ok so I don't have the FSM. I've got the Haynes and finally getting my lazy ass around to building an EJ22 back up.
I got new ACL bearings, even though the old ones still look good. The crank was checked by a shop, cleaned, balanced, and polished.
installed the #1 rod and going by Haynes, used 32ft-lbs on the rod cap nuts. WOW that bitch is tight. It will move, but sticks in a couple places and generally doesn't spin anywhere close to as easy as it should. I did use moly paste.
what are the REAL torques?? On say, the conrod nuts, and the short/long case bolts?
anything else I should know when putting this thing back together? I guess I probably should plunk down the loot for a Scooby manual, but the local stealership has pissed me off recently and I dont feel like giving them a dime right now.
OK so what are the REAL torques?
Moderators: Helpinators, Moderators
OK so what are the REAL torques?
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
-
Matt Monson
- quasi-mod-o
- Posts: 2574
- Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 8:24 pm
- Location: Ghetto Garage, CO, USA
- Contact:
Did you check the rods for roundness and proper specifications before you torqued them down?
If you use your search button, you'll find a digital copy of the FSM that you can download. It's hosted by our host. You just need to dig for the link a little bit.
If you use your search button, you'll find a digital copy of the FSM that you can download. It's hosted by our host. You just need to dig for the link a little bit.
1974 Porsche 914 Cam Am Limted Edition AKA the Bumble Bee
1973 Porsche 914 2.0 l -Suby swap pending
1968 Porsche 911t survivor 47k original miles
2000 2.5RS daily driver.
1999 2.5RS w/ 50+ extra whp
Suby Hai!
1973 Porsche 914 2.0 l -Suby swap pending
1968 Porsche 911t survivor 47k original miles
2000 2.5RS daily driver.
1999 2.5RS w/ 50+ extra whp
Suby Hai!
-
93forestpearl
- Fifth Gear
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:14 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
no i didnt really check the rods. the bearings looked so good coming out, nothing appeared out of round or anything. they cleaned up very nicely and dont have any noticeable wear on the bearing surfaces.
guess i'll pull them all apart and measure them when they are bolted together freely, but I figured that the real torque spec was less than 32-34 like the book says. the shop said the crank was good to go...... course..... the guys in the back actually doing the work didnt really speak the english.
guess i'll pull them all apart and measure them when they are bolted together freely, but I figured that the real torque spec was less than 32-34 like the book says. the shop said the crank was good to go...... course..... the guys in the back actually doing the work didnt really speak the english.
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
que? qual es tu problema?
I have no idea if thats right^^
32lb/ft is about right. search that shiz yo. At the very least you should be plasti-gauging everything.
so you installed one rod then bolted the case together to see how it would rotate or what??? I'm confused...
I have no idea if thats right^^
32lb/ft is about right. search that shiz yo. At the very least you should be plasti-gauging everything.
so you installed one rod then bolted the case together to see how it would rotate or what??? I'm confused...
1992 T-Leg = 195whp 197wtq SOLD :(
1988 4Runner RIP
2006 Suzuki DRZ400sm
2007 Miata
1994 Miata
2003 WRX Wagon
2016 Mazda 3
1988 4Runner RIP
2006 Suzuki DRZ400sm
2007 Miata
1994 Miata
2003 WRX Wagon
2016 Mazda 3
They are meant to have clearance and run on a film of oil. Any friction will cause heat build-up and damage.
Don't mean to offend but... I suppose you do know the caps have to be on their own rods? They have to be perfectly clean, clean enough so there is good heat transfer from the bearing to the rod?
If they are the right caps for the rod and, the rods and bearings are absolutely clean, then fold the dry shell into place by starting at one end and laying it into the rod. Don't peel metal off the back of the shell as you finish the manouver and they are sliding into position. The tiny bits of metal are enough to hold the shell up and jamb things. Try putting them together with a few light taps(LIGHT TAPS) on either side of the rod/cap as they are just starting to pinch the shells in the caps. Tighten the bolts evenly and they should be perfectly free on the shaft.
Don't mean to offend but... I suppose you do know the caps have to be on their own rods? They have to be perfectly clean, clean enough so there is good heat transfer from the bearing to the rod?
