Cometic MLS Gaskets - Those in the Know
06-06-2007, 02:27 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by 90 S-4
I wish I could have used a oem 968 gasket, but as my bore is 108.9 I had no choice but to go
aftermarket.
aftermarket.
06-06-2007, 02:33 PM
#17
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Mike Simard
Erkka, here's a set of custom 109mm Cometics, do they have what you need?
06-06-2007, 03:00 PM
#18
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by SwayBar
Joe, my engine uses Cometic gaskets, and it has not leaked one drop. As you know, Todd's da man!
06-06-2007, 05:58 PM
#19
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrendanC
Thats funny that you have no machine shop to suggest here in SoCal, the empire of cool cars and car people. I feel the same way.
Interesting read:
http://www.engine-builder.com/ar/406HeadBlock.pdf
Interesting read:
http://www.engine-builder.com/ar/406HeadBlock.pdf
Brendan, thanks for the link. I'm now exploring their site - lots of delicious information.
Liberated from one of the articles on the main page:
Originally Posted by engine-builderdotcom
"Head-Bolts
One of the other benefits or reasons OEMs like to use MLS gaskets is so they can reduce the amount of head torque that is required, say gasket experts. When you reduce the amount of clamp load your head movement will go up a little but the benefit, especially with lightweight castings, is a reduced amount of head bolt torque that will in turn reduce the amount of bore distortion. That's very important to the OEs, say experts, because obviously, the rounder the bore is, the better ring seal and better emissions level result. This is a big reason OEs use the MLS along with the lighter weight castings.
But it's not just the case at the "boring" OE level...several NASCAR teams have discovered this as well: by reducing the amount of torque you have less bore distortion, which produces a little more horsepower. For NASCAR teams a little horsepower is a lot.
Experts say that OEs are starting to move away from torque to yield (TTY) bolts to a more reliable torque to angle (TTA) head bolt. With TTY, when you tighten the bolt, it is stretched to just below the breaking point of the bolt (yield). With TTA the bolt is still stretched, but to a lower limit. So the TTA bolts are less stressed than the TTY bolts. Most people refer to all head bolts as TTY but technically the initial trend was to stretch to just before failure point.
Nowadays, many manufacturers aren't going that far because of the obvious risks. The bolts are still designed the same (longer and skinnier in the middle) and it may only take a quarter turn to get the bolt up to the proper angle, which sets the desired clamp load. With TTA and TTY bolts, friction is taken out of the equation. Threads that are not uniform or cleaned, or have not enough or too much lubrication may cause frictional differences in the bolt torque resulting in uneven, inconsistent clamp load.
One of the other benefits or reasons OEMs like to use MLS gaskets is so they can reduce the amount of head torque that is required, say gasket experts. When you reduce the amount of clamp load your head movement will go up a little but the benefit, especially with lightweight castings, is a reduced amount of head bolt torque that will in turn reduce the amount of bore distortion. That's very important to the OEs, say experts, because obviously, the rounder the bore is, the better ring seal and better emissions level result. This is a big reason OEs use the MLS along with the lighter weight castings.
But it's not just the case at the "boring" OE level...several NASCAR teams have discovered this as well: by reducing the amount of torque you have less bore distortion, which produces a little more horsepower. For NASCAR teams a little horsepower is a lot.
Experts say that OEs are starting to move away from torque to yield (TTY) bolts to a more reliable torque to angle (TTA) head bolt. With TTY, when you tighten the bolt, it is stretched to just below the breaking point of the bolt (yield). With TTA the bolt is still stretched, but to a lower limit. So the TTA bolts are less stressed than the TTY bolts. Most people refer to all head bolts as TTY but technically the initial trend was to stretch to just before failure point.
