89in-lb? Seriously?
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Northstar Engines and System Technical Discussion Discussion, 89in-lb? Seriously? in Cadillac Engine Technical Discussion; For the intake manifold on a 96? I thought 35 in-lb might be too much for the plastic intake, let ...
  1. #1
    eldorado1 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,250

    89in-lb? Seriously?

    For the intake manifold on a 96? I thought 35 in-lb might be too much for the plastic intake, let alone triple that! Just want to double check this is accurate. I just bought a cheap torque wrench that could read to 200in lb...

  2. Remove Advertisements
    CadillacForums.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    zonie77 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 94 ETC,97 STS
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,531

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    That's in-lb, equal to about 7.5 ft-lb. What does the torque wrench measure?

  4. #3
    eldorado1 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,250

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    I double checked to make sure the box wasn't lying, it is a in-lb torque wrench. I also checked so see how much force it is, and it's definately less than the 20ft# click on my 1/2" torque wrench, but still... It feels like a lot of torque for a plastic intake!

  5. #4
    zonie77 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 94 ETC,97 STS
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,531

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    That isn't that much force and it's good to use a torque wrench. I guess trust the torque wrench young jedi.

  6. #5
    lry99eldo is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    157

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    I think the division is by 16 rather than 12. 89/16= 5.5625. Equal to "snug" really.
    lry99eldo

  7. #6
    eldorado1 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,250

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by zonie77
    That isn't that much force and it's good to use a torque wrench. I guess trust the torque wrench young jedi.
    Yeah, you'd THINK it's not that much force... But I've removed the manifold several times, and NEVER have I tightened it down as much as the new wrench says I should have.

  8. #7
    eldorado1 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,250

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by lry99eldo
    I think the division is by 16 rather than 12. 89/16= 5.5625. Equal to "snug" really.
    lry99eldo
    Since when are there 16 inches in a foot?

    I had it to "snug"... this is "tight". I guess I'm just going to have to trust the manual, and trust the torque wrench... but I'm deathly afraid.

  9. #8
    mcowden is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by zonie77
    That isn't that much force and it's good to use a torque wrench. I guess trust the torque wrench young jedi.
    May the Schwartz be with you, eldorado1... Use the Schwartz!
    Mike

  10. #9
    zonie77 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 94 ETC,97 STS
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,531

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    7.5 ft lbs should be a strong snug. It depends how your snugometer is calibrated.

  11. #10
    lry99eldo is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    157

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    eldorado1, You're right. I was going from inch-ounces to inch-pounds, of which the conversion is 16. The conversion from inch-pounds to foot-pounds is 12 according to my conversion charts. Sorry. And my snug-ometer calibration is current until 12/2008. It's my brain-o-meter that's out of calibration.
    lry99eldo

  12. #11
    caddydaddy's Avatar
    caddydaddy is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 2005 Escalade 6.0L 2WD, 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited CRD
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gales Ferry, CT
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,668

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    Damn metric system!

  13. #12
    mcowden is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by caddydaddy
    Damn metric system!
    Is that why 2 $50 tires cost $150? No, wait, that's New Math, never mind...
    Mike

  14. #13
    eldorado1 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,250

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    Well I torqued it in 3 increments, 35in-lb, 65in-lb, and then 89in-lb. For whatever reason, GM decided to put that stainless fuel rail in front of 2 of the bolts, so I had to remove that, and torque 6 of the bolts fully, then reinstall, and torque the remaining 4.

    Well the two front (towards the TB) bolts didn't quite want to make the leap from 65in-lb to 89in-lb. They just kept spinning, and not really getting any tighter. Odd. I look closer to see what's going on, and the manifold beneath them is "mushrooming". The screws were crushing the manifold!

    So at that point, I stopped and called it done. Obviously something is wrong. All of the other bolts torqued just fine to that level (and they looked fine), it was just those two that I had problems with. I wonder if there was some oil or something that got on the threads....



    I'm going to exchange my torque wrench just in case it's off... thoughts? There aren't supposed to be any washers between the bolts and the manifold, right?

  15. #14
    eldorado1 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,250

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    Bah, there was oil on the threads... The overtorquing cracked the intake as well, although it appears as though it hasn't cracked through into the actual intake...

    Next time I'll be careful to check the threads before torquing. But how did the oil get down there in the first place? Hmmmmmmmm.....

  16. #15
    cguthrie is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    209

    Re: 89in-lb? Seriously?

    Hmmm,

    Darn in-lb #'s! I was recently doing some work, following the directions which started with ft-lb's then upon recent review switched to in-lb's. Didn't notice it at the time.

    Explains a sheared off bolt. Thanks for the education and FYI the Husky has the in-lb scale on the opposing side of the wrench!

    I guess I can apologize to my torque-o-meter now for all my bad language.

    CG
    99STS 117K

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting