Date:         Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:56:19 -0500
Reply-To:     Jim Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: What torque for 2.1 rod nuts?
Comments: To: Evan Mac Donald <vanagon_dad@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To:  <45212.88367.qm@web83727.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Evan,

No, my rod ends are round. My problem is from head failure, not crank or rod
failure.

Jim

On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Evan Mac Donald <vanagon_dad@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
>