95' Junker Drag Truck

thinair said:
Will, is there an updated build list for this truck? wanting to know how much boost you are running and if its o-ringed or fire ringed? what studs?

Thanks
Click to expand...

The only real changes since a year ago has been the transbrake VB and the HT80/364.5sxe compound setup. I'm running 28* timing on the same Farrell 215 based pump. To keep the head glued down I've gone back to ARP 2000 "cheaper" studs torqued to 150 ft lbs on a regular 041" stainless oring wire in the block on a stock gasket. We've done a little bit of wastegate fine-tuning on the dyno with the PDD turbo tuner and picked up 40 HP in the mid-range by correcting a problem where the 40psi internal wastegate was opening too early and causing a dip/plateau in the HP curve between 2600 RPM and 3000 RPM.
 
I'd love to see things come together for you guys this year at ucc

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Big Blue24 said:
The only real changes since a year ago has been the transbrake VB and the HT80/364.5sxe compound setup. I'm running 28* timing on the same Farrell 215 based pump. To keep the head glued down I've gone back to ARP 2000 "cheaper" studs torqued to 150 ft lbs on a regular 041" stainless oring wire in the block on a stock gasket. We've done a little bit of wastegate fine-tuning on the dyno with the PDD turbo tuner and picked up 40 HP in the mid-range by correcting a problem where the 40psi internal wastegate was opening too early and causing a dip/plateau in the HP curve between 2600 RPM and 3000 RPM.
Click to expand...

Is it common to torque the arp 2000’s to 150? Whats the max boost you would run with this setup?
 
thinair said:
Is it common to torque the arp 2000’s to 150? Whats the max boost you would run with this setup?
Click to expand...

How many did you go through before you reached 150 ft-lbs? Or did the first complete/retorqued set manage that?
 
thinair said:
Is it common to torque the arp 2000’s to 150? Whats the max boost you would run with this setup?
Click to expand...

Anyone that torques 12mm ARP 2000s to 150 ft/lbs has an extra chromosome...keep that in mind before taking that "advice".
 
I torqued mine to 150,its got 10k miles on it now. I went 100,125,140,150 with plenty of lube each re torque. 70ibs of boost with no issues

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
wwentzler said:
Anyone that torques 12mm ARP 2000s to 150 ft/lbs has an extra chromosome...keep that in mind before taking that "advice".
Click to expand...

You seem to be the odd man out... 150ftlbs 900rwhp with spray never lifted. But hey I guess I have an extra chromosome.
 
Boost has nothing to do with lifting a head, and just because 3 people did it successfully doesn't mean its a good idea....its not like ARP designed the material and designated a torque spec or anything. I'm sure they just made that up.
 
wwentzler said:
Boost has nothing to do with lifting a head, and just because 3 people did it successfully doesn't mean its a good idea....its not like ARP designed the material and designated a torque spec or anything. I'm sure they just made that up.
Click to expand...



Holy thread revival Batman...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
wwentzler said:
Boost has nothing to do with lifting a head, and just because 3 people did it successfully doesn't mean its a good idea....its not like ARP designed the material and designated a torque spec or anything. I'm sure they just made that up.
Click to expand...

I’d hate to tell you what I torque 625s too ?
 
Justappumped24v said:
You seem to be the odd man out...
Click to expand...

No, no he doesn't. It falls right inline with Will running head studs into the bottom of the block on the ramp truck abortion with an electric impact. But since they are internet famous it has to be right.
 
jlbayes said:
No, no he doesn't. It falls right inline with Will running head studs into the bottom of the block on the ramp truck abortion with an electric impact. But since they are internet famous it has to be right.
Click to expand...

And what wrong with that exactly?
 
jlbayes said:
No, no he doesn't. It falls right inline with Will running head studs into the bottom of the block on the ramp truck abortion with an electric impact. But since they are internet famous it has to be right.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the right thread to dive into that argument, but...

ARP doesn't release any fastener data other than what they rate their fasteners UTS at. That's likely a ~30% safety margin limit, they likely have a decent amount of variability just like head bolts have. You also are taking out most of the torsional loading of a bolt by switching to a wet stud. You're likely going to see a failure in the threads (likely not block threads) over the fastener material plastically deforming or fracturing.

If anyone had the money and equipment to do real yield strength testing on these fasteners, I bet you'd see the lower limit (or R99.99/C90 Weibull) at 125 ft-lbs, and the mean would be way higher.

All that being said, I don't think 150 ft-lbs is going to be a problem for most of the ARP 2000's you'll run across, and a lower torque impact is likely not going to hurt anything either. Regardless of how famous you are or aren't. :Cheer:
 
You are forgetting one very important part of the equation. Which is the nut. I have seen more nuts split than fasteners fail from yield.
 
jlbayes said:
No, no he doesn't. It falls right inline with Will running head studs into the bottom of the block on the ramp truck abortion with an electric impact. But since they are internet famous it has to be right.
Click to expand...
Your going to make a great fit in the FCA warranty denial department, I can tell already!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
CorneliusRox said:
ARP doesn't release any fastener data other than what they rate their fasteners UTS at. That's likely a ~30% safety margin limit, they likely have a decent amount of variability just like head bolts have. You also are taking out most of the torsional loading of a bolt by switching to a wet stud. You're likely going to see a failure in the threads (likely not block threads) over the fastener material plastically deforming or fracturing.

If anyone had the money and equipment to do real yield strength testing on these fasteners, I bet you'd see the lower limit (or R99.99/C90 Weibull) at 125 ft-lbs, and the mean would be way higher.
:Cheer:
Click to expand...

I think 30% is incredibly optimistic. You can say all you want about torsional loading and fastener material deformation, but i'm SURE ARP knows those things too....lets not forget ARP is a business that produces performance products. If the material could be torqued to 200 ft/lbs and never have an issue don't you think they would say that? Not a whole lot of companies are going to underrate their product, that's just bad marketing.

From an Engineering/QC perspective, i'd almost guarantee calculations and testing went into determining at what torque that particular fastener started to fail at a rate higher than ARP finds to be acceptable.

What this ultimately comes down to IMO, is people who are too cheap to go to either a 625 or a larger stud, have backwoods style convinced them self that pushing components to failure point is the norm. They've thought up these entirely speculative ideas and spread them as fact. IMHO, its your engine, do whatever you please, but don't tell the average guy that makes very mild power that he should be torquing to 150 ft/lbs.
 
thatguy69 said:
Your going to make a great fit in the FCA warranty denial department, I can tell already!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good thing I will have no direct control over it. Nor is it the position I will be working in. bif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top