Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ive been thinking about the need for running aftermarket main studs instead of the standard bolts, and at what point aftermarket is really needed.

Researching engine failures, it seems very rare that a bottom end failure occurs except through oil surge related issues. And even then the failures occur more on rod journels than on the mains.

Id like to know if anyone has ever had a failure due to the main bolts stretching or letting go?

anything up to 350rwkw and I wouldn't bother. after that they are worth looking at depending what else is going into the build and how much power you're ultimately after. :)

Remember that main studs will pull the crank bearing surfaces out of round (higher tensioning) requiring re- machining, which is a little more complicated than normal tunnel boring with the RB26 due to the one piece cradle cap apparently, ask a reputable machine shop about it.

Thanks for the feedback there guys. Kind of a mixed bag of responses. I follow doo doo about pulling the mains out of round. It makes sense.

Does anyone shuffle pin (Hollow dowel around the main studs) the girdle to the engine block, or is that considered overkill?

So it seems that nobody has managed to break a girdle or crank other than by having a bearing spin or a rod thrown. So just using good head studs is where ARP bolts seem to be really needed to stop the head lifting. And 1/2" seems the go there if your going custom.

I cant help but think about what those RIPS guys do with RB30's and standard main bolts...

I have them in my car. Tomei 2.8 stroker, GT block running anything up to 1.9 bar through twin RS's revving no more then 8300RPM. 12000 KMS and no issues :P Although mine are Jun main studs.

I wonder if people are using the factory torque specs for tightening the arp studs down on the cradle, or do ARP recommend a higher tension?

The whole point of a bolt is that is has a designed in degree of elastacity so that it can stretch a little under load, and while an arp bolt can be tightened to a higher tension its not necessarily a good thing that it is. The possability that it could distort the block for example.

So if a bolt is tightened to factory specs results in the factory designed in level of block distortion, but the bolt can also handle considerably more stress (from the engine bottom end taking a 9000+ RPM pounding) before it stretches beyond safe limits then that is possibly the way to go.

The last engine I assembled used carillo 5/16th WMC5 conrod bolts, and for curiosity sake I torqued them to spec in stages and measured the bolt stretch to see how it related to the applied torque tension. The results were:

30ft-lb - 3 thou

35ft-lb - 4 thou

40ft-lb - 4.5 thou

43ft-lb - 5 thou

45ft-lb - 5.1 thou

46ft-lb - 7 thou

Normal 5/16th arp 2000 bolts only go to 28ft-lb and have the same bolt stretch of 7 thou. ARP 8740 were something like 24ft-lb.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...