If they are the right caps for the rod and, the rods and bearings are absolutely clean, then fold the dry shell into place by starting at one end and laying it into the rod. Don't peel metal off the back of the shell as you finish the manouver and they are sliding into position. The tiny bits of metal are enough to hold the shell up and jamb things. Try putting them together with a few light taps(LIGHT TAPS) on either side of the rod/cap as they are just starting to pinch the shells in the caps. Tighten the bolts evenly and they should be perfectly free on the shaft.
yes i have kept each cyl by itself so they are the right stuff. the cap was put on the right way, the rod faces the right way, everything is immaculate, all that.
i installed the one rod last night and it spins on the crank, but it hangs up a little bit and generally is a lot tougher than it should be.
tonight i'm going to put the old bearings back in and see if it spins free. and go get some plastigauges
i installed the one rod last night and it spins on the crank, but it hangs up a little bit and generally is a lot tougher than it should be.
tonight i'm going to put the old bearings back in and see if it spins free. and go get some plastigauges
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
The torque would have to be miles out to cause the bearings to tighten on the crank.
It the bearings are undersize they would jamb really tight.
With a bit of wear you could have extra clearance, not less, but you won't have enough wear to fit undersize bearings, so they will be the right ones presumably.
Try another pair of shells and perhaps another rod after that with the original shells.
It the bearings are undersize they would jamb really tight.
With a bit of wear you could have extra clearance, not less, but you won't have enough wear to fit undersize bearings, so they will be the right ones presumably.
Try another pair of shells and perhaps another rod after that with the original shells.
so I plastigauged them all, they were all right around .0015 which is allegedly within spec. The rods and caps were all round enough and the diameters are OK.
the #1 had a little bit of an edge around the oil passage hole on the crank, so I took it off with 600 grit just barely.
the new bearings fit into the rod and cap really well, and spin freely when the nuts are pretty snugged. (i.e. if you set the rod just barely off 12'o'clock then it's own weight will make it fall over onto the workbench.
However when I torque it all up to 32 ft-lb, they are way too tight i.e. the rods will stay standing up, even at an angle. Basically all 4 will stand up like the throttles on a 4-engine jet. You can move them around and they stick right to where you put them. This cannot be right.
yes I used moly paste and yes everything was clean etc.
The old bearings will still let the rods smoothly move around without excessive force, when they are tightened up. The new ones are ACL 52mm journal size and I'm just about to throw the fucking things away and put this stupid thing back together with the original bearings.
the #1 had a little bit of an edge around the oil passage hole on the crank, so I took it off with 600 grit just barely.
the new bearings fit into the rod and cap really well, and spin freely when the nuts are pretty snugged. (i.e. if you set the rod just barely off 12'o'clock then it's own weight will make it fall over onto the workbench.
However when I torque it all up to 32 ft-lb, they are way too tight i.e. the rods will stay standing up, even at an angle. Basically all 4 will stand up like the throttles on a 4-engine jet. You can move them around and they stick right to where you put them. This cannot be right.
yes I used moly paste and yes everything was clean etc.
The old bearings will still let the rods smoothly move around without excessive force, when they are tightened up. The new ones are ACL 52mm journal size and I'm just about to throw the fucking things away and put this stupid thing back together with the original bearings.
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
Ok, one last check...
Do you know what bearing nip is?
The bearings have to be tight in their bores to prevent movement and to get rid of heat, so they are nipped up by the caps by some small amount.
The way to measure nip is to put the shells in, tighten the caps nicely to torque, then, undo one bolt until it is loose and not doing anything, now try with a feeler gauge and measure how wide the gap is between the cap and the rod on the side with the loose bolt. It should be about .008 of an inch I would think for that. The manual will tell you.
If the nip is too great, ie, twelve .012 nip, then the shell gets deformed and jambs, too little nip and they overheat or turn in their bores.
It's possible the bearings have the right bore to them but they are a little oversize on their outside diameter. Take them back and complain if they are.
Do you know what bearing nip is?
The bearings have to be tight in their bores to prevent movement and to get rid of heat, so they are nipped up by the caps by some small amount.
