to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing belt

"TeGGeR®" > wrote
> "Elle" > wrote
> > "TeGGeR®" > wrote
> >> "Elle" > wrote
> >> > The torque on the pulley bolt isn't just going to keep going up and
> >> > up as the years and miles on the car pass.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The why wouldn't Honda just specify the final torque to begin with?
> >
> > Because the bolt is /not heated/ when a technician or DIYer applies
> > that final torque.
> >
> > Again, many large bolts (I'm talking over an inch in diameter) are
> > routinely torqued into place not with a torque wrench; not with slug
> > wrenches (which may be a new type of wrench to you, but anyway);
>
>
>
> Uh-oh. An attempt at getting the upper hand by using jargon and an
> ad-hominem attack. Bad sign.

No such thing was intended. A lot of people who work strictly on cars have
never heard of a slug wrench. I am demonstrating that I have some
specialized experience re torquing (or untorquing) bolts. I was trying to
explain how bolts can be torqued without a wrench, yada yada. You're
oversensitive. (Now that's an ad hominem, or a suggestion. Your choice. Just
notice I didn't go ballistic when you said I was lying about the Grade 8
bolts, jerk.

>
> I just looked up "slug wrench". It's just an industrial wrench with one
> closed-end, like half an ordinary combination wrench. Big deal. How is
that
> relevant to this discussion?
>
>
>
> but
> > instead by first hand tightening the bolt, then inserting an electric
> > heater into a hole drilled in its center. The temperature of the bolt
> > rises, the coefficient of thermal expansion works as designed, the
> > bolt gets longer but the diameter gets smaller. The bolt is screwed in
> > X # of turns further, then the heater is removed. Guess what happens?
>
>
>
> Sure. Since the BOLT is heated, but not its receiving piece, you get
> additional torque. It's called "heat tightening". If you heated both
halves
> equally, this would not work.

No. See the bozo guy's post.

True Value carries the Grade 8 bolts loose.

It's not worth my time to continue this discussion with you.

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>>regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have anything
>>immediately to hand. you have to go back to basic engineering
>>principles. if you can accept that there is some angular lash in the
>>pulley, you can figure out the inertial predominance of that lash as
>>the crank rotates.
>
>
>
>
> It's still wrong. That bolt does NOT turn.

it can and it does. for a simple citiation, check out:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_p.html

and read the section labeled "pedal" and note the reference to precession.

>
> Honda is very particular about the treatment of this critical fastener.
> They specify that oil be applied to the /threads/, but not to the /bolt
> face or washer/. Not only that, but they also specify that if a new
> fastener is used, it should be pre-stretched to a higher-than-final-torque
> before being loosened and final-torqued to the lower number.
>
> If the bolt could tighten and stretch itself some unknown amount, do you
> really think Honda would risk such an unknown variable in such a critical
> area? What if the bolt tightened too much? Disaster!

it doesn't continue to tighten indefinitely - it reaches equilibrium.

>
> And if that final higher torque /were/ predictable, don't you think Honda
> would specify that final torque to begin with, and simply tell you to set
> it to that in order to eliminate that variable?

why? it ony needs to be initially set to hold it in place. anything
subsequent to that would come out in testing.

>
> Also, if you look at bolt torque charts, there is NO bolt of that size, not
> even an aircraft-grade M10.9, that is intended to be torqued to anywhere
> close to the 300 ft lbs that Elle guesses at.
> The highest rating I can find in my charts is for a 12mm 11T with 1.25mm
> pitch. It's rating is...130 ft lbs, exactly what Honda specifies for the
> crank bolt, which I'm pretty sure is that size!

with respect, i've bounced on a day-old pulley wheel bolt. i weigh 200
lbs. at 18" from center, assuming i can exert a momentary "weight" of
300 lbs, that's 450 ft.lbs. and that shifted it. static weight alone
[300 ft.lbs] didn't.

>
> In areas where Honda suspects torque change may occur, it specifies
> staking, lockwashers, bent tabs, and nylon inserts. But not at the crank
> bolt.

i know. i said other cars.

>
> Incidentally, our Toyota Tercel's engine runs so as to LOOSEN the crank
> bolt. The bolt is tightened to 114 ft lbs. There is no lockwasher.

try some fords or vw.

>
> And as far as relative movement due to inertia? Consider this: The bolt is
> less than one pound. The combined reciprocating and rotating mass of the
> engine is about 50 lbs. It is physically /impossible/, even considering
> firing pulses, for a 50lb mass to accelerate faster than a one-pound mass
> given the same impulses to both.

it's the pulley, not the bolt. i invite you to either operate the
engine without a woodruff key or calculate the inertia of a 10 lb pulley
wheel.

