manley h beam rod bolt toque specs

i have a set of 6.8 rods eagle rods eagle arp bolt 8740 material best i can find is tourque to 63#


now on my other engine i have manley rods and they call on the instructions for a 8740 7/16 bolt to torque to 95#
why such a differance in the torque values ? and the arp 2000 ones on the manley rods are even higher too 90-100#

Stretch Method in Manley Link is preferred by many. I would think it has to do with the metal used, along with the THREAD DEPTH, IE the Length of the threaded part, as well as the overall length, not the actual DEPTH the Thread is cut into the surface of the bolt, which also matters, when the Diameters are the same. Also the Type Metal (even though the chart does not reflect that, and is not likely the case here) it is screwing into. Maybe other variables also, like tread pitch and/or depth, that's one advantage of the stretch method. There is a lot to bolt science, those are some of the variables anyway, as jumbled as I tried to articulated it.

https://manleyperformance.com/dl/tech/rod-hbeam.pdf

I would stick to the chart, if your bolts are in them, or someone has a extremely good reason not to.

Also Paul Kane is up on Counter Fit Bolts I believe. The Stampings are off on them and usually can be spotted.

I would post some pictures for his inspection while it's apart. IE if those 501 Rods are Second Hand.

And there's this Little Duzzy from ARP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbSFa0YyIA4

And then the type of Lube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSB-qc5Nk1g



5Point's Slow with the 9.77 Fairmount Threw a Rod on the Dyno the First Time Out. There was some Speculation, and if I remember correctly Ebay Rods Came up. If you got your parts from a reputable source I would not worry about it, much.

For someone else who comes across this thread later, yea I would look into it further if Bolts or Rods are Suspect.

PS: You can look on page 25 below if you have some part numbers and for further info also. Lot of good info in the ARP link. Also read pages 20 and 24 very carefully a couple of times and compare the general recommendations.

https://race-shop.sk/my-pdf/ARP_2019.pdf

And Compare

https://www.eaglerod.com/item/5528127-4340-i-beam-bb-chevy-6800?category=197627
 

They gonna have the same bolts as the Manley I would suspect at least the ARP2000's. If they are 8740 and 7/16"  so 63 seems pretty FUBAR to me. Maybe you misread or mistyped. The Link Eagle say's 68 and it's with ARP Lube so there's that. Their ARP I-Beams (Eagle) say 76 pounds https://www.eaglerod.com/item/5528567-4340-i-beam-rod-chevy-bb?category=197627 with ARP2000's, for what that's worth.

Worth noting the Manley PDF I linked was from 2010 and with 30wt oil. Also the stretch measurements are smaller then the ARP link with ARP Lube. I would stick to the current stretch length and their lube just to be safe if they are ARP BOLTS.

supervel45 wrote:Stretch Method in Manley Link is preferred by many. I would think it has to do with the metal used, along with the THREAD DEPTH, IE the Length of the threaded part, as well as the overall length, not the actual DEPTH the Thread is cut into the surface of the bolt, which also matters, when the Diameters are the same. Also the Type Metal (even though the chart does not reflect that, and is not likely the case here) it is screwing into. Maybe other variables also, like tread pitch and/or depth, that's one advantage of the stretch method. There is a lot to bolt science, those are some of the variables anyway, as jumbled as I tried to articulated it.

https://manleyperformance.com/dl/tech/rod-hbeam.pdf

I would stick to the chart, if your bolts are in them, or someone has a extremely good reason not to.

Also Paul Kane is up on Counter Fit Bolts I believe. The Stampings are off on them and usually can be spotted.

I would post some pictures for his inspection while it's apart. IE if those 501 Rods are Second Hand.

And there's this Little Duzzy from ARP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbSFa0YyIA4

And then the type of Lube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSB-qc5Nk1g



5Point's Slow with the 9.77 Fairmount Threw a Rod on the Dyno the First Time Out. There was some Speculation, and if I remember correctly Ebay Rods Came up. If you got your parts from a reputable source I would not worry about it, much.

For someone else who comes across this thread later, yea I would look into it further if Bolts or Rods are Suspect.