Nowadays, many manufacturers aren't going that far because of the obvious risks. The bolts are still designed the same (longer and skinnier in the middle) and it may only take a quarter turn to get the bolt up to the proper angle, which sets the desired clamp load. With TTA and TTY bolts, friction is taken out of the equation. Threads that are not uniform or cleaned, or have not enough or too much lubrication may cause frictional differences in the bolt torque resulting in uneven, inconsistent clamp load.
06-06-2007, 06:08 PM
#20
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I wonder how ARP head studs play into this JEC.
06-06-2007, 06:56 PM
#21
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by BrendanC
People will always want to stick with the original stuff, because of the mere fact that it IS the original stuff. But the point is that the OEM Japanese Car manufacturers have been usuing MLS gaskets since the early 90s at least.
The RA of the sealing surfaces need to be, realistically, WAY "smoother" than what is required for the "matrix" type stock head gaskets that are essentially 40 year old technology.
It may be a shock to some, but new things many times DO work, but the proceedures by which they are used must be changed. Hence the article I posted about new and much updated "surfaced Prep" proceedures.
It seems as though that if you can't see yourself and comb your hair in the reflection on the deck surface and the head sealing surface, you need more work on that area to install these things dry.
Its also a point of interest that Honda and Toyota, the main automakers, I believe, that have used these "new fangled" MLS gaskets in thier cars for 17 years now at least, have the same open deck or similar design as we do.
And when I mentioned that I was usuing ARP head studs to the Tech at Cometic with thier gaskets, he said a very quick and somehow relieved sounding "Good!"
The RA of the sealing surfaces need to be, realistically, WAY "smoother" than what is required for the "matrix" type stock head gaskets that are essentially 40 year old technology.
It may be a shock to some, but new things many times DO work, but the proceedures by which they are used must be changed. Hence the article I posted about new and much updated "surfaced Prep" proceedures.
It seems as though that if you can't see yourself and comb your hair in the reflection on the deck surface and the head sealing surface, you need more work on that area to install these things dry.
Its also a point of interest that Honda and Toyota, the main automakers, I believe, that have used these "new fangled" MLS gaskets in thier cars for 17 years now at least, have the same open deck or similar design as we do.
And when I mentioned that I was usuing ARP head studs to the Tech at Cometic with thier gaskets, he said a very quick and somehow relieved sounding "Good!"
From my perspective, and this is not necessarily shared, I'm interested in the most cost effective solution. This is going to be a function of the cost compared to the reliability and longevity of that solution.
I have Cometic gaskets on my car, and I haven't really had any problems (although I probably have a little seepage, because I get a low coolant light once or twice a year). Had I had the foresight to ask, I would have been delighted to hear that Mark Anderson-like results could be obtained by using factory or factory-modified parts, which also were probably less expensive.
And though nobody has asked me to speak on his behalf, I think Greg was simply sharing his thoughts about a wealth of experience he's developed by being at the epicenter of a lot of different versions and combinations of things. Through that experience comes some opinions about how to deliver cost effective solutions to customers, with the battle scars to justify those opinions.
The problem solving exercise about what to use in which application can be approached from two perspectives: Do you go with tried and true experience that is hard won through a lot of past trial and error, or do you take the risk with adopting a different approach that may well be better, but might not be easy to use, or easily understood.
I think as individuals we have a lot more flexibility about trying something new, because if it screws up, we have only ourselves to blame (or congratulate if it works). Many of us find the process itself rewarding, regardless of outcome, and don't mind failure as a cost of tuition and education.
A business doesn't always share the same kind of perspective--they're being asked to recommend something, based on their experience, that will satisfy a client. Many people don't have the budget--or patience--to deal with the consequences of a failed experiment. And the shopowner doesn't want to deal with nagging, unhappy customers. So the most practicalsolutions end up being proposed.
In managing people's money for a living, I often tell people that they likely could generate higher returns on their own than what I'm going to be able to. Because my mission is to avoid major screwups, not hit home runs. But if the clients are able to avoid at least one major screwup than their neighbor (or they themselves) is going to make, they end up farther ahead in the long run with me doing it.
