to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing belt

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.

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!

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?

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

--
TeGGeR®

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

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

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

"TeGGeR®" > wrote
> jim beam > wrote
> > 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.
>
> Honda is very particular about the treatment of this critical fastener.
> They specify that oil be applied to the /threads/,

True.

> but not to the /bolt face or washer/.

This may be prudent, but it's not important enough to be mentioned in all
the UK site manuals.

I suspect the concern is to prevent dripping oil (from the washer and bolt
faces) onto the other drive belts.

> 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,

It's not "unknown." The bolt can only heat so much. The crankshaft can only
have so much horsepower applied to it, and so forth.

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.

> do you
> really think Honda would risk such an unknown variable in such a critical
> area? What if the bolt tightened too much? Disaster!

The bolt at the UK site's manuals is referred to as the "special bolt." I
don't think that's just to be cute. I don't know if it's grade 10.9,
something that you or I could buy in a hardware store (at no small cost
compared to lower strength bolt materials) and is designated for many
automotive uses. I suspect it's 12.9.

> 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?

No, because it's not a variable without limit.

> 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.

So you reject the many posts to this newsgroup stating that greater than 300
ft-lb rated air wrenches would not break the bolt free? These people all
were using wrenches whose rating was far less than what was advertised for
the tool?

You disbelieve the folks who estimate the force they use to break it free,
using their body weight at a distance of X from the centerline of the bolt?

Are you aware that factors of safety are a part of the design process? This
should be particularly obvious to you if you are aware that, even using a
torque wrench and following directions for torquing, cleaning the threads in
advance, etc., the actual tensile load applied to a bolt can vary greatly
for a given setting on the torque wrench.

It's cold hard fact that people who work on cars routinely apply over 300
ft-lbs of torque to these bolts, and the heads do not shear off. I suspect
this is due to the design factor of safety being quite large, or else they
use a higher strength material, even stronger than grade 10.9. I'd have to
investigate further.

Your claim that the problem is rust is at least as much a guess.

> 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!

From the manuals:

1984-87 Civic: 12 mm diameter, 1.25 pitch, spec 83 ft-lbs
1988-91 Civic: 14 mm diameter/1.25 pitch, spec 119 ft-lbs
1992-95 Civic: 14/1.25, spec 134 ft-lbs

1990 Accord: 14/1.25 spec 166 ft-lbs
1991-93 Accord: 14/1.25 spec 159 ft-lbs
1994-95 Accord: 16 mm, spec 181 ft-lbs

It's a 16 mm bolt for many of the more recent Hondas as well.

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

Only the crankshaft and pulley (which is keyed to the crankshaft) get the
impulse.

The bolt gets the "impulse" /in/directly.

It's like putting a 1 foot square, 3/8-inch thick wood board on the roof of
one's car and then accelerating the car. The board flies off. Why? Because
it's not fastened to the car roof, and because the coefficient of friction
and board's weight are too small to cause the board to move with the car.

This is why one can screw the bolt into place with the crankshaft/pulley
fixed.

Of course, there is an important difference once the pulley/crankshaft/bolt
assembly is running at normal operating temperatures: The bolt heats up, and
the geometries are such that it could very well loosen as it heats.

It's like initially super-gluing the board to the top of one's car roof,
then slowly dissolving the glue. The board slowly loosens, and the car
starts to move at a different speed from the board, even though just moments
ago, when the board was glued to the car, they moved at the same speed.

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.




--
TeGGeR®

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

"Elle" > wrote in
ink.net:

> "TeGGeR®" > wrote
>> jim beam > wrote
>> > 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.
>>
>> Honda is very particular about the treatment of this critical
>> fastener. They specify that oil be applied to the /threads/,
>
> True.
>
>> but not to the /bolt face or washer/.
>
> This may be prudent, but it's not important enough to be mentioned in
> all the UK site manuals.



Where the joint was designed for a lubricated fastener, it is /very/
important.


>
> I suspect the concern is to prevent dripping oil (from the washer and
> bolt faces) onto the other drive belts.



The oil is there so the friction coefficient will be more constant. You
don't dump a gallon of oil on the threads, you just put a few dabs on them.

The problem is that the bolt's own thread friction can dramatically affect
torque. Honda is controlling that as best it can. The threads, and the
specified torque, have been calculated with a lubricated fastener, not a
dry one.

It is possible that crank bolts used in situations where oil is not
required are already plated with a friction-modifying coating, such as
cadmium.



>
>> 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,
>
> It's not "unknown." The bolt can only heat so much. The crankshaft can
> only have so much horsepower applied to it, and so forth.
>
> 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? Your
statements make no sense. There is NO fastener on the car that is asked to
stretch to a new torque figure AFTER final user torqe has been applied by
the user. NONE. Not even connecting rod bolts, which undergo the highest
stresses of ANY bolt on ANY car.



