression stroke to tighten the rockers.
Mike, can you explain your reasoning for this?

My understanding is the 'best practice for setting the rockers' is to rotate the engine around for the pistons to be at TDC of the 'fire/compression' stroke position to ensure consistency when torqueing the rocker fasteners. If the rockers are under pressure from the pushrods pivoting them into a position where they are pushing against the valve springs, it can/will take more torque to 'set' the rockers properly... and knowing exactly the torque rating while the valve springs are engaged is fairly impossible to gauge with any kind of consistency. That's why it's recommended to tighten the rockers in their 'at rest' positions with the valve springs unloaded (which occurs at TDC of the fire/compression stroke).

I used a Chilton's Shop Manual from 1971 to torque and adjust my engine when I built it, but this page highlights exactly what I said, and why. http://www.centuryperformance.com/valve-adjustment-procedure.html

 
You do not need the piston on tdc fire/compression stroke to tighten the rockers.
Mike, can you explain your reasoning for this?
Well I certainly can try, and that's a great question and it's a bit complicated for me to explain and some others could explain it better.

First of all, you can never go wrong following the instructions in the manual, and imo, it is a must have item for people that don't build engines on a regular basis, however, there are some things that can be done slightly differently than the manual suggests which will cause no harm, such as tightening the rocker nuts irregardless of the position of the lifters on the cam . I have done it that way on stock and mild builds that have moderate lift cams and/or moderate spring pressures for over 40 years and never had a problem and never had a rocker nut come loose . An engine shop I worked also did it this way and all my engine builder friends also do it this way also and have never had a problem, so based on that combined experience, we have found that it wont cause a problem, and we all do it that way to just to save time.

If the engine has a high lift cam like around .550 or more and fairly high spring pressures, I and others I know will do it with the lifters on the heel of the cam, which in most cases is at TDC fire/compression stroke.

At least one of the reasons the bolts won't come loose is because the force applied to the bolt by the spring is pressure which puts tension on the bolt and this type of tension is different than torque and this is where it becomes complicated for me to explain, however, it is explained in engineering manuals.

Two examples I can make which aren't great ones are the following. When a typical valve spring on a moderate performance engine is compressed to the point at which the valve is fully open, which might be around .550", it will be applying around 300 lbs of force/pressure on the valve side of the rocker tip . Since the rocker stud is located closer to the center of the rocker it will have a different amount of force applied due to the leverage ratio of the rocker, however for this example I will use 300 lbs of force on the rocker nut or bolt.

As you screw the rocker bolt or nut down with the lifter on the highest part of the lobe, the force of the spring on the valve side of the rocker will reach 300 lbs, however, you can easily screw the bolt or nut down to that point with just one hand and maybe a 6" long wrench because torque and tension/resistance etc are two different forces and are measured in different ways.

If you think of the system that uses a swedged nut to keep the nut from loosening on the rocker stud, the swedge only applies a light "pinching" force which is easily overcome when the nut is screwed down, and this nut does not use torque to tighten it and it has an enormous amount of force applied to it by the spring yet it doesn't loosen.

VALVE ADJUSTMENT

Below is from the link you posted and the first description has been a common and effective method for adjusting valves on most mild to moderate cams since I started building engines . The problem with using this method is that on cams with a lot of duration, you can get very close to, or even on the ramp of the cam lobe which will cause the adjustment to be somewhat less than it should be.

It is actually possible to calculate the point of crank rotation that the lifter will be on the heel of the cam, and if one does this, they can determine if using the TDC method will work for them or not . The amount the cam is advanced also needs to be factored in when doing this and most cam companies use 4 degrees as the built in advance, meaning the cam will be advanced 4 degrees when the cam timing gear marks are aligned at zero and this information "should" be on the cam card.

" In the past we were often instructed by the auto shop teacher or service manual to position each cylinder at TDC (piston at Top Dead Center), and then adjust both valves for that cylinder. However, we often find that this is not the correct procedure to obtain the proper lash setting, especially on modern engines or agressive camshaft profiles. The image at right shows the required position of the cam lobe relationship to the lifter that ensures correct valve lash adjustment."

.


.

