Idit main cap bolts

[Rockmotors]

Hello everyone. I have a 93 factory turbo with 170k miles on it. Pulled the motor to replace the oil pan and remove a broken glowplug. While I had it open, I plastiguaged all the bearings, just for peace of mind. They looked pretty good.
When I replaced the main caps, I followed the specs I had on hand, which was 75, then 95 lb/ft.
Now I've come across the turbo manual supplement that calls for an additional 45 degrees torque angle after that.
I can't find any other reference to this.

Should I pull the pan and retorque? Also, Does anyone have specs on main bolt diameter and length so I can check them for stretch? Or should these bolts just be replaced after having been torqued several times now? Once from the factory, and twice by me, plus another if I pull them to measure and retorque.

I kind of feel like leaving it alone, since I know the straight 95 lb spec is plenty good for n/a motors w/ aftermarket turbos, but I know I won't feel good about it down the road.

 

[IDIBRONCO]

The extra 45* seems to be on the excessive side to me. You'd probably be in the 140 lb-ft range or so.

 

[Rockmotors]

I feel the same way, but it's clear as day in the 93-94 idi turbo supplement manual from Ford.
I found it here, on page 61-62.
First I've ever heard of such a thing.

https://mid-atlanticema.org/wp-content/uploads/93-94-7.3-IDI-Turbocharged-Diesel-Engine.pdf

Uploading screenshot of page as well.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[IDIoit]

please explain "replace main caps"
i hope you used the ones that came with the engine

 

[Rockmotors]

Sorry, I just meant when I put them back. I see how that's easily misconstrued now, lol.

Only thing I changed out is the oil pan.

 

[IDIBRONCO]

You'd probably be in the 140 lb-ft range or so.

After thinking about this some more, I'll guess that 45* would put you in the 100-115 lb/ft range, not the 140 I guessed earlier.

 

[Rockmotors]

Im seriously torn between my common sense and my OCD on this one.

 

[Rockmotors]

Idibronco - that seems much better. It would be pretty in line with the what I've read about the turbo motors getting 110 on the head bolts.

 

[The_Josh_Bear]

But with angle-torque you'd be using stretch bolts, eh? If so, they cannot(or at least should not) be re-used as they permanently stretch during the angle phase.
I've never heard of a standard fastener using angle torque, but I have zero schooling on the matter. Just what I've read as things come up to fix on one of my vehicles.

It seems strange to me that IH would use the angle torque method for main caps but not for the head bolts.

 

[IDIoit]

But with angle-torque you'd be using stretch bolts, eh? If so, they cannot(or at least should not) be re-used as they permanently stretch during the angle phase.
I've never heard of a standard fastener using angle torque, but I have zero schooling on the matter. Just what I've read as things come up to fix on one of my vehicles.

It seems strange to me that IH would use the angle torque method for main caps but not for the head bolts.

the head bolts are not designed for "torque to yield"
i suspect the main bolts are the same, i cannot confirm.
however,
every engine ive built, which is like 5 idi's have,
torque em down to 75 and 95. and they have been fine.

i did 125 on main studs and girdle, and screwed that one all up.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[IDIBRONCO]

every engine ive built, which is like 5 idi's have,
torque em down to 75 and 95. and they have been fine.

That's good to know. I'll bet that the Manchero puts out a little bit more power than most of the engines on here.

 

[BrandonMag]

i did 125 on main studs and girdle, and screwed that one all up.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[IDIoit]

That's good to know. I'll bet that the Manchero puts out a little bit more power than most of the engines on here.

ill dyno it after the new engine finally gets in

 

[typ4]

DO NOT USE THE TORQUE ANGLE METHOD. YOU WILL RUIN THE BOLTS.
50 rebuilds on these and Ive never done it like that
96 ft lbs IIRC is the spec.

 

[typ4]

Because this is so wrong I just called my machine shop, he said absolutely do not go over 96. he has seen the supplement, says its very wrong info, puts the bolt very close to failure torque.
I listen to this guy when he talks.