Date:         Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:45:21 -0700
Reply-To:     Tom Young <young@SHERLOCK.SIMS.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Tom Young <young@SHERLOCK.SIMS.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject:      What's the correct torque here??
Comments: To: type2@type2.com
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hey all:

You gotta love the manuals; so clear, so carefully researched, so exact,
with typos and mistakes that might hurt you or your car ruthlessly expunged.

So, I'm in the process of attaching the engine support to one of the 2.0l
engines I'm rebuilding, and I look in Wilson's book for the correct
torque to use here.  (The engine support is that cast aluminium thing to
which you attach the rubber engine mounts which then attach to the steel
engine carrier.)  Wilson says (pg 150) "14 ft./lbs." which seems a little
low for an 8mm bolt, but I go ahead and use that.

Since I'm bothered by the low torque Wilson specs, I look in my old
Clymer manual for the aircooled Vanagons and it too says 14 ft./lbs.  So,
that 14 ft./lbs. has got to be right, right?

But then I look in the Benteley (pg 13.5) and it says 33 ft./lbs.!  Quite
a bit more than 14 ft./lbs.  Mindfull that sometimes manuals contain
mistakes (NO!!) I take a look in my Haynes manual (pg 26) which also
opines that 33 ft./lbs. is the right torque to use here.

Anybody else have an opinion?  Take an average of the manuals and use
23.5 ft./lbs.??

As always, TIA.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Young               young@sherlock.SIMS.Berkeley.EDU
Lafayette, CA  94549    '81 Vanagon
---------------------------------------------------------------------