Honda Car Forum

Some people are slow.

Some people eventually catch on.

Some people won't admit it though.

Some people will, that is when forced to.

Accidently tuned in to Montel and yep, Wednesday is psychic awright.

Now... What can one do about a crank pulley bolt that's snapped off?

No, I didn't do it!

Yes, I inherited the engine (which appears to be good otherwise on strip
down).

TIA

JT


(Dreading a trip to the machine shop...)

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:B9bTh.35458
$VU4.32109@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Some people are slow.
>
> Some people eventually catch on.
>
> Some people won't admit it though.
>
> Some people will, that is when forced to.
>
> Accidently tuned in to Montel and yep, Wednesday is psychic awright.
>
> Now... What can one do about a crank pulley bolt that's snapped off?
>
> No, I didn't do it!
>
> Yes, I inherited the engine (which appears to be good otherwise on strip
> down).
>
> TIA
>
> JT
>
>
> (Dreading a trip to the machine shop...)
>



Shouldn't be a problem. Try drifting the remnant counter-clockwise with a
sharp drift and a hammer.

With the bolt head gone, all the torque is off the threads anyway,

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> Shouldn't be a problem. Try drifting the remnant
> counter-clockwise with a
> sharp drift and a hammer.
>
> With the bolt head gone, all the torque is off the threads
> anyway,

Isn't this counter to the theory (among some of us) that
it's rust and debris etc. that result in the ridiculous
torque often required to break the pulley bolt free?

That is, I thought you for one strongly felt the pulley bolt
was not actually in tension to the tune of some 500 ft-lbs.
of torque (on some Hondas)?

I am not as optimistic that this will come out easily
without a lot of drilling.

Tegger wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:B9bTh.35458
> $VU4.32109@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> Some people are slow.
>>
>> Some people eventually catch on.
>>
>> Some people won't admit it though.
>>
>> Some people will, that is when forced to.
>>
>> Accidently tuned in to Montel and yep, Wednesday is psychic awright.
>>
>> Now... What can one do about a crank pulley bolt that's snapped off?
>>
>> No, I didn't do it!
>>
>> Yes, I inherited the engine (which appears to be good otherwise on strip
>> down).
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> JT
>>
>>
>> (Dreading a trip to the machine shop...)
>>---------------------
> Shouldn't be a problem. Try drifting the remnant counter-clockwise with a
> sharp drift and a hammer.
>
> With the bolt head gone, all the torque is off the threads anyway,

-----------------------

At least that's true if Mr LockTite wasn't hanging around.

'Curly'

Tegger wrote:

> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:B9bTh.35458
> $VU4.32109@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>Some people are slow.
>>
>>Some people eventually catch on.
>>
>>Some people won't admit it though.
>>
>>Some people will, that is when forced to.
>>
>>Accidently tuned in to Montel and yep, Wednesday is psychic awright.
>>
>>Now... What can one do about a crank pulley bolt that's snapped off?
>>
>>No, I didn't do it!
>>
>>Yes, I inherited the engine (which appears to be good otherwise on strip
>>down).
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>JT
>>
>>
>>(Dreading a trip to the machine shop...)
>>
>
>
>
>
> Shouldn't be a problem. Try drifting the remnant counter-clockwise with a
> sharp drift and a hammer.
>
> With the bolt head gone, all the torque is off the threads anyway,
>


This technique often works except for the fact that this engine while
not directly exposed to the weather sat in the car for nearly twelve
years in this condition.

BTW, when I swapped engines a couple of years ago, (I never noticed this
as I had no immediate plans for this engine), the head had been off
for the same amount of time and there was "some" rust in the two center
cylinders where the pistons were near their lower limit of travel. I
assumed the engine was stuck but when I removed the flywheel, I noticed
the damned thing turning. It would only do about 1/3 of a revolution due
to the rust buildup.

Anyway, I put the engine in the back shed encased in a tarp for later
activity. Yesterday was that day. It was such a nice day, I backed the
Studebaker P/U to the shed door, carried the engine out to the tailgate
and sanded (with #80 grit) down the rust in the two center cylinders.

Within forty-five minutes, I had it freed up and quite frankly, cannot
detect any cylinder damage. I was turning the crank via the flywheel
bolts when I noticed the broken bolt in front.

I am simply amazed at the elegant engineering that went into this engine
design and it's ease of access, etc.

Oh, All the pistons have a "impression" for either valve clearance or
damage from valve contact which may have been why the car was taken off
the road.

I'll be attempting the prick punch method of removing the bolt remains
this evening.

