Notices
964 Forum 1989-1994
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

valve cover question

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-26-2009, 08:10 PM
  #1  
jim_l
Instructor
Thread Starter
 
jim_l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: dutchess county ny
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default valve cover question

Getting ready replace the valve covers and gaskets to fix the oil leak. find lost of contradicting info related to what value to torque the nuts to and what pattern to tighten them in. so just wondering what you guys are using.. 6 or 7 ft lbs seems to the most common torque. thanks

Last edited by jim_l; 02-26-2009 at 08:44 PM. Reason: should be ft lbs
Old 02-26-2009, 09:33 PM
  #2  
Wachuko
Professor of Pending Projects
Rennlist Member
 
Wachuko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,891
Received 22 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

7ft-lbs is what the workshop manual has as torque spec. Be sure to use a small torque wrench that can get those low values... don't be using the 1/2" wrench for that, lol...

I always start at the center top then bottom and then out... little by little with just the socket... then I use the torque wrench for the final pass.
Old 02-27-2009, 12:05 AM
  #3  
elbeee964
Nordschleife Master
 
elbeee964's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 5,405
Received 74 Likes on 51 Posts
Default

Unlike the typical water-cooled engine's head gasket, where that gasket's compression/effectiveness is dependent on the head bolt's preload (torque)... our 3.6L valve covers have gaskets that only undergo a certain 'squish' before the aluminum valve cover and head come into direct contact.

So, of Jaime's 7 in-lbs torque, only a tiny bit actually goes into squeezing the rubber gasket. Past that (say, the final 6 in-lbs) just goes into putting an additional non-sealing preload squeeze between valve cover and head. (ie, the valve cover gasket doesn't 'see' that final 6 in-lbs of torque 'squeeze'.)

If the gasket's good, and the surfaces it touches are non-scarred and somewhat true, the seal should be good. (after all, it's only got to contain non-pressurized engine oil 'drool' on it's way back to the engine sump.)

The other thing torque normally accomplishes, as a anti-rotation device, is instead accomplished, here, by anti-rotation nuts.

So, [flame suit On] given everything else, this torque's effect on sealing effectiveness ain't All that critical.
But 7 in-lbs, acheived by 2, or 3, torque application 'stars', will do everything you need done.
Old 02-27-2009, 12:36 AM
  #4  
tbennett017
Rennlist Member
 
tbennett017's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 2,270
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Old 02-27-2009, 07:55 AM
  #5  
springer3
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
springer3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,576
Received 49 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by elbeee964
So, [flame suit On] given everything else, this torque's effect on sealing effectiveness ain't All that critical.
But 7 in-lbs, acheived by 2, or 3, torque application 'stars', will do everything you need done.
No flaming, this is exactly correct. In engineering jargon this is a controlled-crush seal. Once the metal bottoms, extra torque only stresses the cover. I suspect problems with warped valve covers are caused by mechanics over-torquing the nuts, or failing to tighten them in steps.

Put the covers on with no gaskets, and you will be able to check the gap to see how much warping there is. Mine are still nice and flat, and no problems with leaks on the original covers. I do see a little pitting in the seal groove, and that is worrying me just a little.



Quick Reply: valve cover question



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 11:25 PM.