[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

If Molnar who made the rods (or had them made, LOL) says to use his lube and torque
them to a given amount, vs your arbitrarily number, (by the way, it is not a secret), what was his torque numbers vs your numbers for torque using his supplied lube?

Tom V.

What ?? You always have to be right no matter what, even when you are not you look for a reason to look like the big shot.
Just got off the phone with him. OK, it was 95lbs not 98, still near 100lbs to get the stretch. It was done exactly by the directions. Their lube, their directions.
Ed at Molnar was involved as was Mike Lewis at Lewis Racing engines.
All info was checked and re checked by people smarter than you.
I know its hard to believe there are people smarter than you Tom.
If you knew anything about Molnar rods you would know they do not give any tq figures. Stretch or 30lbs+angle only.
Not sure where you are going with "arbitrarily number". Rod bolts were tightened to get the stretch Molnar say to get and it took 95lbs to get the stretch.

[67Fbird]

I prefer to utilize MY education .by APPLYING MY knowledge of the subject RELATIVE to the TASK at hand Lets get to what is being done....not if he's using a right hand knurled handle or a left hand craftsman wrench. If the manufacturer specs stretch method...thats what you do. If they call out torque/click....thats what you do.

WAIT....

What do you think you should do if the call out torque + angle?????
This isn't nuclear physics this a simple bolt that keeps the nut on by #### amount of preload friction on the threads/face...thats all it is. NO reume's needed.

[grandville455]

My compstars with extreme lube 3 same as molnar uses was 92 ftl bs.on a calibrated wrench also

[Lee]

Originally Posted by 67Fbird

This isn't nuclear physics this a simple bolt that keeps the nut on by #### amount of preload friction on the threads/face...

It actually is physics. The bolt needs to stretch to about 80% of its elastic limit, in order to keep the cap from separating from the rod. Nuts don't back off, unless grossly undertightened. But a bolt that does not have enough stretch WILL allow the cap to move.

Torque readings infer the amount of bolt stretch. But torque does not keep the rod cap in place, the bolt stretch DOES.

[67Fbird]

Originally Posted by 67Fbird

This isn't nuclear physics this a simple bolt that keeps the nut on by #### amount of preload , friction on the threads/face...thats all it is. NO reume's needed.

Fixed it.

[rtp]

Can't we all just get along

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by rtp

Can't we all just get along

As long as there are people out there who have inferiority issues, sometimes marked by aggressive behavior or words in compensation, when it applies to a subject, you will have certain posts.

Typical that is due to envy on their part, pure and simple.

You post the data and let the discussion go where it may go.

Tom V.

ps for one individual, I still have the PM where you call the guy you are bragging up a lot of nasty words. He used to be the Chief Engineer for Oliver Rods before he started his own company. Flip-flop, flip-flop

[mgarblik]

At the PRI show Thursday, I had an extended conversation with Tom Molnar himself about the whole bolt tightening situation and all the controversy. Here is a summary of our talk. Bolt stretch measurement is the ONLY way to GUARANTEE the fasteners are in their elastic range for absolute best performance. Using a torque wrench is the absolute WORST method to achieve this goal. Torque angle is the BEST approximation to get into the elastic range if you can't measure the fastener such as in a blind hole application Measuring bolt stretch is not easy on an assembled engine, thus torque angle is a decent alternative. The lubricant used to establish the torque angle used is critical. If Molnar specifies using extreme pressure grease #3 and you use motor oil or ARP lube, the specs. established are null and void. There is so much frictional difference between the different lubes, the specs are meaningless. The torque angle method would be less critical to the lube used because only the initial pre-load torque before the angle is applied would factor in. Hope this settles the debate somewhat. Bottom line: Use a stretch gauge if you have 1. Use the lubricant specified only. Use torque wrench method as a least accurate, last resort.

[Tom Vaught]

Thank You Mike. Tom Molnar is a very smart guy and a very very good connecting rod ENGINEER.

Tom V.