As a businessperson, it's more of an appreciation of trying to minimize things that can go wrong (having seen so much of it) than being enamored with how things might be a little bit better if nothing does go wrong, with no appreciation for how low the probability of such an idealized oucome actually is.
My point is, you asked for advice from people in the know about their experience with MLS gaskets--and you got some thoughts from someone with an awful lot of experience--who said you can get as much or more reliability from using something that is less speculative, probably less costly, and if it fails does so in a way that acts as a safety valve against more extensive damage.
Judging from the use of "quotation marks" to make "certain points" about "choices" and the underlying "reasoning," it seems to me that the courtesy of that reply was met with some hostility and defensiveness because it did not jibe with the choices you have made or the research you have done. And I don't think that is constructive for any dialogue.
When I was first referred to Greg's shop, I had no appreciation for the godlike reputation he seems to have in certain circles. On the flip side, it seems like a lot of his responses in the 928 forum are vilified. Personally, I don't find his responses to be particularly controversial, but if I were him, I'd be rethinking whether it was rewarding to participate in the ongoing dialogue, and I think the absence of his input--which is already less frequent than I, frankly, would like--would be a loss to the community.
Sorry for being off topic. I have Cometic gaskets on my car, but my mechanic doesn't really like them.
06-06-2007, 07:08 PM
#22
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
We use 968 gaskets on the 104mm engines. We have been doing this for years. They take quite a bit of modification, in order to work properly....that is the only downside. Mark Anderson has never had any other type of gasket in his engine....and it gets driven pretty hard. Certainly, the "fire" ring of this gasket is more fragile than the Cometic gasket. Detonation will break the "fire" ring in half and cause combustion to go places it is not intended to be. However, this is not all a bad thing. If a 928 engine detonates very much, the stock soft (intended for street use) rod bearings will fail very quickly. Whenever we have had an engine detonate enough to hurt the head gasket, the rod bearings will have always pounded enough to loose their "crush" in the rod. They will spin fairly soon after they get pounded. Failure to address this shows up as a large vent in the side of the block, with hot steel parts laying in the street. I'd rather have to replace a head gasket, personally.
....
gb
....
gb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Originally Posted by BrendanC
I wonder how ARP head studs play into this JEC.
Greg uses stock studs with sorta-stock (modded 968) gaskets - see other half of his quote below. His combination is proven on multiple engines, long term and hard use.
Adam used Cometic with lots of copper spray and special attention to curing, and stock head bolts. The results are good short term so far.
Mike Simard, what studs are you planning on using?
Brendan your best bet is the fact that the Cometic tech approved of your ARP studs.
I don't even want to dwelve into the whole toque-distortion-horespower issue from that article I posted. Too many variables.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
...
For what it is worth, we were fairly big into the 944 Turbo market for years. We built many, many of these engines. The Raceware/ARP hardware thing never worked for us either. I literally have boxes full of this stuff that we took out of engines. The stock head studs, with the correct nuts, worked better than anything else. Seems that the stock studs streatched over a bigger dimension and this helped to keep the heads "clamped" onto the block as the boost increased. We use stock head bolts on all our 928 engines. We do buy new ones and don't try reusing the head bolts with 100,000 miles on them. The old bolts don't streatch very consistantly and should be re-used with caution, and certainly should never be reused on a high performance engine. You can keep track of what is happening with the stock bolts by keeping track of how many ft. lbs. it takes to rotate the bolt 90 degrees. Snap-on makes a torque wrench that keeps track of degrees of rotation and ft. lbs. at the same time, which makes this job easier to do.
