Just bought new rod bolts for my 1987 2.1 waterboxer. Bentley states torque is 22 ft-lbs plus 1/2 turn. These bolts are the same as the original ones in rods now. The Bentley manual has a picture (but in the diesel section) of what looks like my bolts but calls it a rigid bolt not a stretch bolt. The stretch blots in the diesel section do not look like my stretch bolts.
I plan on torquing these bolt per the manuals 22in-lbs + 1/2 turn. Is this correct.
Connecting rod bolts-Torquing of.
-
Piledriver
- Moderator
- Posts: 22863
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:01 am
The High Strength bolts from the 1.9 are VERY strongly recommended vs the stretch bolts for the 2.1 rods, in the 2.1 rods.:(Stamps feet, cough...)
Cheaper, too IIRC.
Use the 1.9 torque spec. with the 1.9 bolts...
Those cheap stretch bolts were a bad idea, poorly implemented.
And just in case, you know the big end MUST be resized if you replace the bolts, torqued to spec.
No avoiding it.
You can't just swap them and reinstall the rods... Likely instant death of the bearings, and a slow painful death for the crank.
Cheaper, too IIRC.
Use the 1.9 torque spec. with the 1.9 bolts...
Those cheap stretch bolts were a bad idea, poorly implemented.
And just in case, you know the big end MUST be resized if you replace the bolts, torqued to spec.
No avoiding it.
You can't just swap them and reinstall the rods... Likely instant death of the bearings, and a slow painful death for the crank.
Addendum to Newtons first law:
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.