[Schurkey]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

At the PRI show Thursday, I had an extended conversation with Tom Molnar himself about the whole bolt tightening situation and all the controversy. Here is a summary of our talk. Bolt stretch measurement is the ONLY way to GUARANTEE the fasteners are in their elastic range for absolute best performance. Using a torque wrench is the absolute WORST method to achieve this goal. Torque angle is the BEST approximation to get into the elastic range if you can't measure the fastener such as in a blind hole application Measuring bolt stretch is not easy on an assembled engine, thus torque angle is a decent alternative. The lubricant used to establish the torque angle used is critical. If Molnar specifies using extreme pressure grease #3 and you use motor oil or ARP lube, the specs. established are null and void. There is so much frictional difference between the different lubes, the specs are meaningless. The torque angle method would be less critical to the lube used because only the initial pre-load torque before the angle is applied would factor in. Hope this settles the debate somewhat. Bottom line: Use a stretch gauge if you have 1. Use the lubricant specified only. Use torque wrench method as a least accurate, last resort.

That's all fine, and I don't disagree with the inherent accuracy of stretch vs. torque-angle vs. torque.

But if the rods were machined to be round with the fasteners torqued, and then you install them in an engine using some other tightening method...those big-ends may not be round any more.

It's common as dirt for the "stretch" method to require more torque to achieve spec than the "torque" specification generally given.

If you want to "stretch" your rod bolts...make sure the guy honing your rods ALSO uses the "stretch" method when he installs the caps, prior to honing.

Don't mix procedures.

[mgarblik]

Originally Posted by Schurkey

That's all fine, and I don't disagree with the inherent accuracy of stretch vs. torque-angle vs. torque.

But if the rods were machined to be round with the fasteners torqued, and then you install them in an engine using some other tightening method...those big-ends may not be round any more.

It's common as dirt for the "stretch" method to require more torque to achieve spec than the "torque" specification generally given.

If you want to "stretch" your rod bolts...make sure the guy honing your rods ALSO uses the "stretch" method when he installs the caps, prior to honing.

Don't mix procedures.

Yes, absolutely agree. Mixing procedures, lubes and process can spell disaster. If the rods were reconditioned, you MUST copy the method used to hone when installing. When I was testing the three methods myself on Molnar rods, as you said, the torque requirement to get the stretch, and/or the angle was much higher than most would be comfortable with. In the 80-85 ft, LB range.

[Tom Vaught]

I have bought over the years about 10 sets of NEW Carrillo connecting rods.
(This is my personal stuff.)

I have bought about 100 Carrillo connecting rods for the company I used to work for.

In each case, I spoke with "THE Connecting Rod Engineer" No one else.

So I had a good relationship with them just like Mike and Eric had with their aluminum
rod expert, Mr Bill Miller.

I followed their procedures exactly. Course the rods were NEW, not resized stuff from
a local machine shop.

Never liked thinking I knew more than the Engineer that was doing the job on the parts.

Engineers do stuff for a reason, Are you willing to listen?

Tom V.

[grandville455]

I do agree the stretch method is best, my engine guy checked a couple for the proper stretch and what it read on his wrench and it was 92 lbs! Dead nuts what callies said

[Tom Vaught]

Doesn't surprise me a bit.
If Callies made the rods and machined the rods and documented what they used for torque when they stretched the fasteners,
(prior to machining), why wouldn't the rods match what your engine builder measured (if his torque wrench was calibrated with
the same accuracy as Callies torque wrench and specified torque number)?

DOH

Tom V.

[grandville455]

I’m just saying it matched , I used the exact same torque settings when I put it together this spring with anther calibrated wrench! If u don’t have a way to measure with a stretch gauge , the wrench is fine! Not sure where the attitude or sarcasm comes from! It’s just another reason I rarely post here anymore!

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by grandville455

I’m just saying it matched , I used the exact same torque settings when I put it together this spring with anther calibrated wrench! If u don’t have a way to measure with a stretch gauge , the wrench is fine! Not sure where the attitude or sarcasm comes from! It’s just another reason I rarely post here anymore!