gb
For what it is worth, we were fairly big into the 944 Turbo market for years. We built many, many of these engines. The Raceware/ARP hardware thing never worked for us either. I literally have boxes full of this stuff that we took out of engines. The stock head studs, with the correct nuts, worked better than anything else. Seems that the stock studs streatched over a bigger dimension and this helped to keep the heads "clamped" onto the block as the boost increased. We use stock head bolts on all our 928 engines. We do buy new ones and don't try reusing the head bolts with 100,000 miles on them. The old bolts don't streatch very consistantly and should be re-used with caution, and certainly should never be reused on a high performance engine. You can keep track of what is happening with the stock bolts by keeping track of how many ft. lbs. it takes to rotate the bolt 90 degrees. Snap-on makes a torque wrench that keeps track of degrees of rotation and ft. lbs. at the same time, which makes this job easier to do.
gb
Originally Posted by bd0nalds0n
...
Sorry for being off topic. I have Cometic gaskets on my car, but my mechanic doesn't really like them.
Sorry for being off topic. I have Cometic gaskets on my car, but my mechanic doesn't really like them.
06-06-2007, 07:12 PM
#23
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by bd0nalds0n
I don't have any skin in the debate here, but I thought there was a solicitation of thoughts about what other people's experience had been regarding a number of different things, and it seems like there is just a little bit of shoot the messenger going on.
From my perspective, and this is not necessarily shared, I'm interested in the most cost effective solution. This is going to be a function of the cost compared to the reliability and longevity of that solution.
I have Cometic gaskets on my car, and I haven't really had any problems (although I probably have a little seepage, because I get a low coolant light once or twice a year). Had I had the foresight to ask, I would have been delighted to hear that Mark Anderson-like results could be obtained by using factory or factory-modified parts, which also were probably less expensive.
And though nobody has asked me to speak on his behalf, I think Greg was simply sharing his thoughts about a wealth of experience he's developed by being at the epicenter of a lot of different versions and combinations of things. Through that experience comes some opinions about how to deliver cost effective solutions to customers, with the battle scars to justify those opinions.
The problem solving exercise about what to use in which application can be approached from two perspectives: Do you go with tried and true experience that is hard won through a lot of past trial and error, or do you take the risk with adopting a different approach that may well be better, but might not be easy to use, or easily understood.
I think as individuals we have a lot more flexibility about trying something new, because if it screws up, we have only ourselves to blame (or congratulate if it works). Many of us find the process itself rewarding, regardless of outcome, and don't mind failure as a cost of tuition and education.
A business doesn't always share the same kind of perspective--they're being asked to recommend something, based on their experience, that will satisfy a client. Many people don't have the budget--or patience--to deal with the consequences of a failed experiment. And the shopowner doesn't want to deal with nagging, unhappy customers. So the most practicalsolutions end up being proposed.
In managing people's money for a living, I often tell people that they likely could generate higher returns on their own than what I'm going to be able to. Because my mission is to avoid major screwups, not hit home runs. But if the clients are able to avoid at least one major screwup than their neighbor (or they themselves) is going to make, they end up farther ahead in the long run with me doing it.
As a businessperson, it's more of an appreciation of trying to minimize things that can go wrong (having seen so much of it) than being enamored with how things might be a little bit better if nothing does go wrong, with no appreciation for how low the probability of such an idealized oucome actually is.
My point is, you asked for advice from people in the know about their experience with MLS gaskets--and you got some thoughts from someone with an awful lot of experience--who said you can get as much or more reliability from using something that is less speculative, probably less costly, and if it fails does so in a way that acts as a safety valve against more extensive damage.
Judging from the use of "quotation marks" to make "certain points" about "choices" and the underlying "reasoning," it seems to me that the courtesy of that reply was met with some hostility and defensiveness because it did not jibe with the choices you have made or the research you have done. And I don't think that is constructive for any dialogue.
When I was first referred to Greg's shop, I had no appreciation for the godlike reputation he seems to have in certain circles. On the flip side, it seems like a lot of his responses in the 928 forum are vilified. Personally, I don't find his responses to be particularly controversial, but if I were him, I'd be rethinking whether it was rewarding to participate in the ongoing dialogue, and I think the absence of his input--which is already less frequent than I, frankly, would like--would be a loss to the community.