The way to measure nip is to put the shells in, tighten the caps nicely to torque, then, undo one bolt until it is loose and not doing anything, now try with a feeler gauge and measure how wide the gap is between the cap and the rod on the side with the loose bolt. It should be about .008 of an inch I would think for that. The manual will tell you.
If the nip is too great, ie, twelve .012 nip, then the shell gets deformed and jambs, too little nip and they overheat or turn in their bores.
It's possible the bearings have the right bore to them but they are a little oversize on their outside diameter. Take them back and complain if they are.
the #3 is the biggest PITA. I do not understand it, and I have a fucking aerospace engineering degree.
I measured the bearing nip, it is .008.
if you loosen the nuts just a little bit, it spins very very freely. When torqued up, is tough to move and stays in place.
I thought maybe I'd forced out all the moly lube, so I lubed it all up really well and tried again. no change.
THEN I TRIED THE OLD BEARING SHELLS, in which this motor came apart and was running 100% perfectly except for leaking oil out of the rear main, oil separator cover thing, puking oil out of a mangled cam seal, etc etc.
Even with the old bearings, it is just as tough. WTF. does not make sense, they should be looser than anything since they have 190k on them, however do not have any terrible wear patterns on them. The rod journal diameter is w/in spec. The crank journal surface is clean and free from burrs, and I would figure that the crank lost a few micrometers from the cleaning/polishing phase. If anything, this would have a tad smaller diameter than before. The rod might have a tad larger diameter considering being cleaned of all stained-in oil. So with the original bearings, why the hell is it so tight?????? I tried two different torque wrenches at 32 ft-lb, with the same results.
It doesnt make sense, so hell if it is like that with the old bearings, I might as well just put the stupid thing together with the new ones and move on.
I measured the bearing nip, it is .008.
if you loosen the nuts just a little bit, it spins very very freely. When torqued up, is tough to move and stays in place.
I thought maybe I'd forced out all the moly lube, so I lubed it all up really well and tried again. no change.
THEN I TRIED THE OLD BEARING SHELLS, in which this motor came apart and was running 100% perfectly except for leaking oil out of the rear main, oil separator cover thing, puking oil out of a mangled cam seal, etc etc.
Even with the old bearings, it is just as tough. WTF. does not make sense, they should be looser than anything since they have 190k on them, however do not have any terrible wear patterns on them. The rod journal diameter is w/in spec. The crank journal surface is clean and free from burrs, and I would figure that the crank lost a few micrometers from the cleaning/polishing phase. If anything, this would have a tad smaller diameter than before. The rod might have a tad larger diameter considering being cleaned of all stained-in oil. So with the original bearings, why the hell is it so tight?????? I tried two different torque wrenches at 32 ft-lb, with the same results.
It doesnt make sense, so hell if it is like that with the old bearings, I might as well just put the stupid thing together with the new ones and move on.
Last edited by jp233 on Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
Well if the plastigauge says you have clearance..... The rod or shells must be distorted or distorting. It must be tight at the sides where the cap and rod meet surely.
It would be difficult to distort a rod when you are working on it although it may be possible to bend a bolt... perhaps! Even that would need quite a decent sort of a drop on the floor though.
You could try getting a plastigauge reading off to the sides of the bottom of the cap as far as possible.
If the shells had been twisted a bit they could distort as they tightened. It would take a bit of force to bend them though. Do you know the proper wy to get shells out of the caps? By pushing with your thumb at the middle point of the shell, on the side, so it swings the tag on the shell up and away from the cap, pivoting on the two top corners of the shell that are nearest your thumb as it does so.
To put the shells in it is important to follow the technique I described earlier and it's important to remove them from their rods carefully and with the correct technique if you want to reuse them.
It would be difficult to distort a rod when you are working on it although it may be possible to bend a bolt... perhaps! Even that would need quite a decent sort of a drop on the floor though.
You could try getting a plastigauge reading off to the sides of the bottom of the cap as far as possible.
If the shells had been twisted a bit they could distort as they tightened. It would take a bit of force to bend them though. Do you know the proper wy to get shells out of the caps? By pushing with your thumb at the middle point of the shell, on the side, so it swings the tag on the shell up and away from the cap, pivoting on the two top corners of the shell that are nearest your thumb as it does so.
To put the shells in it is important to follow the technique I described earlier and it's important to remove them from their rods carefully and with the correct technique if you want to reuse them.