Not worth while posting anywhere anymore, fb is just as bad if not worse. Everyone knows everything and you can't tell them otherwise lol

[Tom Vaught]

Key word is calibrated torque wrench.

All I am going to say on this topic.

Not really a hard subject to understand.

Deal is knowing the Torque Wrench was truly calibrated properly, not abused, not dropped, etc.

In today's world fasteners are all over the place. A lot of off shore stuff.
But there are good companies out there selling good stuff even today.

Tom V.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

At the PRI show Thursday, I had an extended conversation with Tom Molnar himself about the whole bolt tightening situation and all the controversy. Here is a summary of our talk. Bolt stretch measurement is the ONLY way to GUARANTEE the fasteners are in their elastic range for absolute best performance. Using a torque wrench is the absolute WORST method to achieve this goal. Torque angle is the BEST approximation to get into the elastic range if you can't measure the fastener such as in a blind hole application Measuring bolt stretch is not easy on an assembled engine, thus torque angle is a decent alternative. The lubricant used to establish the torque angle used is critical. If Molnar specifies using extreme pressure grease #3 and you use motor oil or ARP lube, the specs. established are null and void. There is so much frictional difference between the different lubes, the specs are meaningless. The torque angle method would be less critical to the lube used because only the initial pre-load torque before the angle is applied would factor in. Hope this settles the debate somewhat. Bottom line: Use a stretch gauge if you have 1. Use the lubricant specified only. Use torque wrench method as a least accurate, last resort.

Tom Molnar is a very interesting guy to talk to. I have not spoken to him in over a year but the last conversation I had with him Molnar rods had not failed before the piston did on engine inspection. The rods were still in one piece with pin still attached to the rod. Ripped out of the piston first.
Its nice when you can call up the owner of the company and he will call you back and talk forged rod and crank tech. I learned a lot about what it takes to bring a crank/rod to the market. How much it costs and time for pay back.
His thread design is all his own. The threads do not perfectly align until rod is stretched. They are purposely not aligned until tightened to spec for full thread contact between surfaces.
I know thread lube is very important so I tried a UN-sientific test years ago just out of curiosity. Ford FE rods freshly resized from the machine shop with 3/8 ARP bolts. I torqued them to 56lbs with a borrowed Crafsman tq wrench at the time.
Used ARP lube on first try. Then made a fine scratch mark on the nut and cap with carbide tipped marking tool. Took it apart and cleaned with carb cleaner and did it again with some green # 2 grease and marked it. Repeated it with red Locktight and made a mark.
ARP was the tightest, then the grease followed by the locktight. But it was all within a 1/16" on the nut-cap. If I had to guess within a 1/8 turn on the tq wrench.
Sometimes I like to try things just to see what happens.

The reasons I chose the Molnar Power Addder rods for the IA engine was well cost-weight. The Callies rods I was looking at were 1600$. And still they weighed more than the Molnar PA rod. To me if a steel rod does not bend, break or go out of round the more expensive rod does not give you anything.
Other than being a nice USA made rod and thats great too.
Good luck with your new project.

[Tom Vaught]

I can see why you were upset and were calling Molnar names when you had the engine failure. You just were angry from the engine failure. You had not gotten into the root cause of the engine failure at the time you sent me that pm. Unfortunately you had a part failure.

Your discussion with Mr Molnar apparently was a good one and now you are happy again with his products. This post yesterday cleared up the angry post you sent to me at the time of the failure.

Glad you got that resolved. Identified the root cause of the failure, and learned a bunch
of new stuff about his connecting rods.

So in the past I had several business dealings (4.5" All Pontiac/scat crank) among other
things that I sent to you. Hope that 4.5" stroke crank was not part of the engine damage.

Finally, I apologize to you for questioning your recent posts. I had the PMs as mentioned
that said something different but not all of the information. Again I apologize.

Tom Vaught

[gobrdgo]

I wonder how eagle torqued the rods to home them to spec? Stretch or torque?