>
>> do you
>> really think Honda would risk such an unknown variable in such a
>> critical area? What if the bolt tightened too much? Disaster!
>
> The bolt at the UK site's manuals is referred to as the "special
> bolt." I don't think that's just to be cute. I don't know if it's
> grade 10.9, something that you or I could buy in a hardware store (at
> no small cost compared to lower strength bolt materials) and is
> designated for many automotive uses. I suspect it's 12.9.




There was no such thing when Honda built my car or yours. 11.9 was the
highest Metric bolt strength went. 10.9 is /not/ something you can buy at a
corner hardware store. It's equivalent to SAE Grade-8. That is, aircraft
grade.



>
>
>> 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?
>
> No, because it's not a variable without limit.
>
>> 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.
>
> So you reject the many posts to this newsgroup stating that greater
> than 300 ft-lb rated air wrenches would not break the bolt free? These
> people all were using wrenches whose rating was far less than what was
> advertised for the tool?
>
> You disbelieve the folks who estimate the force they use to break it
> free, using their body weight at a distance of X from the centerline
> of the bolt?



Of course not. As I stated before, it is common knowledge that the force
needed to overcome /static/ friction is far greater than the original
tightening torque. Add corrosion to that, and you've got yourself a real
pickle.

Not all bolts get that tight, either. Mine (originally tightened to 130 ft
lbs) came loose easily with a 250lb electric impact gun.

And you cannot use your theory to explain why crank bolts are equally as
hard to undo on engines that run so as to LOOSEN the crank bolt, which is
pretty much all engines other than Hondas.


<snip>


Your assertion is wrong, Elle. Completely and utterly. That bolt does NOT
turn after final torquing. It cannot and it does not.

I'm adding a paragraph to my link to your page to warn people of your
misinformation.


--
TeGGeR®

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

"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); 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?

> Your statements make no sense.

If you're a relative layperson to certain engineering topics, then they'll
be hard to digest on the first go-around.

> There is NO fastener on the car that is asked to
> stretch to a new torque figure AFTER final user torqe has been applied by
> the user. NONE. Not even connecting rod bolts, which undergo the highest
> stresses of ANY bolt on ANY car.

What I think you're missing is that the alternative is to put the bolt on so
that the rotation of the engine loosened it. And that I believe the engine
would, all else being equal, on these Hondas.

> There was no such thing when Honda built my car or yours. 11.9 was the
> highest Metric bolt strength went. 10.9 is /not/ something you can buy at
a
> corner hardware store. It's equivalent to SAE Grade-8. That is, aircraft
> grade.

Now that's enough. Soon I will post photos at my site showing the two grade
8 bolts that my pulley holder tool uses, including the six marks on the top
that show them to be Grade 8. I bought these at my corner hardware store,
which happens to be True Value. And they were expensive, as far as bolts go,
as one might expect.

You don't know that these bolts are not special order.

> >> 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?
> >
> > No, because it's not a variable without limit.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > So you reject the many posts to this newsgroup stating that greater
> > than 300 ft-lb rated air wrenches would not break the bolt free? These
> > people all were using wrenches whose rating was far less than what was
> > advertised for the tool?
> >
> > You disbelieve the folks who estimate the force they use to break it
> > free, using their body weight at a distance of X from the centerline
> > of the bolt?
>
>
>
> Of course not. As I stated before, it is common knowledge that the force
> needed to overcome /static/ friction is far greater than the original
> tightening torque. Add corrosion to that, and you've got yourself a real
> pickle.
>
> Not all bolts get that tight, either. Mine (originally tightened to 130 ft
> lbs) came loose easily with a 250lb electric impact gun.

If you loosen it regularly, this wouldn't surprise me.

> And you cannot use your theory to explain why crank bolts are equally as
> hard to undo on engines that run so as to LOOSEN the crank bolt, which is
> pretty much all engines other than Hondas.

Jim says otherwise.

>
> <snip>
>
>
> Your assertion is wrong, Elle. Completely and utterly. That bolt does NOT
> turn after final torquing. It cannot and it does not.

Funny how you didn't address my points re the key connecting the pulley and
shaft, but not the pulley/shaft and bolt.

I think the thread speaks for itself at this point.

If you are going to deride my site beyond saying you have a different
opinion on the manner in which the bolt becomes so tight, then I think it
would be best if you didn't link my page to yours. Because you're just
reproducing Usenet drivel by deriding my position.

OTOH, since the goal is to help DIYers etc., if you want to redo the
information that is at my page and present it as your own, I will take no
offense.

I said I wouldn't criticize further unless I came up with an alternative. I
think I've kept up my end of the deal. You are of course free to reject my
alternative.

> 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?
>

Sorry to jump in, but if you heat something, it gets bigger in all
directions. Think about how a ring gear would fit to a flywheel, you
heat it and it gets bigger so it will drop on, it does NOT just get
wider (as opposed to bigger diameter) which is the implication of what
you are saying. Heat a bolt and it gets bigger.

However if it's a long bolt the percentage expansion will be the same in
all directions, but the actual length change in inches (or mm) will be
greater along the long axis. So when it cools the shrinkage is more
along its length - as an amount NOT as a percentage. So of course the
axial load will increase.

