Manuals WRONG! Torque Specs for Rod and Main?!

[yoyo13131]

As I've found out today the Haynes Manual is COMPLETELY wrong for the main and rod bearing torque specs, (broke off a rod stud loosening nut for plastagauging )

Does anyone know the correct torque specs for a 6 Bolt 1993 2.0 non-turbo Eclipse? (for Main bearing caps, and Rod Nuts)

36ft lbs for Rod nuts?

49ft lbs for Main bearing caps?

Sorry for asking but I've spent over an hour trying to find this answer....

Oh and whats the spec length for the Main bearing cap bolts? (so I can see if I need to replace them since they were over torqued)

 

[b00stedeagle]

I got FSM stating:

Rod cap 38ft.lb.
Main Cap 49ft.lb.

 

[jen_cairo]

the stock rod bolts are weak anyways. i would just upgrade both and go with arps. Thats what I did when my engine went due to a weak rod bolt.

 

[luv2rallye]

Both Haynes and Chiltons are notorious for having wrong torque specs not to mention all the other stuff that's wrong for your model or isn't even in there.

Boostedeagle is correct on specs. Here's the FSM with rod cap on p. 9-127 and main cap on p. 9-132: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/fre...tions/344490-download-1g-service-manuals.html

 

[donniekak]

the stock rod bolts are weak anyways. i would just upgrade both and go with arps. Thats what I did when my engine went due to a weak rod bolt.

The 7 bolt rod bolts are tty junk. The 6 bolt rod fasteners are much stronger, and are not tty.

 

[yoyo13131]

Thank you for all your help guys, the torque specs are correct and I have .002 clearance on my main and rod bearings =] (all standard sizes)

 

[Bluesideup]

It's weird that the FSM says the torque for a 2G is 20NM or 14.5 ft/lbs plus 90 degrees. That's a big difference from 38ft/lbs on the 1G.

 

[luv2rallye]

Probably because the rods are smaller.
Dark Lightning