Odmark, I forgot to mention, if your rocker arm fulcrums are aluminum, I would consider installing the steel type used on the 4V heads because the aluminum ones have been known to occasionally fail with higher than stock spring pressures, unfortunately I don't know at what spring pressure they are likely to fail and yours may be perfectly fine with the springs you are using . It's just one of those things where if you replace them, they definitely won't fail but they might be very hard to find in your area although it is possible that Pioneer or another OEM parts supplier might be able to get them for you if you want to use them . At the very least I would closely check your fulcrums and rockers for wear, and high quality oil with around 1150 to 1600 ppm of ZDDP or ZDDB is a safeguard against premature wear.

......................
64-45143.jpg


.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all, you can never go wrong following the instructions in the manual, and imo, it is a must have item for people that don't build engines on a regular basis, however, there are some things that can be done slightly differently than the manual suggests which will cause no harm, such as tightening the rocker nuts irregardless of the position of the lifters on the cam . I have done it that way on stock and mild builds that have moderate lift cams and/or moderate spring pressures for over 40 years and never had a problem and never had a rocker nut come loose . An engine shop I worked also did it this way and all my engine builder friends also do it this way also and have never had a problem, so based on that combined experience, we have found that it won't cause a problem, and we all do it that way to just to save time.
Thanks! ::thumb::

OK - so I think we can agree that it would probably be best to continue recommending to rotate the engine's pistons to TDC of fire/compression strokes (lifters on the heel side of each cam lobe) when tightening the rockers until a guy develops the experience and comfort-level of such a task based on years of experience and successful engine builds. ;) :cool:

I for one, have found that it usually winds up costing me more time when I try to take short-cuts to save time (having to go back and re-do something I tried to cut corners and did wrong). I've only [re]built maybe a half-dozen engines in my time, so I still read the instructions a couple of times before and after each task (to insure I know what I'm about to do, and again to verify that I did it right).

 
I have no idea how the engine has been driven before, so maybe im better off replacing the bolts as well and not just the nuts... :-/

Is there some way of measuring if the bolts are stretched?

What does "resizing of the big end" of the rod mean? Never heard of that before :huh:

And big thank you for all the answers!
CONNECTING ROD BOLT STRETCH

If the engine had a stock or near stock cam, it is highly unlikely your bolts are stretched because it wouldn't rev far enough to generate the amount of force it takes to stretch them, however, if it was rebuilt before and the builder over torqued them, this would be a problem . If it was rebuilt several times, the bolts threads can become compromised.

A simplified way of determining to a reasonable degree if a bolt has been stretched is to use a thread pitch gauge to check the threads . If the gauge fits the threads perfectly, the threaded portion has not been stretched beyond the 'point of yield" . This phrase refers to the point at which a bolt does not return back to its original shape after being stretched and if the threads don't show any sign of stretching, it is most likely the rest of the bolt is fine.

You can also measure the shank/unthreaded portion of the bolt . If it is thinner in the middle than on the ends, it is likely stretched and I wouldn't use it.

There is a thing called work hardening which can cause a part to become more brittle which will reduce it's strength . One extreme example of this can be seen if you take a thin piece of aluminum and bend it back and forth several times because it will cause it to eventually break as it gets slightly weaker every time you bend it, however, when you do this you are forcing it beyond its point of yield and design parameters so it is expected to prematurely fail . This is far less of a problem with engine parts etc as evidenced by how many miles some engine parts can go and how many times some can be reused and still not fail.

CONNECTING ROD RESIZING

Resizing the big end actually means exactly what it says, which is they take the bigger end of the rod which is the end that goes onto the crank and they "resize" the hole in making it the same as the original spec if it has been distorted for some reason which can happen when new rod bolts are installed or the bolts are over torqued or the engine has a lot of power etc, however, many people install them and the hole does not get distorted and the cap still lines up properly with the rod, but the hole needs to be checked for "roundness" afterwards if one dos this.

To resize a rod, the rod cap is removed and the mating surfaces of the cap and rod are machined down slightly by a few thousandths of an inch . This makes the hole slightly smaller than factory when the rod cap is reinstalled . The cap is then reinstalled with the desired bolts in the rods and the "big end" is placed on a machine that enlarges the hole to the correct size by "sanding"/ grinding it with a hone.

