Crank Scraper received and installed
12-11-2005, 01:54 AM
#46
Developer
Thread Starter
For example, Carl sells oil pan gaskets that are approximately 1/2 the thickness of the stock items. This reduces available height in the pan area by ~2mm and the longitudinal shields on either side of the windage tray may have to be adjusted.
Kevin - thank you for mentioning the steel alloy - glad to hear that it is a step up from mild steel. I have been happy with your welds, rivet-bolts and construction.
Red - you'll find that the oil pan gasket from us is very reusable, you will not need another one.
You may have seen the thread elsewhere about the new thicker oil pan gasket for the 928... I went the other way when designing ours. Making a thicker gasket is usually the first thing folks think of and it is usually wrong.
The reason you think you want a thicker gasket is the old one leaked, you tried to re-torque the oil pan bolts, you over-tightened the oil pan bolts, that warped the oil pan sealing surface, and now you want a thicker gasket - which in turn will warp the oil pan sealing surface even more when you torque over the top of that mushy gasket.
Better is to turn your oil pan upside down on a hard, smooth, flat surface and check it for warpage at the gasket area. Use a nylon mallet or a block of wood and a hammer to nudge it flat again. Use a thinner gasket made from better material (like ours) and put Loctite blue on the oil pan bolt threads so they retain their clamping force thru many heat cycles. If using a gasket sealer in addition to the gasket (I still love Permatex Form-a-Gasket on oil pans) - it is recommended to only apply it to the side of the removable part.
Last edited by Carl Fausett; 12-11-2005 at 10:11 AM.
12-11-2005, 03:16 AM
#47
Drifting
Carl,
Does that apply even if I installed my pan gasket with yamabond? I haven't even put oil in the pan yet. I'm dreading having to clean all of that crap off. Either way, I think I am going to do this and replace my (brand new) rack bushings with some of your solid bushings while I'm in there. Also, I need to replace my upper CA bushings with some poly's... your PDF file on installed them was down yesterday when I checked, so you might want to look at that. You have TOO much new stuff that I want to buy!
Sorry for the thread Hijack... back to the program. Kevin, look for an order coming from me sometime either this month or in the coming months for a system with teflon. The product looks awesome, and thanks for answering the questions thoroughly.
Does that apply even if I installed my pan gasket with yamabond? I haven't even put oil in the pan yet. I'm dreading having to clean all of that crap off. Either way, I think I am going to do this and replace my (brand new) rack bushings with some of your solid bushings while I'm in there. Also, I need to replace my upper CA bushings with some poly's... your PDF file on installed them was down yesterday when I checked, so you might want to look at that. You have TOO much new stuff that I want to buy!
Sorry for the thread Hijack... back to the program. Kevin, look for an order coming from me sometime either this month or in the coming months for a system with teflon. The product looks awesome, and thanks for answering the questions thoroughly.
12-11-2005, 10:20 AM
#48
Developer
Thread Starter
Thank you for your business and support, Red.
We had a lot of hits on our FTP server yesterday, downloading installation manuals and catalogs and such. I noticed several connections were "stuck" and gave them a nudge. Please try to download the installation instructions again.
Here is the link: http://www.928m.com/install.html
If you put Yammabond on both sides of the gasket - I bet you're buying a new gasket. Next time, put the Yammabond between the oil pan and the gasket, and use nothing on the other side between the gasket and the block.
It won't leak - and you'll find the gasket stays with the pan the next time you remove the pan.
We had a lot of hits on our FTP server yesterday, downloading installation manuals and catalogs and such. I noticed several connections were "stuck" and gave them a nudge. Please try to download the installation instructions again.
Here is the link: http://www.928m.com/install.html
If you put Yammabond on both sides of the gasket - I bet you're buying a new gasket. Next time, put the Yammabond between the oil pan and the gasket, and use nothing on the other side between the gasket and the block.
It won't leak - and you'll find the gasket stays with the pan the next time you remove the pan.
12-11-2005, 02:02 PM
#49
Under the Lift
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Yammabond cleans off with carb cleaner.
Carl, have you actually seen pan warps from the torque? I didn't think anyone ever torqued these bolts much at all, even if you could. What seems to happen is people keep finding the bolts loose with no torque as the gasket compresses and they retighten over and over never developing much torque or stopping the leak as the old gasket gives way. I don't think thick or thin is the prinicple issue, as long as you have a resilient gasket. You make it sound like the factory gasket is a complete design failure. Most of the time they last 10-15 years. My new one is fine after 3 years. The replacements haven't been used long enough to establish if they have any real advantage. I'm all for trying new stuff, solid rack bushings, for example, I just don't think the new gasket should be given panacea status just yet.