>
> Even considering the frictional resistance of the PS pump, A/C compressor,
> and alternator, there is no way all that exceeds the inertial mass of the
> engine. It is physically /impossible/ for the crank to force the bolt to
> tighten.

again, that's assuming no lash in the pulley. but there is. otherwise
there would be no need for the woodruff key.

>
> It is true that there are certain circumstances where a fastener can be
> forced to tighten or loosen even when tightened properly, such as knock-off
> wheels. In that case, the weight of the entire car is pulling and pushing
> the fastener around. That, combined with splines that are a less-than
> perfect fit, and wheel flex, means the wheel's knockoff nut is subject to
> unique stresses that a crankshaft bolt is not.

but that's an example that proves my point. i don't understand how you
can accept this fact that bolts move in service in one situation, but
not another. you accept elastic distortion, right? if there's
distortion of one component more than another, there's relative
movement. it may not be large enough to see with the naked eye, but it
does occur.

>
> The relevant paragraph on Elle's page is totally wrong and needs to be
> removed.
>

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>
>>>And as far as relative movement due to inertia? Consider this: The
>>>bolt is less than one pound. The combined reciprocating and rotating
>>>mass of the engine is about 50 lbs. It is physically /impossible/,
>>>even considering firing pulses, for a 50lb mass to accelerate faster
>>>than a one-pound mass given the same impulses to both.
>>
>>so how does an impact driver work then?
>
>
>
> By delivering many heavy, but short-duration blows in rapid succession.
>
> With its internal gearing having been specifically designed for this, the
> driver's mechanism is capable of rapid acceleration. However, you need a
> certain amount of air volume being delivered at a certain speed, otherwise
> the impact driver's internals cannot spin up properly and will be unable to
> deliver the proper blows. Hook the driver up to a low-volume compressor and
> you'll see what I mean. You'll be able to hold the chuck still with your
> hand as you pull the trigger.
>
> Also, the driver is trying to move ONLY the bolt. If the /engine/ tries to
> move the bolt, it's working at a mechanical disadvantage, being much
> heavier, and being unable to accelerate as fast as would be required. The
> bolt has then plenty of time to leisurely spin up with the engine.
>
> If you use an impact driver to loosen the bolt, you'll find that the
> crankshaft moves not at all. This is because the engine has too much
> inertia, and it would require the impact driver's blows to be of MUCH
> longer duration in order to overcome the inertia, and at that point it
> would twist right out of your hands.
>
>
>
>
ok, i see your conceptual problem - you're focused on the bolt. it's
/not/ the bolt that's lashing here tegger, it's the pulley wheel. if
you don't believe me, run the car without the woodruf key and tell me
whether the pulley rotates or not. /then/ figure out which direction
the pulley is receiving the highest velocity impulse. once you've done
that, you'll see which way the bolts turns as it goes along for the ride.

and btw, the impact driver has a very low mass anvil, compared with a
real hammer. and have you tried hammering a wrench to break bolts free?
sometimes it works, sometimes it just messes up the bolt. my point
is, the impulses an impact driven bolt receives are very high torque and
very short duration. to say that you can't get these in a crankshaft is
incorrect. that's why you have springs in the middle of your clutch
drive plate. without them to mitigate high impulse, you hammer out
bearings, gear cog tooth facings and drive shafts.

TeGGeR® wrote:
> "Elle" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>
>>"Bozo" > wrote
>
>
>>> a manufacturing situation,
>>>hence the need to correlate axial load against torque, and therefore
>>>to control torque.
>>
>>With the change above, agreed.
>
>
>
>
> But this has absolutely NOTHING to do with additional tightening after the
> final setting!
>
> So far, /nobody/ has been able to cite references that mention this alleged
> additional rotational displacement of a bolt after final tightening, and I
> have been unable to find any references in Google.
>
> Here's two good pages:
> http://www.boltscience.com/pages/tighten.htm
> http://www.boltscience.com/pages/info.htm
> Note there is no mention whatsoever of the alleged phenomenon.

and there's nothing about precession either, which is a gross omission.

