Rod bearing question on s54

[gobuffs]

ARP tests the product to ensure the proper clamping force. The S54 was around 65 IIRC, they told me to do 45 for the S65.

[WannaBe30]

I went with arp bolts they just showed up I will not be measuring stretch. They also said you must resize your rods which we cannot do because that would destroy the mating sirface


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WannaBe30]

Rod bearings done


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jink0619]

Nice! Got any pics? I'm still waiting on my custom subframe then in goes motor :)

[WannaBe30]

I have pics of the old bearings it was time for sure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WannaBe30]

I'm gonna start a build thread soon but here's a shot of the bearings



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FredK]

Yep, good time to replace them! I used ARPs with the recommended torque value.

[WannaBe30]

Started my build thread if anyone is interested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[325es54]

I thought the early bolts where how the engine was balanced... ie bolts had to go back into the same spot on the same rod. Mid 2003 this changed and then the bolts could be reused up to 3 times? Correct me if I am wrong. I guess arp bolts would be ok as long as the reciprocating assembly was rebalanced? I also wonder along with anaphe if the clamping force is the same and may change the cocentricity of the big end of the rod?

[FredK]

The early M11 bolts were to go back to the same spot on the same rod, up to 12/13/2002 production date, and are reusable.

The M10 bolts are to be replaced with every torquing.

Both the M10 and M11 fasteners appear to be Torque to Yield bolts, with a necked-down area. It would seem to me that the logic behind re-using the M11 bolts in the same position is not necessarily balance-related, but more of a fastener-to-mating surface issue, to ensure that during re-use of TTY fasteners, the interface between mating threads is not changed. But, that's a guess on my part.

I used M11 ARP fasteners in my early engine. I didn't rebalance my engine. But, I am a single case, not a population of S54 owners.

[LJ851]

Both the M10 and M11 fasteners appear to be Torque to Yield bolts, with a necked-down area. It would seem to me that the logic behind re-using the M11 bolts in the same position is not necessarily balance-related, but more of a fastener-to-mating surface issue, to ensure that during re-use of TTY fasteners, the interface between mating threads is not changed. But, that's a guess on my part.

Yes.

An inline 6 engine's reciprocating components are not balanced in relation to the crank. As long as what you do is equal on all 6 reciprocating assemblies, there is no problem.