head thread repair on aluminum block

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> So, you ADMIT there is a gain in mechanical advantage, by using a fine
> thread over a coarse thread. Thank you very much. You can go back to
> your nap now.

So tell me again how this new discovery refutes my earlier post that
you jumped all over? The results from the torque calculator show that
the whole thing cannot simply be dismissed in the two words "mechanical
advantage".

On 9 Oct 2006 15:02:09 -0700, runderwo@mail.win.org wrote:

>
>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> So, you ADMIT there is a gain in mechanical advantage, by using a fine
>> thread over a coarse thread. Thank you very much. You can go back to
>> your nap now.
>
>So tell me again how this new discovery refutes my earlier post that
>you jumped all over? The results from the torque calculator show that
>the whole thing cannot simply be dismissed in the two words "mechanical
>advantage".

You apparently are having a problem with a bolt.

I don't know how you got into this situation, and I don't know how
you're going to get out of it.

IIRC, you said the specs given by the manual/book were wrong, as you
had a "WTF moment," and you went ahead with a procedure that
contradicted the manual's instructions, if I interpret this all
correctly. Now you're complaining that the bolt isn't holding like it
should.

I can't see your aluminum block, I can't see the hardware in question,
I have no further comment, other than it appears you're in over your
head, and it might be a good time to call in someone who knows what
they're doing.

Lg

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> IIRC, you said the specs given by the manual/book were wrong, as you
> had a "WTF moment," and you went ahead with a procedure that
> contradicted the manual's instructions, if I interpret this all
> correctly. Now you're complaining that the bolt isn't holding like it
> should.

No, you interpret wrong. The bolt is holding. What the bolt is not
doing is turning smoothly. That is a problem because the carefully
calculated correlation between apparent torque and clamping force then
dissolves.

The bolt that came out was checked against a gauge. It was determined
to be a 1.5. The book says 1.25. Ergo, the book is wrong. If the
book is right, then the NAPA bolt gauge is wrong (and by wrong, I mean
not even in the ballpark, and it's STILL wrong after a recheck).

When "the book" is wrong, that's an automatic WTF moment, no?

> I can't see your aluminum block, I can't see the hardware in question,
> I have no further comment, other than it appears you're in over your
> head, and it might be a good time to call in someone who knows what
> they're doing.

I'll dearly miss your comments, you know.

The people who "know what they're doing" wouldn't even touch the
helicoil job. That's because they want to stay in business and they
can't stay in business doing repairs they can't guarantee. Helicoiling
one hole in the block and assuming the others won't pull out in the
same fashion that one did is not a repair they can guarantee. However,
it's a risk we can live with.

I'm now back to about 30 posts ago.

We installed the correct helicoil using the correct procedure (drill,
tap, etc).

The bolt is now jumpy when torquing it.

I thought it was a lube problem, because that's what it acted like.
The respondents all thought it was a thread problem. But thread
problems just don't act like lube problems. We are absolutely certain
now that we measured the threads correctly and used the correct
helicoil.

The best idea I now have to approximate the original clamping force is
to count turns from the torque where the bolt starts to jump to the
final torque, using a reference bolt that doesn't jump. From jim
beam's post.

If nobody else has a better suggestion, that's what we'll go with. If
the Honda motor becomes a steam engine, so be it. Can't win them all.

<runderwo@mail.win.org> wrote in message
news:1160430758.368061.42370@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> does it tighten smooth to a given torque then start jumping? if so, you
>> can count the turns [and fractions thereof] on an ok bolt from that
>> torque to the required torque, then repeat the same number of turns on
>> the problem bolt. that should get you close enough.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what it does.
>
> Your suggestion makes the most sense yet. I'll have a chance to look
> at it this weekend and that's what we will go with.

Here is what I would do - replace the bolt with a stud. Either buy a
pre-made stud of the correct lenght or make one. Use loctite stud and
bearing mount on the threaded portion that screws into the block. I'd screw
it in as tight as I could with the stud and bearing mount applied (but not
so tight that it "jumps"). I'd then I'd install a nut on the portion of the
stud that extends from the head. I'll bet I would have no problem torquing
the nut to the correct value.