Yep I've been R&R'ing the shells in that exact manner.
It is really strange that even the old shells make it very tight, it makes no sense. When the old ones came off, they came off and sat in a box undisturbed until I just tried them to see if it was any better. The rods had done nothing except gone into the parts cleaner and then scrubbed.
The old shells have a little bit of wear right in the middle of their length (equi-distant from the bolts/nuts), showing that maybe the rod or crank surface had gotten a tiny bit oblonged. But they are so smooth it is tough to see how it would matter now. Either way, with the old stuff all together the exact way it came out, I don't understand how it could be that tight.
The other 3 rods are at least now falling over with their own weight, seems a few days of them being together has done that. I also drizzled some motor oil over them all to see if it would loosen up, helped on the other three a tiny bit but did nothing for the PITA #3.
But this damned #3 journal is a just a POS.
It is really strange that even the old shells make it very tight, it makes no sense. When the old ones came off, they came off and sat in a box undisturbed until I just tried them to see if it was any better. The rods had done nothing except gone into the parts cleaner and then scrubbed.
The old shells have a little bit of wear right in the middle of their length (equi-distant from the bolts/nuts), showing that maybe the rod or crank surface had gotten a tiny bit oblonged. But they are so smooth it is tough to see how it would matter now. Either way, with the old stuff all together the exact way it came out, I don't understand how it could be that tight.
The other 3 rods are at least now falling over with their own weight, seems a few days of them being together has done that. I also drizzled some motor oil over them all to see if it would loosen up, helped on the other three a tiny bit but did nothing for the PITA #3.
But this damned #3 journal is a just a POS.
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
Hmm... That is a weird one.
Try plastigauge as far to left and right of centre as is possible(one at a time of course) and see if you can detect some ovality perhaps? Seems strange though because if the rod or shells were oval, and the tight spot is somewhere else, then the place you measured with plastigauge should be altered as well... and the plastigauge would have shown too loose... wouldn't it? Or am I getting my theories all wrong here?
If the circumference stays the same and it is oval then there will be a tight bit and a correspondingly loose bit. If you measured exactly on the midway between tight and loose spots you would get the correct clearance. Check left and right of that spot and you shouldT get a tight and a loose reading.
Whatever the problem is it sounds like it is time for a new rod. Unless, (and this is only because there is NO WAY you could have distorted the rod), the caps are mixed up.
Try plastigauge as far to left and right of centre as is possible(one at a time of course) and see if you can detect some ovality perhaps? Seems strange though because if the rod or shells were oval, and the tight spot is somewhere else, then the place you measured with plastigauge should be altered as well... and the plastigauge would have shown too loose... wouldn't it? Or am I getting my theories all wrong here?
If the circumference stays the same and it is oval then there will be a tight bit and a correspondingly loose bit. If you measured exactly on the midway between tight and loose spots you would get the correct clearance. Check left and right of that spot and you shouldT get a tight and a loose reading.
Whatever the problem is it sounds like it is time for a new rod. Unless, (and this is only because there is NO WAY you could have distorted the rod), the caps are mixed up.
-
93forestpearl
- Fifth Gear
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:14 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
i was under the impression that the rods/caps had to be oriented correctly since it looks like there is a chamfer that is asymmetrical fore/aft. which is why the little boomerang/swoosh symbol on the rod has to face the front of the crank, and the printed code on the cap has to line up (like RAB-AB44 or whatever that says. but all the rods and caps are matched up)
well I'm not sounding the All Clear yet, but it seems it is worked out. I guess being bolted together for a while overnight when it dropped into the 20's, helped somehow as they all seemed to be more free than yesterday.
but to be sure, I took the #3 apart again and really cleaned the hell out of everything, gave the oil hole and its chamfer a quick once-over with 600 grit and oil, made sure everything was squeaky clean, put it all back together with fresh moly and a little oil - and it seems good. i also made sure to spin the rod a bunch while i was snugging it up and between each hit with the torque wrench (i have been alternating a ton and tightening it all slowly). drizzled a little motor oil over the whole thing once it was final torqued, and it spins freely with no hold-ups, and it's own weight will cause the rod to fall over on the bench. went back and did the same for #1, which seemed to have just the slightest hesitation even though it moved easily. both had very small score marks in the center of the shell from I guess the oil passage hole and its chamfer.