.............................................. THREAD PITCH GAUGE

................................
images


....................................... CONNECTING ROD RESIZING VIDEO



Yes, following the book is the simplest method since there won't be any questions, however, in this instance, since he asked the question, it sounded to me like he knew enough about how to assemble the parts that installing them the way he asked about wasn't going to be a problem for him, plus the assembly method doing it that way is the same as it is doing it with the pistons at TDC fire/compression stroke so I just answered the question he asked . If there was any additional technique required to do it that way, I would have mentioned it to him so he wouldn't have run into any snags.

To elaborate a little on my reply to your question regarding the possible difference in torque by torquing the bolts with the lifters on the highest part of the cam lobe as opposed to torquing them with the piston at TDC fire/compression stroke, the torque on the bolts will measure nearly or exactly the same regardless of the lifter/valve spring position, and this is even something people can test for themselves . In other words, if you torque the bolts to 18 ft lbs for example, and the valve springs are applying full pressure to the rocker because the lifter is on the high part of the cam lobe, and then you check the torque with the valves closed and the least amount of spring pressure, the torque will in fact be nearly, or exactly identical . Basically, in this instance, the spring pressure has very little affect on the amount of torque applied to the bolt, which on the face of it certainly does seem odd but it's one of those complicated physics things.

cheers.gif


.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, following the book is the simplest method since there won't be any questions, however, in this instance, since he asked the question, it sounded to me like he knew enough about how to assemble the parts that installing them the way he asked about wasn't going to be a problem for him, plus the assembly method doing it that way is the same as it is doing it with the pistons at TDC fire/compression stroke so I just answered the question he asked . If there was any additional technique required to do it that way, I would have mentioned it to him so he wouldn't have run into any snags.
:bravo:

To elaborate a little on my reply to your question regarding the possible difference in torque by torquing the bolts with the lifters on the highest part of the cam lobe as opposed to torquing them with the piston at TDC fire/compression stroke, the torque on the bolts will measure nearly or exactly the same regardless of the lifter/valve spring position, and this is even something people can test for themselves . In other words, if you torque the bolts to 18 ft lbs for example, and the valve springs are applying full pressure to the rocker because the lifter is on the high part of the cam lobe, and then you check the torque with the valves closed and the least amount of spring pressure, the torque will in fact be nearly, or exactly identical . Basically, in this instance, the spring pressure has very little affect on the amount of torque applied to the bolt, which on the face of it certainly does seem odd but it's one of those complicated physics things.

cheers.gif


.
Huh... interesting. Seems reasonable. I'd never even considered that possibility. I just figured since the rocker would be under the influence of the valve springs if it wasn't at rest at TDC, things wouldn't come out consistently from rocker to rocker. That, and I've always had the luxury of taking my time, so 'doing it right' [to me] meant following the instructions to ensure the desired outcome.

There's that 'experience' thing I was talking about, right there. Thanks for the explanation. ::thumb::

 
Huh... interesting. Seems reasonable. I'd never even considered that possibility. I just figured since the rocker would be under the influence of the valve springs if it wasn't at rest at TDC, things wouldn't come out consistently from rocker to rocker. That, and I've always had the luxury of taking my time, so 'doing it right' [to me] meant following the instructions to ensure the desired outcome.

There's that 'experience' thing I was talking about, right there. Thanks for the explanation. ::thumb::
No prob, and in fact, I have not only tested this odd phenomenon countless times, part of my job at one place I worked was determining the best fasteners and torque settings to use on the vehicles they were building, so I saw a lot there also, and everything about that job was a blast.

Aside from a few tricks that many people learn over the years from working on the same things which can simplify some things, I stick to the manual when suggesting things.

Some things like the stock ignition timing curves are not optimum for most builds, but that is only because the mfg's had to meet emissions requirements, so in those cases, using curves other than those recommended by the manual will improve performance but there is no manual that explains how people can achieve the optimum curve for their particular engine . In this case, I have a technique that many others have used for eons which I have written in a way that is easy for most people to follow even if they have limited mechanical experience.

