Need Guidance with Roller Cam and Lifters Install - First Timer

[Nick Micale]

There is not just that one,there is the ones from the harness to the back of the passenger side head, thats the one that is easy to miss, and the one that's alot of times in need of repair.

On his car the 4 ground wires from the main harness were fastened to the second bolt/stud from the rear on the intake like the factory did on the 1989 Turbo Trans Am.

Every turbo car that I have changed the engine, or replaced the heads, the grounds are always relocated there as it is insane to put them back on the rear of the heads!

 

[t-typinator]

On his car the 4 ground wires from the main harness were fastened to the second bolt/stud from the rear on the intake like the factory did on the 1989 Turbo Trans Am.

Every turbo car that I have changed the engine, or replaced the heads, the grounds are always relocated there as it is insane to put them back on the rear of the heads!

Good info for the op to know, because it was his mechanic that did the removal of the top of motor,not him,
so now when the op finds those 4 wires coming out of the harness he will know they are grounds and where to bolt them to.
It makes sense to relocate them to that spot ,for much easier access and they won't get oil soaked from leaky valve covers.
Didn't know they had relocated them on the tta.
Good Info.

 

[Terbro]

On his car the 4 ground wires from the main harness were fastened to the second bolt/stud from the rear on the intake like the factory did on the 1989 Turbo Trans Am.

Every turbo car that I have changed the engine, or replaced the heads, the grounds are always relocated there as it is insane to put them back on the rear of the heads!

That's right. I know I saw the main ground (to the firewall) fastened to that intake bolt, along with a bunch of other wires.

 

[Terbro]

As I think about it, I like the idea of the fabric brushes better than the cotton socks or swabs...wouldn't want lose a sock or swab down the hole...especially if it falls all the way through into the water jacket. Well, I don't know...is that a possibility? Are any of the holes tapped clear through into the water jacket their full diameter?

 

[ITSAV6]

Brass bristle maybe?

 

[earlbrown]

Just chuck these up in a cordless drill motor and let 'em fly.

http://www.harborfreight.com/6-piece-tube-brush-set-61923.html

Yes, the head bolt holes go clear into the water jacket.

 

[Terbro]

Stopped by a local gun shop and picked up this stuff. Of course the bristle brushes look good, but I'm just really attracted to the "mop" fabric brushes as well. I think they'll do better at grabbing and bringing back up the dissolved gunk than wire brushes. I'll do a bi-phasic...first with the wire or nylon, then mop it/clean it up with the fabric.

So I'll be doing one stud at a time. I just want to confirm that there's no problem with doing this; that there's no chance I'll crack the head with full torque retained fully on all the other studs, as I pull one stud off, clean it, and re-torque it.

 

[t-typinator]

.

 

[earlbrown]

You're really overthinking this. Don't worry about the head cracking while backing off one stud at a time. A conventional re-torque will put the same 'stress' on the head as what you're doing.

With those cotton brushes you bought, those are only going to clean the peaks of the threads. Only the bristles will get down to the bottom (where the coolant is going to spiral up) Cleaning threads and cleaning rifling are two different things. Plus a gun is OK with some extra oil being left behind.

 

[t-typinator]

,

 

[t-typinator]

.

 

[Boost231]

How about just pull the heads order new gaskets and clean the threads the correct way. Take it as a 100 dollar learning experience. All this work just trying to save a set of head gaskets is crazy

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[t-typinator]

How about just pull the heads order new gaskets and clean the threads the correct way. Take it as a 100 dollar learning experience. All this work just trying to save a set of head gaskets is crazy

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

That was going to be my suggestion also, if their was no good answer to the sealant question.
Taking the heads off and making sure it's all cleaned up perfectly and then sealed up right,is worth the time and cost ,just for the peace of mind it will give knowing it's done right.

Earl Brown and one or 2 others have said the cometics could even possibly be re-used.

How many of the studs are actually into water jackets ?

 

[earlbrown]

This thread is just going around in circles now.

As far as I know, not one manufacturer makes a sealant to work around an oil issue in a pressurized hot water environment. And if one existed I doubt it could be found at the dollar store. I guess JB Weld and some seal tabs would do it. Whatever leaks happen before the seal tabs take effect will be permanently corroding the unthreaded part of the stud inside the head.
Oh, and there's a chance the JB Weld would bite down on a couple of the deck holes and be permanant and require a milling machine and a machinist to 'un-repair' the deck.



At this point I recommend ignoring any experience and make some personal first hand experience.

Granted, there's a very good chance the heads will have to come off with the engine in the car, but if that happens I guarantee that lesson will stick.


Sealing studs isn't rocket science, but when you're stating in deficit with an oil based factor, then throwing on some heads to physically block any sight or feel for the result,.... it's asking a lot. Especially when you have no first hand experience to work from. When you're blind like that it takes overkill (without doing damage) to feel halfway good about the procedure.