Sorry for being off topic. I have Cometic gaskets on my car, but my mechanic doesn't really like them.
From my perspective, and this is not necessarily shared, I'm interested in the most cost effective solution. This is going to be a function of the cost compared to the reliability and longevity of that solution.
I have Cometic gaskets on my car, and I haven't really had any problems (although I probably have a little seepage, because I get a low coolant light once or twice a year). Had I had the foresight to ask, I would have been delighted to hear that Mark Anderson-like results could be obtained by using factory or factory-modified parts, which also were probably less expensive.
And though nobody has asked me to speak on his behalf, I think Greg was simply sharing his thoughts about a wealth of experience he's developed by being at the epicenter of a lot of different versions and combinations of things. Through that experience comes some opinions about how to deliver cost effective solutions to customers, with the battle scars to justify those opinions.
The problem solving exercise about what to use in which application can be approached from two perspectives: Do you go with tried and true experience that is hard won through a lot of past trial and error, or do you take the risk with adopting a different approach that may well be better, but might not be easy to use, or easily understood.
I think as individuals we have a lot more flexibility about trying something new, because if it screws up, we have only ourselves to blame (or congratulate if it works). Many of us find the process itself rewarding, regardless of outcome, and don't mind failure as a cost of tuition and education.
A business doesn't always share the same kind of perspective--they're being asked to recommend something, based on their experience, that will satisfy a client. Many people don't have the budget--or patience--to deal with the consequences of a failed experiment. And the shopowner doesn't want to deal with nagging, unhappy customers. So the most practicalsolutions end up being proposed.
In managing people's money for a living, I often tell people that they likely could generate higher returns on their own than what I'm going to be able to. Because my mission is to avoid major screwups, not hit home runs. But if the clients are able to avoid at least one major screwup than their neighbor (or they themselves) is going to make, they end up farther ahead in the long run with me doing it.
As a businessperson, it's more of an appreciation of trying to minimize things that can go wrong (having seen so much of it) than being enamored with how things might be a little bit better if nothing does go wrong, with no appreciation for how low the probability of such an idealized oucome actually is.
My point is, you asked for advice from people in the know about their experience with MLS gaskets--and you got some thoughts from someone with an awful lot of experience--who said you can get as much or more reliability from using something that is less speculative, probably less costly, and if it fails does so in a way that acts as a safety valve against more extensive damage.
Judging from the use of "quotation marks" to make "certain points" about "choices" and the underlying "reasoning," it seems to me that the courtesy of that reply was met with some hostility and defensiveness because it did not jibe with the choices you have made or the research you have done. And I don't think that is constructive for any dialogue.
When I was first referred to Greg's shop, I had no appreciation for the godlike reputation he seems to have in certain circles. On the flip side, it seems like a lot of his responses in the 928 forum are vilified. Personally, I don't find his responses to be particularly controversial, but if I were him, I'd be rethinking whether it was rewarding to participate in the ongoing dialogue, and I think the absence of his input--which is already less frequent than I, frankly, would like--would be a loss to the community.
Sorry for being off topic. I have Cometic gaskets on my car, but my mechanic doesn't really like them.
06-06-2007, 07:26 PM
#24
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by JEC_31
Mike Simard, what studs are you planning on using?
06-06-2007, 07:29 PM
#25
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by bd0nalds0n
Judging from the use of "quotation marks" to make "certain points" about "choices" and the underlying "reasoning," it seems to me that the courtesy of that reply was met with some hostility and defensiveness because it did not jibe with the choices you have made or the research you have done. And I don't think that is constructive for any dialogue.