>
>
>
>
>>For the record I do not assert my theory as fact. It's my personal
>>best guess as to why the pulley bolt becomes so tight. I do not now
>>intend to qualify the statement at the site, because I think what's
>>written at the many personal web sites on Honda repairs by their
>>nature imply that they are only the author's opinion.
>>
>>Also, to clarify, when I wrote, "You don't know that these bolts are
>>not special order," I meant the crankshaft pulley bolts. Honda may
>>very well special order these bolts from a specialized bolt
>>manufacturer.
>
>
>
>
> Honda does not make ANY bolts. ALL of them are purchased from outside
> suppliers.
>
>
>
>
>>Grade 8 bolts at my local True Value are in bins accessible to all
>>customers and are not special order.
>
>
>
>
> Well then maybe it's just Canada. The local Home Depot only has up to
> Grade-3. If I want anything higher, I need to go to a specialized fastener
> place.
>
>
>

jim beam > wrote in
:

> TeGGeR® wrote:
>> jim beam > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>And as far as relative movement due to inertia? Consider this: The
>>>>bolt is less than one pound. The combined reciprocating and rotating
>>>>mass of the engine is about 50 lbs. It is physically /impossible/,
>>>>even considering firing pulses, for a 50lb mass to accelerate faster
>>>>than a one-pound mass given the same impulses to both.
>>>
>>>so how does an impact driver work then?
>>
>>
>>
>> By delivering many heavy, but short-duration blows in rapid
>> succession.
>>
>> With its internal gearing having been specifically designed for
>> this, the
>> driver's mechanism is capable of rapid acceleration. However, you
>> need a certain amount of air volume being delivered at a certain
>> speed, otherwise the impact driver's internals cannot spin up
>> properly and will be unable to deliver the proper blows. Hook the
>> driver up to a low-volume compressor and you'll see what I mean.
>> You'll be able to hold the chuck still with your hand as you pull the
>> trigger.
>>
>> Also, the driver is trying to move ONLY the bolt. If the /engine/
>> tries to move the bolt, it's working at a mechanical disadvantage,
>> being much heavier, and being unable to accelerate as fast as would
>> be required. The bolt has then plenty of time to leisurely spin up
>> with the engine.
>>
>> If you use an impact driver to loosen the bolt, you'll find that the
>> crankshaft moves not at all. This is because the engine has too much
>> inertia, and it would require the impact driver's blows to be of MUCH
>> longer duration in order to overcome the inertia, and at that point
>> it would twist right out of your hands.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ok, i see your conceptual problem - you're focused on the bolt. it's
> /not/ the bolt that's lashing here tegger, it's the pulley wheel. if
> you don't believe me, run the car without the woodruf key and tell me
> whether the pulley rotates or not.



That's what the Woodruff key is for. If there was any relative motion
between the clamped parts, the bolt would LOOSEN, not tighten.

The theory that it tightens is so much total hokum I can't believe anyone
is falling for it.

After investigating this for myself in Google, I an even more convinced you
guys are barking up the wrong tree.



> /then/ figure out which direction
> the pulley is receiving the highest velocity impulse. once you've
> done that, you'll see which way the bolts turns as it goes along for
> the ride.



The engine's rotating/reciprocating mass is greater than the resistance
offered by the various things added on to it.

The bolt does not turn. Period.

I've been doing some extensive digging in Google, and I can find ZERO
ZERO ZERO mentions of this supposed thing.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.


>
> and btw, the impact driver has a very low mass anvil, compared with a
> real hammer. and have you tried hammering a wrench to break bolts
> free?
> sometimes it works, sometimes it just messes up the bolt. my point
> is, the impulses an impact driven bolt receives are very high torque
> and very short duration.



YES! But the impact wrench's anvil is travelling at HIGH SPEED when it
makes its impact. Remember HORSEPOWER? You can make lots of horsepower with
very little torque and little mass.

And since the anvil is so light, the impact must necessarily be of short
duration, since the anvil lacks the mass to be able to sustain the impact
for long.

Comparing the effect of a short-duration, high-speed impact wrench to the
slow, lazy, massive engine is to compare apples to horse puckies.




> to say that you can't get these in a
> crankshaft is incorrect. that's why you have springs in the middle of
> your clutch drive plate. without them to mitigate high impulse, you
> hammer out bearings, gear cog tooth facings and drive shafts.
>


Apples to horse puckies again. In this case, you have the weight of the
entire car behind those clutch springs, not just a few pulleys.


How come NOBODY can come up with ANY references to this? BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT EXIST. There are treatises commonly available on all sorts of bolt
tightening problems (I linked to two), but this rotation after final
tightening thing DOES NOT EXIST.

It's WRONG, jim. WRONG. The theory behind it is WRONG. Have you discovered
a new mechanical phenomenon that nobody else has in 300 years? I think not.

Bolts do NOT tighten, they LOOSEN if there is relative movement between its
clamped parts.