 

[Nick Micale]

...............How many of the studs are actually into water jackets ?

All the bolts/studs are into water with production blocks, and most all with stage blocks.

The TA alum blocks have all blind holes, none into water.

 

[Terbro]

You're really overthinking this. Don't worry about the head cracking while backing off one stud at a time. A conventional re-torque will put the same 'stress' on the head as what you're doing.

With those cotton brushes you bought, those are only going to clean the peaks of the threads. Only the bristles will get down to the bottom (where the coolant is going to spiral up) Cleaning threads and cleaning rifling are two different things. Plus a gun is OK with some extra oil being left behind.

Just being thorough in my questions. Since I don't know, don't want to take any chances. Would rather ask questions than make a very costly mistake.

As far as the cotton brushes, I agree that they would if I shoved them straight in an out. That's why I mentioned earlier that I would be "threading" them in, as if they were the bolts. And they're oversized, so there will be pressure, pressing them into the depth of the threads. But...you might be right, which is why I bought both. I'll make a few passes with both and see how clean the mops come out. I also bought (not pictured) a larger one (for a .45 cal barrel) for add'l pressure in zee hole.

As I think about it...it doesn't seem that the ARP lube was at all necessary with *studs*, as they're not being tightened down at all. We've been over how one is only to hand tighten them. So in my mind, the lube was never needed with studs anyway...only on the washers and nuts.

Anyway...I've got my son tomorrow, but might have time to redo a couple.

 

[Terbro]

Okay...picked up this stuff today. Someone mentioned "Permatex Right Stuff or Locktite 565". The guy at Advance said that The Right Stuff doesn't hold up after time to the chemicals in coolant, and may break down. He's an engine builder, and seemed to know his stuff (though I do now just take it "under consideration" vs fact). He did some research on the spot, and compared the Locktite 565 to another Permatex product...noticing a cross-referenced to the stuff I bought. Meaning...this Permatex thread sealant (pictured; the stuff I bought) was cross referenced to the Locktite 565 (actually a "56521" number, I believe).

Plus it's got PTFE!!! I'm kidding...I have no clue what that is.

So unless someone chimes in and strongly advises against using this stuff, it's what I'll be using.

 

[t-typinator]

A little googling goes a long way.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en.....1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..5.31.2459.UCq8JGSUH_U

Some info sources for you .
Didn't read much but a couple say don't use permatex white,i don't know if thats what you have but i would maybe do a bit more reading and guru probing before you use it.
It may be the right stuff but at this point you want to be POSITIVE first.
Maybe call Jack Cotton ,where you bought the studs ,to see what he suggests or to see if the stuff you have is ok.


How did the thread cleaning go ?

 

[dynoman]

Plus it's got PTFE!!! I'm kidding...I have no clue what that is

Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon)

 

[Terbro]

A little googling goes a long way.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en.....1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..5.31.2459.UCq8JGSUH_U

Some info sources for you .
Didn't read much but a couple say don't use permatex white,i don't know if thats what you have but i would maybe do a bit more reading and guru probing before you use it.
It may be the right stuff but at this point you want to be POSITIVE first.
Maybe call Jack Cotton ,where you bought the studs ,to see what he suggests or to see if the stuff you have is ok.


How did the thread cleaning go ?

I agree about a bit o' Goog'age. Googled Permatex 80632 head bolts, and found this thread: http://www.chevelles.com/forums/13-...olt-thread-sealant-controversy-revisited.html

In it, quote: "Permatex 592, 565, and 567 are all comparable products. I have a tube of 592 in the garage right now. I'd have no qualms about buying 565 or 567 next time.

The 80632 is crap in a can. Worthless. Well, not quite. I've painted steel shim head gaskets with it and it worked pretty well in that application."

So here's my deal - I'm not the biggest fan of crap...whether it be in a bucket, tube, Dixie cup, or can.

I know that's not about our Buicks, but I also read the Sticky on head gaskets install, and there was no mention of anyone using the stuff I bought. So I don't think I want to be the guinea pig on this stuff (though it is a thread sealant with Teflon).

What's interesting, is...the reason I bought this stuff, is the employee at Advance Auto said that the 80632 cross referenced to the 565. I think he was on the pipito, however. So, I returned it. They didn't have 56521, but the closest O'Reilly's did.

Note: The above quote states that 592 and 565 are comparable. Advance had 592, but it was in a very small tube. 0.2 ounces, I think. As you can see from the photo, the 565 comes in a much bigger tube (1.7 oz). This tells me it's intended to be used liberally, and thus...seal up larger gaps. Just seams more appropriate for our application vs. the 592. Point being...I'm glad I didn't choose that one, though the chevelle forum spoke of it as comparable.