Date:         Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:42:53 -0700
Reply-To:     Doug in CA <vanagon@ASTOUND.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Doug in CA <vanagon@ASTOUND.NET>
Subject:      Re: main bearing torque
Comments: To: Eric Zeno <vw4x4@FYI.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Keep in mind the alloy case will have a greater rate of expansion as it
heats up than the steel studs.
How tight will they be when the engine is running along at 180 degrees?

I would not go more than 10%

Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Zeno" <vw4x4@FYI.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: main bearing torque


>   My Bentley states,  case halves: large 22 FT/lb,   small 15 ft/lb
>   sound wrong to me also....  22 ft/lb is nothing...
>             Eric                   86-VW4x4
>             vw4x4@fyi.net          86-SS Syncro
>             Pittsburgh, PA USA     1936-Chrysler
>                                    92-Jetta GWC
>             www.fyi.net/~vw4x4/vw4x4.htm
>
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Mark Seifert wrote:
>
> > What is the torque spec for the main bearings on a 2.1 waterboxer(the 4
cap
> > nuts inside the water jacket, and the two nuts on the outside?) The
manual
> > that I have (NOT Bentley) says 22 lbs/ft. This doesn't seem like it's
tight
> > enough. I expect to receive ridicule for trying to rebuild a waterboxer
> > without the Bentley manual, but I've made it this far without it...so if
> > anyone could take the time to look it up for me, I would greatly
appreciate
> > it.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Tax headache? MSN Money provides relief with tax tips, tools, IRS forms
and
> > more! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/workshop/welcome.asp
> >