--
TeGGeR®

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

jim beam > wrote in
:

> TeGGeR® wrote:
>> jim beam > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>>regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have anything
>>>immediately to hand. you have to go back to basic engineering
>>>principles. if you can accept that there is some angular lash in the
>>>pulley, you can figure out the inertial predominance of that lash as
>>>the crank rotates.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's still wrong. That bolt does NOT turn.
>
> it can and it does. for a simple citiation, check out:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_p.html
>
> and read the section labeled "pedal" and note the reference to
> precession.
>



Ah, there's a word for what we're talkng about! Thanks. That gives me more
ammunition to refute your argument.

Your comparison of bike pedal and car crankshaft is not a valid one, for
one major reason:
A bike pedal bolt directly transmits torque as its primary function. The
crank bolt simply clamps two masses together. Torque is transmittred by the
mass, not the bolt. This is a very critical distinction.

By your own admission, I am focusing on the bolt, not the mass attached to
it. You are committing ths same sin, but in reverse.

Consider that if the clamped mass can move in ONE direction, it follows
that it can move BACK IN THE OTHER. And for your theory to work, the
clamped masses would have to move back and forth repeatedly.

Since it is much easier for the bolt to back out (releasing tension) than
to screw in some more (increasing tension), the bolt in a such a joint
would tend to LOOSEN. And if you do your own Google searches, you'll find
ALL references to clamp-bolts and precession referring to LOOSENING.

This back-and-forth causes an effect known as "fretting", which ultimately
LOOSENS the bolt.

The Honda bolt does not loosen because it has been tightened to a position
that will remain undisturbed until somebody disturbs it.

If you fail to tighten a Honda bolt sufficiently, it will FALL OUT, not
tighten more. My neighbor three doors down had just that happen to his
Prelude years ago. His neighbor replaced the timing belt, but lacking a
torque wrench, he just tightened the crank bolt to what felt right. Well,
tight it was, but NOT TIGHT ENOUGH. *Precession* from the clamped mass
BACKED THE BOLT back out again and the pulley fell off on the highway!

The theory that the bolt tightens flies in the face of everything I've been
able to find. It flies in the face of logic.

The joint, once correctly torqued, does NOT move. That bolt gets harder to
remove NOT because it tightens more from engine rotation, but from
corrosion, and (I think) "settling" at the surface texture level.

--
TeGGeR®

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

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>TeGGeR® wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>regarding citations for the honda pulley bolt, i don't have anything
>>>>immediately to hand. you have to go back to basic engineering
>>>>principles. if you can accept that there is some angular lash in the
>>>>pulley, you can figure out the inertial predominance of that lash as
>>>>the crank rotates.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It's still wrong. That bolt does NOT turn.
>>
>>it can and it does. for a simple citiation, check out:
>>
>>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_p.html
>>
>>and read the section labeled "pedal" and note the reference to
>>precession.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Ah, there's a word for what we're talkng about! Thanks. That gives me more
> ammunition to refute your argument.
>
> Your comparison of bike pedal and car crankshaft is not a valid one, for
> one major reason:
> A bike pedal bolt directly transmits torque as its primary function. The
> crank bolt simply clamps two masses together. Torque is transmittred by the
> mass, not the bolt. This is a very critical distinction.

sorry dude, that's fundamentally wrong. the pedal spindle is /not/
subject to torque as a function of operation. it rotates as a result of
precession. as it tightens. r/h threaded wheel nuts on the left side
of vehicles loosen /if/ other measures are not deployed in design.
that's why big rigs /all/ have l/h threads on the left side of the vehicle.

>
> By your own admission, I am focusing on the bolt, not the mass attached to
> it. You are committing ths same sin, but in reverse.
>
> Consider that if the clamped mass can move in ONE direction, it follows
> that it can move BACK IN THE OTHER. And for your theory to work, the
> clamped masses would have to move back and forth repeatedly.
>
> Since it is much easier for the bolt to back out (releasing tension) than
> to screw in some more (increasing tension), the bolt in a such a joint
> would tend to LOOSEN. And if you do your own Google searches, you'll find
> ALL references to clamp-bolts and precession referring to LOOSENING.
>
> This back-and-forth causes an effect known as "fretting", which ultimately
> LOOSENS the bolt.

not so if the impulse in one direction is more than the other.

>
> The Honda bolt does not loosen because it has been tightened to a position
> that will remain undisturbed until somebody disturbs it.
>
> If you fail to tighten a Honda bolt sufficiently, it will FALL OUT, not
> tighten more. My neighbor three doors down had just that happen to his
> Prelude years ago. His neighbor replaced the timing belt, but lacking a
> torque wrench, he just tightened the crank bolt to what felt right. Well,
> tight it was, but NOT TIGHT ENOUGH. *Precession* from the clamped mass
> BACKED THE BOLT back out again and the pulley fell off on the highway!

if it's too loose, it'll wobble, not just lash.

