Date:         Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:18:49 -0700
Reply-To:     Evan Mac Donald <vanagon_dad@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Evan Mac Donald <vanagon_dad@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Re: What torque for 2.1 rod nuts?
Comments: To: Jim Felder <jim.felder@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <4d1b79350807051157k311c227ep4484db0879664ec2@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

No, they do not need to be new, or replaced every time, because they are not usually "one-use-only", stretch-type bolts, like the stock 2.1 rod bolts are. But I don't know if the torque spec should be from the deisel, or the 2.1. Neither is probably right in this application.

  ...And just a thought - did you get your rods rebuilt before reassembly? 2.1 rods fail because they can't keep oil on the bearing surfaces, because they are out-of-round. The oil space tolerance should be constant, and that can't happen if the big end hole is egg-shaped.

Jim Felder <jim.felder@gmail.com> wrote:
  About the diesel rod bolt... I have plenty of those. Do they need to be new, as well? I haven't replaced them in the diesels I've rebuilt.

Jim

  On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Evan Mac Donald <vanagon_dad@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
  The word from our esteemed expert on things VW, Boston Bob, and several other engine experts besides, is DO NOT REUSE your old bolts! And, do not use "regular" 2.1 bolts, either. Unless you are trying to create a grenade on purpose.

 The much-discussed, and generally-agreed weak point for 2.1 engines in general, and rods in particular, is the cap bolts. Replacing with 1.9 type bolts should be considered a minimum fix, with the best choice being diesel rod bolts. The torque recomendations for those choices I am not remembering right off the top of my head, but I know that the references are readily available. Somebody else who is reading along can probably help out here....


Jim Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
 1990 2.1.

Do others always replace them?

And is it 33 ft/lb, or 33 ft/lb plus 1.2 turn?


Thanks,

Jim