Carl, have you actually seen pan warps from the torque? I didn't think anyone ever torqued these bolts much at all, even if you could. What seems to happen is people keep finding the bolts loose with no torque as the gasket compresses and they retighten over and over never developing much torque or stopping the leak as the old gasket gives way. I don't think thick or thin is the prinicple issue, as long as you have a resilient gasket. You make it sound like the factory gasket is a complete design failure. Most of the time they last 10-15 years. My new one is fine after 3 years. The replacements haven't been used long enough to establish if they have any real advantage. I'm all for trying new stuff, solid rack bushings, for example, I just don't think the new gasket should be given panacea status just yet.
12-11-2005, 02:43 PM
#50
Rennlist Member
Mr. Gasket used to sell a kit for the SBC motors to replace the pan bolts with studs, and then use nyloc(?) nuts to hold the pan on. Any reason why this would be reasonable to do on the 928 motor with a composite as opposed to cork gasket? It's not like you're going to be able to slide the pan out from between the motor and the cross member anyway right?
12-11-2005, 03:18 PM
#51
Developer
Thread Starter
From Porsche's perspective - if the OEM gasket lasted 10 years, it is a complete success.
But, it was cork gasket, and cork gaskets work in harmony with petroleum products - they swell up in the prescence of oil, and that helps them seal.
They also, over time, dry out and crack and loose their elasticity.
Now turn the clock forward 20 years.
An engine with cork gaskets switches from mineral based motor-oil to synthetic.
The synthetic oil does not cause the old gaskets to swell, plus the advanced capillary action of the synthetic and smaller molecular structure causes it to get thru spaces that used to be seals. Ergo - old motors on new synthetic oils that used to be dry and now leak. Pretty common.
The direction the industry is going - (it isn't just my suggestion) is gasketless.
The GASKET is usually the problem. If the machining were good enough, you could mate two metal surfaces up with a very thin bead of almost nothing and it would never leak. Case in point: the PermaBond Orange used to mate the top and bottom halves of the 928 crankcase. No gasket there - and no leaks either.
Think about it - the only times you see leaks is thru a gasket. This is why more and more engines are gasketless. O-Rings, locking T and locking V interfaces and the like.
The only reason to have a thick gasket is that the two surfaces are so irregular as to require it. By doing so, you are buying time and borrowing trouble.
The thick gasket is a band-aid.... the better correction is to straighten or mill the surfaces so that they are right again. On the 928 engine - the two surfaces are very straight and true - there was no sloppy casting here at least.
Thick gaskets also prevent getting a true and accurate torque by their very nature... the bolt in the middle between any group of three bolts is now loose again, and the ability to get an accurate final torque is just a guessing game.
Yes, I have personally seen 928 oil pan bolts torqued tight enough that I could shine a flashlight between them and the workbench and see it. Its an aluminum flange (albeit a thick one) bolting up to an casting. It isnt that hard to warp.
You are better off to 1) make sure the gasketing surfaces are flat and clean 2) go with a thinner, gasket made from modern material (not cork) 3) a thin coat of a bonding agent 4) torque the fasteners to spec using loctite blue on the threads.
But, it was cork gasket, and cork gaskets work in harmony with petroleum products - they swell up in the prescence of oil, and that helps them seal.
They also, over time, dry out and crack and loose their elasticity.
Now turn the clock forward 20 years.
An engine with cork gaskets switches from mineral based motor-oil to synthetic.
The synthetic oil does not cause the old gaskets to swell, plus the advanced capillary action of the synthetic and smaller molecular structure causes it to get thru spaces that used to be seals. Ergo - old motors on new synthetic oils that used to be dry and now leak. Pretty common.
The direction the industry is going - (it isn't just my suggestion) is gasketless.
The GASKET is usually the problem. If the machining were good enough, you could mate two metal surfaces up with a very thin bead of almost nothing and it would never leak. Case in point: the PermaBond Orange used to mate the top and bottom halves of the 928 crankcase. No gasket there - and no leaks either.
Think about it - the only times you see leaks is thru a gasket. This is why more and more engines are gasketless. O-Rings, locking T and locking V interfaces and the like.
The only reason to have a thick gasket is that the two surfaces are so irregular as to require it. By doing so, you are buying time and borrowing trouble.
The thick gasket is a band-aid.... the better correction is to straighten or mill the surfaces so that they are right again. On the 928 engine - the two surfaces are very straight and true - there was no sloppy casting here at least.
Thick gaskets also prevent getting a true and accurate torque by their very nature... the bolt in the middle between any group of three bolts is now loose again, and the ability to get an accurate final torque is just a guessing game.
Yes, I have personally seen 928 oil pan bolts torqued tight enough that I could shine a flashlight between them and the workbench and see it. Its an aluminum flange (albeit a thick one) bolting up to an casting. It isnt that hard to warp.