>
> The theory that the bolt tightens flies in the face of everything I've been
> able to find. It flies in the face of logic.
>
> The joint, once correctly torqued, does NOT move.

sorry dude, joints of this type can and do move. the woodruff key
limits the degree of that movement, but it moves all the same. i don't
know why this isn't taught more frequently - maybe because it freaks
people out?

> That bolt gets harder to
> remove NOT because it tightens more from engine rotation, but from
> corrosion, and (I think) "settling" at the surface texture level.
>

i've given you a bunch of examples that don't seem to work for you, but
i'll try again. next time you remove a driveshaft, on the wheel end,
look closely at the splines. that cannot possibly rotate, right? it's
splined and torqued. /but/ if you look closely at the splines, you'll
see a distinct boundry between the face where they mesh and the face
where they don't. on each and every tooth. that's the result of lash.
and that lash could result in the loosening [or tightening] of the end
nut - that's why it's staked [loosening being the disaster you wish to
avoid].

why is the pulley bolt not staked? if it's tightening, it doesn't need
to be!

jim beam > wrote in
:

<snip>

I must say, this thread has been very educational. Early on I had trouble
explaining what I knew by logic, because I didn't know the terms.

I learned about fretting, precession, recession, and the difference between
direct torque and clamped-mass applications. I even learned that the name
for a simple one-closed-end industrial wrench is a"slug wrench".

Thanks to jim and Elle for all that. Now, back to the battle!



>
> why is the pulley bolt not staked? if it's tightening, it doesn't
> need to be!



Then why aren't other car's pulleys staked? They're all installed so that
the bolt will LOOSEN as the engine turns. The setup is otherwise identical
to the Honda one: Plain washers, woodruff key, no thread locker, etc. These
are just as difficult to remove as Honda bolts, and NONE comes loose once
tightened properly.

A bike pedal bolt's principles of operation is not the same as a
clamped-mass bolt's operation. You cannot use the two as equivalants.

jim, the theory of tightening after final setting is bunk. You will not
find any references anywhere to *tightening* precession in a clamped-mass
application because there is no such thing. You WILL find scads of
references to *loosening* precession in a clamped mass, because there IS
such a thing.




--
TeGGeR®

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

"TeGGeR®" > wrote
> The theory that it tightens is so much total hokum I can't believe anyone
> is falling for it.
>
> After investigating this for myself in Google, I an even more convinced
you
> guys are barking up the wrong tree.

I have found no explanation for the pulley bolt's excessive tightening on
the web by anyone that sounds the least bit like it came from a bona fide
expert.

The explanations that do exist predominantly speculate it's either "heat
cycling," rust, or both.

Whatever heat cycling means insofar as it causes the bolt to tighten. My
theory re the heating up of the bolt, and so its stretching, etc. is the
only one that makes sense to me.

Your claim that the breakaway torque tends to be higher than the tightening
torque is true. Problem is, your boltscience site says the breakaway torque,
if higher, should be only a little higher.

You are just repeating yourself at this point. I won't torture the newsgroup
and repeat myself. I assure you, your opinion is heard.

I would still prefer you not link my "pulley holder tool" site to yours. I
may change its location if you continue to do so. The reason for this is
what you wrote on October 25th. You posted, "The last thing I want is errors
on the site. Errors cost credibility. Ego is not worth it if it leads to
errors. I research this stuff as best I can, but sometimes I need to rely on
a best-guess... You may not believe this, but I have no ego whatsoever when
it comes to this site.... I have NO ego and a very thick skin. "

All this led me to believe that if I went to the trouble of providing
information to you on certain subjects, then you would throw out ego and
treat it fairly.

I don't think you've kept up your end of the implied deal.

Your statements about my theory at my site are derisive and IMO ego-laden.
Yet you have only your own theory to rebut my theory.

If you said instead something like, "I disagree with Elle re why the bolt is
so tight, and this is why... ", then that would be one thing. But instead
you flat-out assert my theory is wrong. It subtracts from the credibility
and authority of the site, IMO.

You can't prove my theory is wrong. Nor can I prove yours is wrong. I'm
going on my best guess, just as you're going on yours.

Just saying.

"TeGGeR®" > wrote
> Your comparison of bike pedal and car crankshaft is not a valid one, for
> one major reason:
> A bike pedal bolt directly transmits torque as its primary function.

Not the one Jim's talking about.

> The
> crank bolt simply clamps two masses together.

As long as the bolt isn't heated such that its diameter reduces relative to
its crankshaft receptacle. :-)