JDM 7M-GE

Status
Not open for further replies.

shaeff

Kurt is FTMFW x2!!!!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Mar 30, 2005
10,591
11
38
Around
IJ. is correct here. there's nothing wrong with the stock bolts. nothing at all. it was only the torque setting of 50-something ft lbs that gave them a bad reputation. torque them to 72ft lbs and you'll be fine.

edit: and in case it wasn't clear, i mean to use NEW stock headbolts...

-shaeff
 

supramacist

Banned
Apr 8, 2006
1,501
0
0
The Grassy Knole
His post said he wanted to know how tight to tighten stock bolts not oem replacements wich tells me he is trying to use the same bolts over. The guy that initiated the post has never said that he replaced them...., so you condone reusing stock head bolts after I know that you yourself had told me to go with ARP??? All I need to show you inefficient are the pictures of my stripped stock head bolts.
 

IJ.

Grumpy Old Man
Mar 30, 2005
38,728
0
0
62
I come from a land down under
My "point" is YOU keep saying there is a fault with the stock hardware when there isn't.

Go back a few posts and I stated they are meant to be replaced but having said that in the past I've reused them with 0 problems/issues.

I wouldn't do this in a performance application but a stock build I can't see a problem, If a thread is damaged you'd have to be a chump to reuse it and as stated earlier if so usually it's a sign of coolant problems and there's a good chance the block is scrap anyway.
 

Supracentral

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
10,542
10
36
flamewarchoice.jpg


I just deleted the flamewar in this thread. You guys know that out here in the technical sections this is 100% unacceptable. Back on topic WITHOUT the b.s.
 

jetjock

creepy-ass cracka
Jul 11, 2005
9,439
0
0
Redacted per Title 18 USC Section 798
Damn, I missed it. I've said this before but if ones looks at this from purely an engineering standpoint there shouldn't be any problem using stock bolts in a stock application. Even reusing them shouldn't be a problem because from the data I've seen at no time are they loaded into the plastic region when torqued as recommended.
 

IJ.

Grumpy Old Man
Mar 30, 2005
38,728
0
0
62
I come from a land down under
JJ: Some people seem to think "engineering" is wandering around their basement playing with their model railroad wearing a silly hat and making choochooo noises ;)

To keep this post from being OT yep no way known are the head bolts TTY or even close to it when torqued correctly.
 

IJ.

Grumpy Old Man
Mar 30, 2005
38,728
0
0
62
I come from a land down under
supramacist said:
Again with the stock application.
And given your huge wealth of experience and knowledge on the subject what would you torque them to?

(Bit of a clue xx diameter xx thread pitch requires xx torque for xx stretch this doesn't change)
 

supramacist

Banned
Apr 8, 2006
1,501
0
0
The Grassy Knole
My point is obviously irrelevant as far as you are concerned. If you were all you were cracked up to be you would still be a moderator. I don't know where you get off man. I showed you where I agreed with what you were saying and everything. You were just wrong and refuse to admit it. That's cool man....., You can be King Salami, I don't give that big a rats.
 

IJ.

Grumpy Old Man
Mar 30, 2005
38,728
0
0
62
I come from a land down under
I resigned as a Moderator so I don't see where that has a bearing on the issue being discussed.

I wasn't wrong and have NFI how you come up with that?

YOU haven't answered a single question or given a scrap of proof to back up your belief that stock headbolts are in some way sub standard.

You're arguing from a point of ignorance.

Again review Reg Reimers data on the stock headbolts and SHOW me where it indicates they're "crap" ...

Reg Riemer said:

Recently I purchased a pair of new head bolts from my local Toyota dealership. One bolt from the 1995 Supra 2JZ-GTE engines, as well as a new bolt from the 7M-GTE. I then contracted a local certified engineering metallurgical company to perform tensile strength tests on the head bolts to compare yield strengths and torque values.

I have lab data reports based on the ASTM A370 tensile test, giving tensile strength, yield strength, ultimate load, yield load, as well as deformation data and maximum tightening torque values for the head bolts from the 2JZ GTE and 7M-GTE engines. Some results of the test are given below.

7M head bolt is: 12mm-1.25mm thread pitch {Property Class 10.9 grade 8} yield strength=147,353 PSI... tensile strength=160,550 PSI... ultimate load=70,198 N... % elongation=17... % reduction of area=66 2J head bolt is: 11mm-1.25mm thread pitch {Property Class 10.9 grade 8} yield strength=148,948 PSI... tensile strength=162,581 PSI... ultimate load=68,997 N... % elongation=19... % reduction of area=66

The metals used in the head bolts of the 7M & 2JZ engines are identical in metallurgy +/- manufacturing S.P.C. This is a good material; it stretches smoothly in the plastic region of the curve before it snaps.

By calculating the unit strain for each of the different areas of bolts based on the average yield strength, the following total elongation numbers were calculated. The 7M bolt has a total elongation of .0134" {.3399mm}, and the 2JZ bolt has a total elongation of .01093" {.2775mm}.

By comparing the elongation differences of the bolts, related to the corresponding different thickness of the aluminum in the engines cylinder heads, and allowing for the total length of the bolt shank plus 50% of the length of the threads, the only apparent difference is that the 2JZ bolt has 36 percent more thread than the 7M bolt does. The 7M & 2JZ bolts appear to be designed with the same steel to aluminum expansion stretch theory. I believe the bolt designs are different only because of the different ratio of the bolts metal area versus the thickness of the aluminum cylinder heads the bolt is designed to hold down. The torquing procedure for the two head bolts is also different, as is the head gasket

Toyota service manuals say that the 7M engines head bolt torque specification is 52 to 58 ft. lbs. According to my findings the 52 to 58 ft. lbs. specification for the 7M might be too low a torque value to keep the bolt in acceptable tension, not to mention the normal compression of the head gasket after time. As mentioned earlier many 7M engines that experience head gasket failures have many head bolts that can be removed from the engines failed cylinders by hand, or are very loose when removed.

My calculations show that the 7M head bolts when torqued to the factory specifications of 52 to 58 ft. lbs. is in very low tension related to the bolts actual yield curve. Calculations based on my test data show torque values for the 7M head bolt could be as high as 68 ft. lbs. to 72 ft. lbs. without putting the bolt into the plastic region. On a cold engine this extra torque would allow more tension on the head bolts after the head gasket compresses to normal operating thickness.

Many Supra owners that can afford it are upgrading their 7M engine to the expensive HKS stopper type metal head gasket for the 7M engine. This gasket comes in a number of different thicknesses. My Company stocks the HKS gaskets and I ship them all over the world. The HKS gasket will hold well to over 20 PSI of boost over 400 hp as sea level with upgraded fuel and turbochargers. The factory head bolt torque may be satisfactory with a metal head gasket since metal head gaskets do not deform as much as the soft OEM gasket used in the 7M. I would still recommend torquing the bolts to 72-ft. lbs.
 

Supracentral

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
10,542
10
36
Did or did I not specifically say to stop with this bullshit?

Take a week off.

And on that note, this trainwreck of a thread is over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.