You are better off to 1) make sure the gasketing surfaces are flat and clean 2) go with a thinner, gasket made from modern material (not cork) 3) a thin coat of a bonding agent 4) torque the fasteners to spec using loctite blue on the threads.
12-11-2005, 03:25 PM
#52
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by atb
Mr. Gasket used to sell a kit for the SBC motors to replace the pan bolts with studs, and then use nyloc(?) nuts to hold the pan on. Any reason why this would be reasonable to do on the 928 motor with a composite as opposed to cork gasket? It's not like you're going to be able to slide the pan out from between the motor and the cross member anyway right?
12-11-2005, 03:32 PM
#53
Developer
Thread Starter
Mr. Gasket used to sell a kit for the SBC motors to replace the pan bolts with studs, and then use nyloc(?) nuts to hold the pan on. Any reason why this would be reasonable to do on the 928 motor with a composite as opposed to cork gasket? It's not like you're going to be able to slide the pan out from between the motor and the cross member anyway right?
Studs are stronger than bolts and give a truer torque. Thats important in hi-clamping force applications (Heads, Main Bearing cradles...)
But even more importantly here.... you can only run a steel bolt into an aluminum block so many times before the threads in the alluminum will pull out. So - you install a stud into the aluminum once with loctite red, and then the nuts go on-and-ff as many times as you like - that's a steel-on-steel nut-on-stud mate, and much more durable.
12-11-2005, 03:47 PM
#54
Rennlist Member
The Mr. G kits used studs that were notched on one end, so that you could use a flat tip screw driver to do the initial stud insertion. If you could put together a stud kit with studs like that, you can sign me up for a set right now. 
12-12-2005, 01:32 AM
#56
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Allen hole = set screws. Use stainless steel though!
I used a plain steel set screw as a replacement for one of my water pump bolts. After a year of service, when I went to remove the nut, the stud broke off at the bottom of the allen hole. It had rusted through the thin wall!
I used a plain steel set screw as a replacement for one of my water pump bolts. After a year of service, when I went to remove the nut, the stud broke off at the bottom of the allen hole. It had rusted through the thin wall!
Originally Posted by Sterling
Some of the smaller metric studs are available with a allen hole so you could use allen sockets to screw them in..... preferrably cad plated with & a nylock nut with a washer built in....
12-12-2005, 11:48 AM
#57
928 Collector
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Ken I have started replacing fasteners in critical locations with stainless too. Kevin, agreed the male allen would be preferable, ie stronger. Once installed, there is no weakness as opposed to something with a hole in the tip.
12-12-2005, 03:51 PM
#58
Developer
Thread Starter
Stainless fasteners are terribly weak and have no place in any critical application.
Stainless is low-shear, low torque, and moderate in tension.
Their only claim to fame is their phenomenal corrsosion resistance.
Engine builders won't touch 'em. The show car guys like them here and there.
I think Stainless makes a helluva street exhaust pipe, but its too heavy to go racing with.
I would strongly suggest that you never use stainless fasteners on any critical application, unless
you have the ability to over-size them or over-number them to bring the clamping force and strength of the mount up to spec.
Oil pan bolts in stainless? This is such a low-torque, non-critical application that you'd probably get away with it. Still, stainless is a bear to drill, so when you twist off the SS oil pan bolt you will not be having a good day trying to drill the remainder and back it out.
Stainless is low-shear, low torque, and moderate in tension.
Their only claim to fame is their phenomenal corrsosion resistance.
Engine builders won't touch 'em. The show car guys like them here and there.
I think Stainless makes a helluva street exhaust pipe, but its too heavy to go racing with.
I would strongly suggest that you never use stainless fasteners on any critical application, unless
you have the ability to over-size them or over-number them to bring the clamping force and strength of the mount up to spec.
Oil pan bolts in stainless? This is such a low-torque, non-critical application that you'd probably get away with it. Still, stainless is a bear to drill, so when you twist off the SS oil pan bolt you will not be having a good day trying to drill the remainder and back it out.
12-12-2005, 04:03 PM
#59
I used stainless water bridge bolts and fasteners for my 4.5L build. Also on the intake manifold. I think stuff like that is fine. That and antiseize will make anyone in 7 years taking it apart pray to your good health.
Stuff like cam cover bolts, belt cover, stainless clamps, can all be great.
Stuff like cam cover bolts, belt cover, stainless clamps, can all be great.
12-12-2005, 04:18 PM
#60
928 Collector
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Yes i already have stainless anywhere corrosion may be a problem. Just like Brendan. I don't need any real torque into the aluminium engine anyway, our engines' torque values are teeny. I'd rather use stainless than anything that will fuse into the block and I think we've got hundreds of 928's out there with helicoiled or drilled bolt holes all over the engine because of porsche's use of noncorrosion-resistant fasteners. YMMV, but for me I have gone stainless.