Ed

<runderwo@mail.win.org> wrote in message
news:1160508101.264273.196090@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

> If nobody else has a better suggestion, that's what we'll go with. If
> the Honda motor becomes a steam engine, so be it. Can't win them all.

Here is what I would do - replace the bolt with a stud. Either buy a
pre-made stud of the correct lenght or make one. Use loctite stud and
bearing mount on the threaded portion that screws into the block. I'd screw
it in as tight as I could with the stud and bearing mount applied (but not
so tight that it "jumps"). I'd then I'd install a nut on the portion of the
stud that extends from the head. I'll bet I would have no problem torquing
the nut to the correct value.

Ed

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:30:27 -0400, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:

>
><runderwo@mail.win.org> wrote in message
>news:1160508101.264273.196090@m73g2000cwd.googleg roups.com...
>
>> If nobody else has a better suggestion, that's what we'll go with. If
>> the Honda motor becomes a steam engine, so be it. Can't win them all.
>
>Here is what I would do - replace the bolt with a stud. Either buy a
>pre-made stud of the correct lenght or make one. Use loctite stud and
>bearing mount on the threaded portion that screws into the block. I'd screw
>it in as tight as I could with the stud and bearing mount applied (but not
>so tight that it "jumps"). I'd then I'd install a nut on the portion of the
>stud that extends from the head. I'll bet I would have no problem torquing
>the nut to the correct value.
>
>Ed

Sounds like an excellent suggestion, Ed.

On 10 Oct 2006 12:21:41 -0700, runderwo@mail.win.org wrote:

>
>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> IIRC, you said the specs given by the manual/book were wrong, as you
>> had a "WTF moment," and you went ahead with a procedure that
>> contradicted the manual's instructions, if I interpret this all
>> correctly. Now you're complaining that the bolt isn't holding like it
>> should.
>
>No, you interpret wrong. The bolt is holding. What the bolt is not
>doing is turning smoothly. That is a problem because the carefully
>calculated correlation between apparent torque and clamping force then
>dissolves.
>
>The bolt that came out was checked against a gauge. It was determined
>to be a 1.5. The book says 1.25. Ergo, the book is wrong. If the
>book is right, then the NAPA bolt gauge is wrong (and by wrong, I mean
>not even in the ballpark, and it's STILL wrong after a recheck).
>
>When "the book" is wrong, that's an automatic WTF moment, no?
>
>> I can't see your aluminum block, I can't see the hardware in question,
>> I have no further comment, other than it appears you're in over your
>> head, and it might be a good time to call in someone who knows what
>> they're doing.
>
>I'll dearly miss your comments, you know.
>
>The people who "know what they're doing" wouldn't even touch the
>helicoil job. That's because they want to stay in business and they
>can't stay in business doing repairs they can't guarantee. Helicoiling
>one hole in the block and assuming the others won't pull out in the
>same fashion that one did is not a repair they can guarantee. However,
>it's a risk we can live with.
>
>I'm now back to about 30 posts ago.
>
>We installed the correct helicoil using the correct procedure (drill,
>tap, etc).
>
>The bolt is now jumpy when torquing it.
>
>I thought it was a lube problem, because that's what it acted like.
>The respondents all thought it was a thread problem. But thread
>problems just don't act like lube problems. We are absolutely certain
>now that we measured the threads correctly and used the correct
>helicoil.
>
>The best idea I now have to approximate the original clamping force is
>to count turns from the torque where the bolt starts to jump to the
>final torque, using a reference bolt that doesn't jump. From jim
>beam's post.
>
>If nobody else has a better suggestion, that's what we'll go with. If
>the Honda motor becomes a steam engine, so be it. Can't win them all.

"C.E. White" has what appears to be a solution to the problem. Sounds
good to me. I would give it a try. I think the hard part would be
finding a stud of the correct diameter and tensile strength. Other
than that, I would give it a go. Like you say, what's to lose at this
point?

Lg