PS: You can look on page 25 below if you have some part numbers and for further info also. Lot of good info in the ARP link. Also read pages 20 and 24 very carefully a couple of times and compare the general recommendations.

https://race-shop.sk/my-pdf/ARP_2019.pdf

And Compare

https://www.eaglerod.com/item/5528127-4340-i-beam-bb-chevy-6800  They gonna have the same bolts as the Ford if they are 8740 and 7/16"  so 63 seems pretty FUBAR to me.

https://www.eaglerod.com/item/5523669-4340-rod-bbc-6800-rod?category=197291 if you look on this link it shows torque to 63 # right on there
when i talked to kasse earlier i asked about the same size fastener but totally differant toque
apperantly manley rods is rated for the extra torque than the eagle ..

Go back and read my link. I added Eagles 6.8" Ford Version. See if it Says 68 Now please? I was fixing that as you quoted it, which is good if it shows the discrepancy. Never mind those or the I beam.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The Eagle Link showed Ford at the bottom of it, I did not notice when you click it, it went to a Chevy part number.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The Ford Factory Blue Prints show a Rod Offset for the 429 and 460's that Chevy Rods don't have.

Molnar offers Ford and Chevy Specific H-Beam 6.7 and 6.8 inch rods. They also offer a 6.750 Ford Rod and a 6.760 BBC Rod.

I thought "Assumed" Maybe Eagle had some too.


https://molnarrods.com/bbf-connecting-rods

https://molnarrods.com/bbc-connecting-rods

Below is their Stretch Spec's.

https://www.campbellenterprises.com/molnar-technologies/molnar-technologies-connecting-rod-installation-instructions.php

For what it's worth at this point.

supervel45 wrote:Go back and read my link. I added Eagles 6.8" Ford Version. See if it Says 68 Now please? I was fixing that as you quoted it, which is good if it shows the discrepancy. Never mind those or the I beam.

CRS68003D this is the part # right on the rod they are a chevy 6.8 rod eagle . i just looked at another site says 63# as well.
i am trying to find the ford link you posted?

maverick172 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:Go back and read my link. I added Eagles 6.8" Ford Version. See if it Says 68 Now please? I was fixing that as you quoted it, which is good if it shows the discrepancy. Never mind those or the I beam.

CRS68003D  this is the part # right on the rod they are a chevy 6.8 rod eagle . i just looked at another site says 63# as well.
i am trying to find the ford link you posted?

nm i found the link . it is a i beam rod though obviously differant for both h beam and i beam rods ..

Those I beams are with the ARP2000 bolts also. Check the H-Beam with ARP2000. Looks like 75 on them

https://www.eaglerod.com/item/5523672-4340-rod-bbc-6800-rod-arp-2000-bolt?category=197627

The Eagle Small Block rods I had with standard bolts, I ran their recommended torque spec.'s with no problems, so I guess go with that. One pulled a thread inside the rod, when I took it down for something else, and they were new rods. Never figured what that was about. They sure have almost a 30 pound spread from ARP and Manley recommendations. I never paid much attention to it or noticed it until you brought it up.









PS: Go Back to the Post I added the Molnar links and Check out those also. They are using a 3rd type Lube with the ARP2000 bolts.

...

Depends on the lube used. 63# with the gray stuff that come with the rods sounds right. Takes more tq if you use with just oil. Best use the gray paste that comes with the rods.

Depends on the lube used. 63# with the gray stuff that come with the rods sounds right. Takes more tq if you use with just oil.  Best use the gray paste that comes with the rods.

ya that make sense ..
so in comparison how mch torque roughly without the past ?

Lem Evans wrote:Depends on the lube used. 63# with the gray stuff that come with the rods sounds right. Takes more tq if you use with just oil.  Best use the gray paste that comes with the rods.

maverick172 wrote:ya that make sense ..
so in comparison how mch torque roughly without the past ?

Lem Evans wrote:Depends on the lube used. 63# with the gray stuff that come with the rods sounds right. Takes more tq if you use with just oil.  Best use the gray paste that comes with the rods.

Do it right and use the kind of assembly lube the mfrs. sent!

Lem Evans wrote:

maverick172 wrote:ya that make sense ..
so in comparison how mch torque roughly without the past ?

Lem Evans wrote:Depends on the lube used. 63# with the gray stuff that come with the rods sounds right. Takes more tq if you use with just oil.  Best use the gray paste that comes with the rods.

Do it right and use the kind of assembly lube the mfrs. sent!

how many times can you reuse a set of rod bolts before you should replace . ie: torqueing checking clearances and assembly and such

It is probably not what people like but, I put one rod in the rod vice and stretch the bolts to just more than the minimum spec dimension and record what torque it took to get there.

When using that set of rods in the engine with those bolts and whatever lube, I torque them to that recorded spec.