On the other edge, though, is that fact that he has, as JEC pointed out, a VERY different role in the projects he has the opportunity to work on, and EVERY SINGLE one of his comments on these forums has been resolutely made from that corner of opinion, whether is has been Engine building with sleeves, or this Gasket issue. That role is one of "I don't want them coming back HERE, as when they do, I have to work for free if it was something I did,"
But if we were take a step back, and see that this double edged sword of Experience-based respect and his business plan, we can see that very little information will truly be able to trickle in though the time-honored traditions of "I have always done it this way and it works,"
There are all kinds in this world, all kind of archetypal personalities. Mine is What, How, Why and How can I improve the system. Some, on the other hand, will always start out their sentences with "I'll tell you why thats not going to work". I work in a field where the average age is 59, and for that reason, I see that alot.
We all have archetypal personalities, and mine, it seems, chaffs badly when I repeatedly hear that latter comment.
06-06-2007, 07:30 PM
#26
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Mike Simard
Good question, I'm actually making some from scratch which sounds silly but I believe proper fastener design is often overlooked, misunderstood and very important. A head or main fastener needs a stretch zone just below the thread's minor diameter otherwise stretching will be focused in whatever threads remain beyond those in the block and nut. I considered having ARP make them but have just gone bonkers and did it in my own shop. I now have to send them out for thread rolling and would frankly rather do other stuff but I'm sure if I simply used a full body diameter stud I would have had problems.
06-06-2007, 09:25 PM
#27
Rennlist Member
Brendan, you have been such an *** in this thread. You rarely know what you're talking about, and despite that, continue to blow massive amounts of hot-air like an old, over-revved roots blower with leaky seals and no charge-cooler, this thread a classic example.
Admittedly, you do excel at taking things apart, but correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you've ever put one thing back together, let alone an engine, whereas Greg Brown has probably assembled HUNDREDS of engines, and as a result, has a wealth of hard-earned experience he is willing to freely share. And here you are, having never assembled even one running 928 engine, and you're dissin' him.
You might as well go ahead and kick Smokey Yunick in the ***** too because he likes small-block Chevy's...
I mean, ...WTF?!?!
And if you would care to do a search, you will find that Marc Thomas does not like aftermarket head-studs either, and for well-stated reasons.
Admittedly, you do excel at taking things apart, but correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you've ever put one thing back together, let alone an engine, whereas Greg Brown has probably assembled HUNDREDS of engines, and as a result, has a wealth of hard-earned experience he is willing to freely share. And here you are, having never assembled even one running 928 engine, and you're dissin' him.
You might as well go ahead and kick Smokey Yunick in the ***** too because he likes small-block Chevy's...
I mean, ...WTF?!?!
And if you would care to do a search, you will find that Marc Thomas does not like aftermarket head-studs either, and for well-stated reasons.
06-06-2007, 10:04 PM
#28
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Everyone, we have to give Sway_Boy here a break - the Cicadas in Chicago may have possibly taken his sanity, Lets take a step back, and let the senile through... Ah, never mind:
Are you done? You're such an ***. You, sir, are one of the largest harsh-speaking twits in this forum, you are freaking well aware of it. I can just hear your asinine Chicago accent ripping through your head as you surface JUST for this thread to show how resolute you are in your assitude - what, no posts today chiding people to use the search function instead of simply answering their simple questions?
I know what I am talking about whether or not you understand the words or phrases that I use. Whether not I give a flying **** what the hell you think about me will be in a separate topic, but rest assure you yourself need to be taken down a notch or two.
While I post alot here about what I am planning on doing in the hopes of sharing NEW info, what I have actually accomplished rarely gets posted, or possibly you just didn't notice while you were creating more Harsh, caustic BULL**** for the Chicago area which doesn't need any I am sure, or possible (this is your favorite) not ACTUALLY helping new posters other than to shout them down while telling them to USE THE SEARCH. How freaking helpful. I have built Two engines exactly, and RE-put together 2 separate cars, which ran better than they did when I started, and were then sold. Other 928s have been traded for differing project directions.