Front end alignment is another area that one can improve performance by varying from the stock specs and also doing something like the shelby/arning drop to the front suspension.

Oil system mods are another thing that are not in the manual but doing them on many different engines has proven to not harm anything and can only increases the life of an engine.

.

 
Oil system mods are another thing that are not in the manual but doing them on many different engines has proven to not harm anything and can only increases the life of an engine.

.
I'm familiar with that - the AMC 304/360/401s also benefit from a similar oiling system bypass mod as the Clevelands [through the intake valley] ensuring greater flow to the rear bearings. With the AMC engines in Jeep applications, there's a greater risk of oil starvation because of the opportunity for off-road driving (putting the vehicle into off-camber and extreme angles). The oil bypass mod basically ensures a more consistent oil supply to the rear of the block if the normal function of the oiling system (vehicle on straight and level ground) is interrupted.

I would think that such modifications would only really be necessary for high performance applications - race cars, primarily. Limited or even semi-frequently driven cars (weekend cruisers or even low-mileage daily drivers) wouldn't need such measures for 'normal' conditions. I didn't do mine, for instance, because I wasn't interested in punching any more holes in the block, and I'm not planning on racing it... or taking it off road for some rock crawling. ;) rofl

I just didn't think the benefit outweighed the effort in that case - that, and I was already buttoning up the intake manifold when I had really started considering the possibility. Good stuff.

 
With the lifter on the cam lobe you would be able to measure the torque required to turn the nut while compressing the spring, but it would be very low, it's not that difficult to turn, and would just be a few inch-pounds. This because of the mechanical advantage created by the angle of the threads. However, as soon as the fulcrum contacts the pedestal the spring load is negligible compared to the torque required (foot-pounds) to properly tighten the nut (stretch the stud) and likely not measurable with your typical foot-pound torque wrench.

 
Yet if you take the nut away altogether, the rocker arm jumps off the perch because of the very same forces exerted by the valve springs. With the nut, it's a fulcrum... without the nut it's just along for the ride with the rest of the assembly. :chin:

Just one of those weird action/reaction physics thing. :D :whistling:

 
I agree, it just goes to show you how much force and stress can be contained by a single nut and bolt, and how much force can be applied by the threads. If you look at the angle of the threads as the slope of a road and how much easier it gets to push a car (by hand) as the slope decreases you can get an idea of the effects of the mechanical advantage exhibited by turning a nut on a bolt with fine threads and low pitch. The spring is trying to push in a straight line while the threads are on a very slight slope, like the difference in effort between trying to lift a car up into your garage rather than pushing it in up a driveway with a slight slope.

 
I agree, it just goes to show you how much force and stress can be contained by a single nut and bolt, and how much force can be applied by the threads. If you look at the angle of the threads as the slope of a road and how much easier it gets to push a car (by hand) as the slope decreases you can get an idea of the effects of the mechanical advantage exhibited by turning a nut on a bolt with fine threads and low pitch. The spring is trying to push in a straight line while the threads are on a very slight slope, like the difference in effort between trying to lift a car up into your garage rather than pushing it in up a driveway with a slight slope.
Adding to your point with some useless info that I find interesting:

Take a 1/4-20 bolt, for example...for the sake of discussion, let's say it's made from untempered A36 steel (36ksi minimum yield strength). The minor diameter is .201", so to reach 36ksi of stress, you have to load the bolt with 1130lbf! This would be a really low strength fastener and very highly loaded relative to it's material strength. A single 1/4-20 bolt can easily support the weight of a 351c! I'd be nervous if it was my engine :) This would generally not be recommended, but it makes your point very well.

Now consider the proof load on a grade-8 1/4-20 screw is 3800lbf...it's typical to specify 75% of proof load as preload, so this screw could be preloaded to 2850lbf! (...or even higher, but 75% is typical)

One last quick comparison we can relate to... An SAE grade 8 bolt will have a ~120ksi ultimate strength...the ARP bolts we like to use with con rods have 180ksi ultimate strength. They are 50% stronger than a grade 8!

 
And from time to time even those break.............wow!

 
Back
Top