Hmm alright I think its time we start that thread for ARP studs as someone mentioned in my other thread. I'll open one up now

 

Peace of mind? That's not how studs work though, what made you "feel good" could have been the direct cause of your HG lift man. They are strongest at EXACTLY the amount they should be torqued too. The metal actually gets weaker as you over-tighten. You have to understand the types of clamping in different studs such as TTY (torque to yield) and such. I don't agree it's borrowed time until I see a proper install on a proper application. Seems ARP is blamed for user error in both application and installation too often.

ARP makes much better studs if you have to have more power, they're expensive though!

EDIT> Ah, not available then. Fair enough, still you were not following their installation nor application process correctly.

I just want to keep things fair before we quickly pass blame to ARP.

EDIT> I've read many articles and papers on the topic of fasteners. Here's one people should know just for kicks in example. Note there's more to nuts and bolts than most understand. http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Arti...uetoangle.aspx
[/quote]

Do you know why I torqued them to 90? It's because everyone on here seems to have a different spec sheet for tq. Ive seen 80, 85, 86, 90, 95 etc. I wanna say mine was 86 so I went to 90. There any many people who have tqd to spec and still had issues. The issue is not the tq specs or whether or not I went over or under but the fact that they are weak studs for my application. I already stated that ARP themselves said not to run the amount of power I'm running so that in itself was enough for me to say okay I operated them outside of their normal limits. Just like this motor, it could blow at 700hp but hasn't yet. Maybe it will, maybe it won't but so far many of us are in the same boat of being shocked on how/why this motor is handling this haha. The old days of getting ARPs for added insurance apparently doesn't apply to this motor because it seems as if the stock bolts are just as strong if not stronger. The only reason why I used the ARPs was because I already had them in hand.
[/quote]

I kept my box for ARP for just this reason so I went to check the sheet, it says 95ft/lbs with the new improved install molly. I seem to find a problem with every install or it's used with non OEM gaskets. Yet everyone is blaming ARP.

Either way if yours said 86 you should not have gone to 90. While you were over-torquing you without a doubt damaged the ingerity of the studs to some degree. During the moment where it exceeded 86, the metal was at it's peak clamping efficiency, then you exposed it to further rotational forces simultaneously. I'm assuming yours was 86ft/lbs because of a change in moly if you're indeed sure it was 86.

I believe ARP being stronger does apply but it seems many people who are installing them shouldn't be. You know we can quite simply test which is stronger right? I've got a set of OEM and we can test this but I already know the studs are MUCH stronger than the OEM bolts. It's no contest actually.

 

Hmm alright I think its time we start that thread for ARP studs as someone mentioned in my other thread. I'll open one up now
[/quote]


Good move btw.

 

The headlift/blown HG results are so inconsistant it is impossible to say whether ARP's were to blame or not. Again what you fail to realize is that standard ARP headstuds are NOT meant to handle the type of power that I am making. I am not and have not stated that ARP's are to blame under NORMAL operating conditions. ARP's are awesome headstuds but in the motors F20C and F22C, they are not necessary because the stock head bolts are strong enough for most applications. I can assume that most people who are running ARP's are running them because it was the thing to do in the past before anyone knew just how strong the stock headbolts were. I could be wrong as well which is fine.

On another topic, a lot of these issues has to do with the installation of the headstuds and not the actual studs themselves.

To argue your point of torquing more than the given specs. I just spoke with ARP a few minutes ago and this is exactly what they said...

"Torquing a few lbs past the given spec will not damage the stud but give you a little added clamping force. What damages it is when you start torquing to the max yield of the material. I.E. If given 80ft lbs specs, you are clamping down 80% of the materials strength. You will damage these when you start exceeding the 100% yield of the material (100ft lbs)"

So no, I did not damage these studs going to 90ft lbs. This is what ARP also stated which is VERY important for all of us to realize but we seem to play this game of "well it works." I played that game to and it works so I have no arguments.

"Standard ARP headstuds were designed to run on stock to mildly boosted applications and in some cases moderate. These were not designed to handle the amount of boost/power you are making, no way."

We can all argue this point to death but all I see is a neverending argument/opinion session which is fine because it shows everyone how much power we are all getting away with. Or we can agree to disagree man. Whether my issue is the studs or radiator cap, I still need to upgrade to the H11/L19's.

 

It's only inconsistent because the install and application is inconsistent, that's exactly what I'm pointing a finger to.

What you FAIL to realize is neither are the OEM studs which some claim as being stronger, they're absolutely not.

Also ARP DOES MAKE studs for the power you're wanting to make, they just cost more. I wasn't claiming you personally were blaming them but it seems forum wide there's a lot of biased and simply incorrect assumptions being made.

As for installation, EXACTLY CORRECT!!!!! That's the point I was making too, I completely agree.

Torquing at all past will damage them if they're already past their max yield which neither of us know since we didn't run the testing equipment. I know there is some margin of error left and you may be within it but you also may not be. I already know they answer they'll give and I understand WHY they'll give it. There's a little room for error left but 5lbs could well be near that limit, if one of their engineers says it's fine then I'm sure it's fine. Mine are applied to 95ft/lbs but did they ask what moly was used? That makes a HUGE difference. If they didn't ask that question you spoke to someone who shortchanged you on info. For one thing many tq wrenches are a few % off so of course a few lbs wouldn't hurt them, they know tq wrenches aren't 100% accurate. Combine a few factors like a inferior moly with a low-reading tq wrench 7% and then even a tiny amount of grit on the threads and you've got yourself much less clamping and much more friction in the stud while over-tightening it. There's a lot of factors to be considering in the matter.

If you want further strength run ARPs products made to better standards, simply as that. Or run a different company as you and others stated but it's tiresome hearing people say OEM bolts are better/stronger.

I passed up the stronger ARP studs. If I lift, I don't mind doing a new head gasket install, I can do it in a few hours it's no big deal, I'll go with the stronger stuff when/if I need to. It's not the end of the world anyway just half a day wasted but I do that watching TV too.

 

This is good info! Yeah I plan on running the stronger studs FBM just released if I find that my head did lift.

 

Everyone, watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-XXVk_vwKw

 

Lots of family working for Boeing, learned a little about fasteners and such.

 

One thing to remember when torquing the ARP headstuds with molylube; you want the majority of the lube on the "sheer" area or "face" of the nuts and washers as apposed to the threads (some of the lube will get on the threads where its also needed, but not as needed as it is on the face areas). This helps to get to the proper torque specs. I've seen too many times where people only put the majority of the molylube on the threads thinking that's where it needs to be, but that's not the right way to do it and you will get inconsistant torque specs this way.

I also worked in aerospace engineering for 9 years.

 

^ Spoolin.

With all due respect I disagree partially though I agree fully with the surface mating to the nut being the key part. I applied a very thin coat to all thread as well as a liberal amount to the nut surface.

The bottom-side of threads themselves are physically grinding as the nut is working it's way down down them thus they'd be affected by friction as well though perhaps not as directly I wouldn't advise one to be careless with application to the threads just because the nut head is more important.

Am I reading your signature correctly? You're making 740whp on stock compression? Even with E85, damn impressive. Someone got done arguing with me a couple weeks ago about how it's IMPOSSIBLE to have even 8psi on stock compression. I had to giggle.