But again, why the hell would I even try to provide factual info in your general direction when all you really want to know is your own Ego, and "facts" sprouted from the general direction of purported "experts" in the field like Marc Thomas. Marc Thomas Doesn't like Aftermarket Heads studs. Well, that does it for me, we shouldn't even mention them...
Thats not company you want to assimilate with if you were to know the true amount of people who think very little of him and is caustic attitude. Well, that may be it - two pee-****s in a pod - caustic, egomaniacs spouting self-important junk.
This forums needs more INFO not self-important "I know best, I've tried it all, just use the stock stuff" CRAP. We KNOW the stock stuff works within the stock parameters and a VERY small margin past it. We are not putting together Flat head Fords - we may want to move forward from the woven material head gaskets to a more modern design - but *Gasp* it needs different surface prep to seal properly. Oh God!
I am not "dissing" anybody ( you learn that word from your great grandson?) Greg knows his ****, but his position on anything new is "its junk" and I call him out on it occasionally with actual info to back up my opinion against his *opinion*.
I'll end it with this was you old fart. Prove one of my facts wrong. Show me where I have misrepresented ANYTHING.
Just one instance. I'll be watching. Have fun in Chi-town.
Are you done? You're such an ***. You, sir, are one of the largest harsh-speaking twits in this forum, you are freaking well aware of it. I can just hear your asinine Chicago accent ripping through your head as you surface JUST for this thread to show how resolute you are in your assitude - what, no posts today chiding people to use the search function instead of simply answering their simple questions?
I know what I am talking about whether or not you understand the words or phrases that I use. Whether not I give a flying **** what the hell you think about me will be in a separate topic, but rest assure you yourself need to be taken down a notch or two.
While I post alot here about what I am planning on doing in the hopes of sharing NEW info, what I have actually accomplished rarely gets posted, or possibly you just didn't notice while you were creating more Harsh, caustic BULL**** for the Chicago area which doesn't need any I am sure, or possible (this is your favorite) not ACTUALLY helping new posters other than to shout them down while telling them to USE THE SEARCH. How freaking helpful. I have built Two engines exactly, and RE-put together 2 separate cars, which ran better than they did when I started, and were then sold. Other 928s have been traded for differing project directions.
But again, why the hell would I even try to provide factual info in your general direction when all you really want to know is your own Ego, and "facts" sprouted from the general direction of purported "experts" in the field like Marc Thomas. Marc Thomas Doesn't like Aftermarket Heads studs. Well, that does it for me, we shouldn't even mention them...
Thats not company you want to assimilate with if you were to know the true amount of people who think very little of him and is caustic attitude. Well, that may be it - two pee-****s in a pod - caustic, egomaniacs spouting self-important junk. This forums needs more INFO not self-important "I know best, I've tried it all, just use the stock stuff" CRAP. We KNOW the stock stuff works within the stock parameters and a VERY small margin past it. We are not putting together Flat head Fords - we may want to move forward from the woven material head gaskets to a more modern design - but *Gasp* it needs different surface prep to seal properly. Oh God!
I am not "dissing" anybody ( you learn that word from your great grandson?) Greg knows his ****, but his position on anything new is "its junk" and I call him out on it occasionally with actual info to back up my opinion against his *opinion*.
I'll end it with this was you old fart. Prove one of my facts wrong. Show me where I have misrepresented ANYTHING.
Just one instance. I'll be watching. Have fun in Chi-town.
Originally Posted by SwayBar
Brendan, you have been such an *** in this thread. You rarely know what you're talking about, and despite that, continue to blow massive amounts of hot-air like an old, over-revved roots blower with leaky seals and no charge-cooler, this thread a classic example.
Admittedly, you do excel at taking things apart, but correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you've ever put one thing back together, let alone an engine, whereas Greg Brown has probably assembled HUNDREDS of engines, and as a result, has a wealth of hard-earned experience he is willing to freely share. And here you are, having never assembled even one running 928 engine, and you're dissin' him.