anyways.... not out of the woods yet, i sure hope the cases are not as much of a PITA.
well I'm not sounding the All Clear yet, but it seems it is worked out. I guess being bolted together for a while overnight when it dropped into the 20's, helped somehow as they all seemed to be more free than yesterday.
but to be sure, I took the #3 apart again and really cleaned the hell out of everything, gave the oil hole and its chamfer a quick once-over with 600 grit and oil, made sure everything was squeaky clean, put it all back together with fresh moly and a little oil - and it seems good. i also made sure to spin the rod a bunch while i was snugging it up and between each hit with the torque wrench (i have been alternating a ton and tightening it all slowly). drizzled a little motor oil over the whole thing once it was final torqued, and it spins freely with no hold-ups, and it's own weight will cause the rod to fall over on the bench. went back and did the same for #1, which seemed to have just the slightest hesitation even though it moved easily. both had very small score marks in the center of the shell from I guess the oil passage hole and its chamfer.
anyways.... not out of the woods yet, i sure hope the cases are not as much of a PITA.
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
The caps do have to go a certain way and the caps do have to be on the right cap and facing a certain way too.
I think you need to get to the bottom of this mystery. If there is metal to metal contact there will be friction, heat and wear or possibly seizing.
The difference between a good job and a poor job is that in one you assume things will be alright and in another you assume they will not be alright.
There will ba a reason for this problem.
I think you need to get to the bottom of this mystery. If there is metal to metal contact there will be friction, heat and wear or possibly seizing.
The difference between a good job and a poor job is that in one you assume things will be alright and in another you assume they will not be alright.
There will ba a reason for this problem.
yeah i hear ya. well it's been a while today and the rods are all free and smooth. they move easily and will fall over with their own weight. Seems like it just needed a little coaxing and a good spit of lube.
i wont be able to get the crank in the cases tonight, too much other crap to do. maybe tomorrow I can plastiguage the mains.
OBTW I did mic all the old shells vs. the new, and the new ones were just barely bigger. (like they should be) but anyways I guess now I can give the All Clear on the rods.
i wont be able to get the crank in the cases tonight, too much other crap to do. maybe tomorrow I can plastiguage the mains.
OBTW I did mic all the old shells vs. the new, and the new ones were just barely bigger. (like they should be) but anyways I guess now I can give the All Clear on the rods.
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
-
93forestpearl
- Fifth Gear
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:14 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
The moly lube can be a bit sticky sometimes. Last year when I went through my motor I used some assembly lube that was from the previous year. The stuff was sticky until it started moving, then it was nice and free. I had a hell of a time getting the rotating assembly to move once the shortblock was together, but once it did move, it did so very nicely. I even took it back apart once to check everything and it was fine.
→Dan
piddster34 at h0tma1l d0t c0m
piddster34 at h0tma1l d0t c0m
yeah and this moly lube is old... I was thinking that. It's about 2 yrs old.
and GASP!!!!!!!!! its friggin HONDA stuff from a bike motor that I fixed for a friend (and it was a Suzuki engine). blasphemy!
I should've never let that evil Red companies' crap touch my Subaru.
(mutters under breath...... friggin Honder)
and GASP!!!!!!!!! its friggin HONDA stuff from a bike motor that I fixed for a friend (and it was a Suzuki engine). blasphemy!
I should've never let that evil Red companies' crap touch my Subaru.
(mutters under breath...... friggin Honder)
12 Outback 3.6R Limited
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
94 Leg LS wag AWD, sold
93 Leg L wag FWD, sold
06 LGT 5EAT, project
-
93forestpearl
- Fifth Gear
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:14 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
Don't worry about it. I did the same thing, except I plastigauged my mains a couple times making sure, which is a pain in the ass compared to gauging the rod bearings. 17 bolts instead of two.....
I learned to never use old assembly lube again if it has seen a winter, as in MN winter.
I learned to never use old assembly lube again if it has seen a winter, as in MN winter.
→Dan
piddster34 at h0tma1l d0t c0m
piddster34 at h0tma1l d0t c0m