Torque is not what the designer wants, he/she wants axial load. This is
virtually impossible to measure & control in a manufacturing situation,
hence the need to correlate axial load against torque, and therefore to
control torque.

"Bozo" > wrote
E
> > 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?

> However if it's a long

Make this "long enough," for the sake of a bit more precision in this
discussion.

> bolt the percentage expansion will be the same in
> all directions, but the actual length change in inches (or mm) will be
> greater along the long axis. So when it cools the shrinkage is more
> along its length - as an amount NOT as a percentage. So of course the
> axial load will increase.

Correct.

> Torque is not what the designer wants, he/she wants axial load. is is
> virtually impossible to measure & control

axial load in

> a manufacturing situation,
> hence the need to correlate axial load against torque, and therefore to
> control torque.

With the change above, agreed.

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.

Grade 8 bolts at my local True Value are in bins accessible to all customers
and are not special order.

If I can quickly figure out the new camera I bought this morning, I'll throw
some photos up at the site, FWIW.

"Elle" > wrote in
news
> "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.

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. But even that does not involve tightening
AFTER the final torque figure is achieved by the install procedure.

Also, There are no such bolts on Hondas.



>
>> Your statements make no sense.
>
> If you're a relative layperson to certain engineering topics, then
> they'll be hard to digest on the first go-around.



Your misunderstanding of the reason for oil on the threads does not say
much for your engineeering knowledge either.



>
>> There is NO fastener on the car that is asked to
>> stretch to a new torque figure AFTER final user torqe has been
>> applied by the user. NONE. Not even connecting rod bolts, which
>> undergo the highest stresses of ANY bolt on ANY car.
>
> What I think you're missing is that the alternative is to put the bolt
> on so that the rotation of the engine loosened it. And that I believe
> the engine would, all else being equal, on these Hondas.



That describes most other engines on the road! You've never tried to remove
a pulley bolt on one of those, that's clear.




>
>> There was no such thing when Honda built my car or yours. 11.9 was
>> the highest Metric bolt strength went. 10.9 is /not/ something you
>> can buy at
> a
>> corner hardware store. It's equivalent to SAE Grade-8. That is,
>> aircraft grade.
>
> Now that's enough. Soon I will post photos at my site showing the two
> grade 8 bolts that my pulley holder tool uses, including the six marks
> on the top that show them to be Grade 8. I bought these at my corner
> hardware store, which happens to be True Value. And they were
> expensive, as far as bolts go, as one might expect.



Yeah, but can you buy them /loose/ at True Value? I'm not gonna buy a
pulley holder just so can get the bolts from it.

Home Depot and places like that go up to SAE Grade-3 on loose bolts.




>
> You don't know that these bolts are not special order.
>
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> > No, because it's not a variable without limit.
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > So you reject the many posts to this newsgroup stating that greater
>> > than 300 ft-lb rated air wrenches would not break the bolt free?
>> > These people all were using wrenches whose rating was far less than
>> > what was advertised for the tool?
>> >
>> > You disbelieve the folks who estimate the force they use to break
>> > it free, using their body weight at a distance of X from the
>> > centerline of the bolt?
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course not. As I stated before, it is common knowledge that the
>> force needed to overcome /static/ friction is far greater than the
>> original tightening torque. Add corrosion to that, and you've got
>> yourself a real pickle.
>>
>> Not all bolts get that tight, either. Mine (originally tightened to
>> 130 ft lbs) came loose easily with a 250lb electric impact gun.
>
> If you loosen it regularly, this wouldn't surprise me.



I don't. Just for the timing belt.



>
>> And you cannot use your theory to explain why crank bolts are equally
>> as hard to undo on engines that run so as to LOOSEN the crank bolt,
>> which is pretty much all engines other than Hondas.
>
> Jim says otherwise.



I say other-otherwise.



>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Your assertion is wrong, Elle. Completely and utterly. That bolt does
>> NOT turn after final torquing. It cannot and it does not.
>
> Funny how you didn't address my points re the key connecting the
> pulley and shaft, but not the pulley/shaft and bolt.



What? Better rephrase that one.



>
> I think the thread speaks for itself at this point.
>
> If you are going to deride my site beyond saying you have a different
> opinion on the manner in which the bolt becomes so tight, then I think
> it would be best if you didn't link my page to yours. Because you're
> just reproducing Usenet drivel by deriding my position.



I am not "deriding" it, I am /refuting/ it. And refuting it by offering
reasons for my disagreement.

You, on the other hand, are calling me ignorant (the slug wrench thing),
and are accusing me of things I haven't done.



>
> OTOH, since the goal is to help DIYers etc., if you want to redo the
> information that is at my page and present it as your own, I will take
> no offense.



Why would I do that?


>
> I said I wouldn't criticize further unless I came up with an
> alternative. I think I've kept up my end of the deal. You are of
> course free to reject my alternative.



I haven't. I've just rejected the assertion that there exists a non-
existent phenomenon. Everything else was fine, as I stated.



--
TeGGeR®

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

"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.



>
> 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.



--
TeGGeR®

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