You might as well go ahead and kick Smokey Yunick in the ***** too because he likes small-block Chevy's...
I mean, ...WTF?!?!
And if you would care to do a search, you will find that Marc Thomas does not like aftermarket head-studs either, and for well-stated reasons.
Admittedly, you do excel at taking things apart, but correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you've ever put one thing back together, let alone an engine, whereas Greg Brown has probably assembled HUNDREDS of engines, and as a result, has a wealth of hard-earned experience he is willing to freely share. And here you are, having never assembled even one running 928 engine, and you're dissin' him.
You might as well go ahead and kick Smokey Yunick in the ***** too because he likes small-block Chevy's...
I mean, ...WTF?!?!
And if you would care to do a search, you will find that Marc Thomas does not like aftermarket head-studs either, and for well-stated reasons.
06-06-2007, 10:27 PM
#29
Rennlist Member
Personally, I wouldn't use the aftermarket off the shelf head studs. It seems that most of the experienced engine builders stick with the OEM head bolts due to their stretch factor. Marc Thomas had indeed posted at length the issue with using some of the aftermarket head studs, identifying many of the similar issues that Greg has expierenced. I think that Sterling went with head studs in the first build up of his variocammed stroker, and had some of them fail. The local builder here in the PacNW that built Don Hanson's latest stroker motor (Now owned by Tom F.) also stated that he used the stock headbolts in his 951 builds because of failures of the aftermarket stud kits. He did mention that when using the stock bolts in the high boost/race applications, they do need to be replaced fairly often, but that is what he uses to hold the heads down.
If anyone is looking for a set of ARP head studs for a motor running '87/'88 S4 heads (short bosses), I've got a set at the shop that were supposed to go into the RMT motor I built that were not used. I'm sure the owner would let them go for a decent price. I could inquire if anyone is interested.
I don't think all head studs are created equal. I was curious as to where the owner of the RMT 928 sourced his head studs, and when I contacted what I thought was the logical choice (Motorsport SLC), Garrity asked me what color was the stud. When I told him they were black, right off the bat he said they weren't his, and that the material the studs were made from were not ideal for the 928 application. He then went off an a metallurgical rant that you would need an 8 year degree in metallurgy, mechanical engineering, and quantum physics to understand, but basically I came away with that you can have studs made that will work, but there is a long waiting list to get them done.
It seems that there are folks out there running headstuds with success. I sure would like to hear from them.
If anyone is looking for a set of ARP head studs for a motor running '87/'88 S4 heads (short bosses), I've got a set at the shop that were supposed to go into the RMT motor I built that were not used. I'm sure the owner would let them go for a decent price. I could inquire if anyone is interested.
I don't think all head studs are created equal. I was curious as to where the owner of the RMT 928 sourced his head studs, and when I contacted what I thought was the logical choice (Motorsport SLC), Garrity asked me what color was the stud. When I told him they were black, right off the bat he said they weren't his, and that the material the studs were made from were not ideal for the 928 application. He then went off an a metallurgical rant that you would need an 8 year degree in metallurgy, mechanical engineering, and quantum physics to understand, but basically I came away with that you can have studs made that will work, but there is a long waiting list to get them done.
It seems that there are folks out there running headstuds with success. I sure would like to hear from them.
06-06-2007, 10:37 PM
#30
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Not close enough to VIR.
Posts: 9,429
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by atb
I don't think all head studs are created equal. I was curious as to where the owner of the RMT 928 sourced his head studs, and when I contacted what I thought was the logical choice (Motorsport SLC), Garrity asked me what color was the stud. When I told him they were black, right off the bat he said they weren't his, and that the material the studs were made from were not ideal for the 928 application. He then went off an a metallurgical rant that you would need an 8 year degree in metallurgy, mechanical engineering, and quantum physics to understand, but basically I came away with that you can have studs made that will work, but there is a long waiting list to get them done.