Have a good one!

JT

Elle wrote:

> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
>
>>Shouldn't be a problem. Try drifting the remnant
>>counter-clockwise with a
>>sharp drift and a hammer.
>>
>>With the bolt head gone, all the torque is off the threads
>>anyway,
>
>
> Isn't this counter to the theory (among some of us) that
> it's rust and debris etc. that result in the ridiculous
> torque often required to break the pulley bolt free?
>

Well, yes and no.

From the factory, I would assume that the bolt is tightened to spec
which (to me) shouldn't be much more than 150 psi. I only tighten the
(much larger) bolt on my Studebakers to 75 psi and have never lost one.
Trash and debris would only be a factor if the bolt was removed and
re-installed carelessly after the car was delivered.


> That is, I thought you for one strongly felt the pulley bolt
> was not actually in tension to the tune of some 500 ft-lbs.
> of torque (on some Hondas)?
>

Not me - See above.



> I am not as optimistic that this will come out easily
> without a lot of drilling.
>
>

If it's gonna come out, it'll be this evening. If it doesn't, I'll let
the machine shop tackle it.

JT

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
E
>> Isn't this counter to the theory (among some of us) that
>> it's rust and debris etc. that result in the ridiculous
>> torque often required to break the pulley bolt free?
>>
>
> Well, yes and no.
>
> From the factory, I would assume that the bolt is
> tightened to spec which (to me) shouldn't be much more
> than 150 psi. I only tighten the (much larger) bolt on my
> Studebakers to 75 psi and have never lost one. Trash and
> debris would only be a factor if the bolt was removed and
> re-installed carelessly after the car was delivered.

What's your theory on why Honda automobile pulley bolts are
notoriously tight when it comes time to change the timing
belt?

What year and make is this Honda, anyway?

> If it's gonna come out, it'll be this evening. If it
> doesn't, I'll let the machine shop tackle it.

Be careful, darling older, smarter honda-luvin' brother.

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
newsscTh.136570$_73.86685@newsread2.news.pas.ear thlink.net:

> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
>> Shouldn't be a problem. Try drifting the remnant
>> counter-clockwise with a
>> sharp drift and a hammer.
>>
>> With the bolt head gone, all the torque is off the threads
>> anyway,
>
> Isn't this counter to the theory (among some of us) that
> it's rust and debris etc. that result in the ridiculous
> torque often required to break the pulley bolt free?
>
> That is, I thought you for one strongly felt the pulley bolt
> was not actually in tension to the tune of some 500 ft-lbs.
> of torque (on some Hondas)?
>
> I am not as optimistic that this will come out easily
> without a lot of drilling.
>
>
>

at least SOME of the torque will no longer be needed,with compression gone
form the assembly.
(I'm not optimistic,either;it seems nothing is ever "easy" when working on
older cars.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote
> at least SOME of the torque will no longer be needed,with
> compression gone
> form the assembly.
> (I'm not optimistic,either;it seems nothing is ever "easy"
> when working on
> older cars.)

I'd have to think about it more. If it is debris, rust, heat
cycling, etc. that causes adhesion over time between the
male and female threads, it's a pseudo-torque that's been
applied to the bolt. It's like a bolt was tightened to spec
//and then// locktite somehow dripped on its threads. If the
head shears off, is the torque required to deal with the
locktite really going to be less? Not sure.

Elle wrote:

> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
> E
>
>>>Isn't this counter to the theory (among some of us) that
>>>it's rust and debris etc. that result in the ridiculous
>>>torque often required to break the pulley bolt free?
>>>
>>
>>Well, yes and no.
>>
>>From the factory, I would assume that the bolt is
>>tightened to spec which (to me) shouldn't be much more
>>than 150 psi. I only tighten the (much larger) bolt on my
>>Studebakers to 75 psi and have never lost one. Trash and
>>debris would only be a factor if the bolt was removed and
>>re-installed carelessly after the car was delivered.
>
>
> What's your theory on why Honda automobile pulley bolts are
> notoriously tight when it comes time to change the timing
> belt?
>
> What year and make is this Honda, anyway?
>


The engine is the original that was in the '83 Civic FE. If you recall,
I replaced it with a running motah out of an '81 DX but used all the '83
accessories and attachments.


>
>>If it's gonna come out, it'll be this evening. If it
>>doesn't, I'll let the machine shop tackle it.
>
>
> Be careful, darling older, smarter honda-luvin' brother.
>


If it's gonna come out, it will do so easy. Otherwise, the whole schmeer
will go to the machine shop next week.

JT