Reinz Cylinder Head Bolts, FAI Gasket

[Sheraton]

How'do folks

I'm ready to order my last couple of parts needed for fitting my new Cylinder Head etc..


I will be fitting New Head Bolts


I can source Victor Reinz Head Bolts locally - and an FAI Head Gasket

Can anyone confirm the tensile rating of the Reinz Head Bolts ?

I'd prefer to fit standard 9.8 (tensile) bolts - and an Elastomer Gasket (with standard oil rail)

are the Higher tensile bolts 10.9 intended to be used with the MLS Gasket and upgraded Oil Rail ?


so many options available - I just want to be sure of what i fit and compatibility of parts.


any opinions on the FAI Head Gasket ? (i'd prefer to source this locally - I don't want to receive another Kinked Gasket in the post)


it's a subject covered many times i know - I've been searching too long and none the wiser r.e these questions



Paul.

[marinabrian]

Originally Posted by Sheraton

How'do folks

I'm ready to order my last couple of parts needed for fitting my new Cylinder Head etc..


I will be fitting New Head Bolts


I can source Victor Reinz Head Bolts locally - and an FAI Head Gasket

Can anyone confirm the tensile rating of the Reinz Head Bolts ?

I'd prefer to fit standard 9.8 (tensile) bolts - and an Elastomer Gasket (with standard oil rail)

are the Higher tensile bolts 10.9 intended to be used with the MLS Gasket and upgraded Oil Rail ?


so many options available - I just want to be sure of what i fit and compatibility of parts.


any opinions on the FAI Head Gasket ? (i'd prefer to source this locally - I don't want to receive another Kinked Gasket in the post)


it's a subject covered many times i know - I've been searching too long and none the wiser r.e these questions



Paul.

FAI.....no thanks, head bolts, not necessary I've yet to see a used one out of spec

As to the head gasket, Federal Mogul "Payen" BW750 is the best option

Brian

[Sheraton]

Originally Posted by marinabrian

FAI.....no thanks, head bolts, not necessary I've yet to see a used one out of spec

As to the head gasket, Federal Mogul "Payen" BW750 is the best option

Brian

cheers Brian


the reason for changing the bolts is to be sure what i'm fitting - the bolts have been changed for HGF repair in my ownership - not by myself tho, and i can't remember for sure what brand/spec bolts were purchased.

that said - you have me thinking about re-using the bolts there are no apparent issues with the sealing of the Head/Block currently - so no suggestion of clamping force issues with the currently installed bolts


I'd still like to clarify this - are the Higher tensile bolts 10.9 intended to be used with the MLS Gasket and upgraded Oil Rail ?

or can they be used with an Elastomer Gasket and Standard Oil Rail ?

and, would bolts be marked for Tensile rating ?

the reason i ask is - I know i ordered my Currently fitted Bolts from Mat (DMGRS) and from what i Can see Mat only has the 10.9 rated bolts available.


if the higher rated bolts are compatible with the Elastomer Gasket/Standard Oil Rail set-up - and 10.9 spec bolts are what is currently fitted - that's fine for me as long as i know for sure

of course i'd need to know which bolts i Have for the Angular torque variance.



Paul.

[Sheraton]

the more i read the less informed i feel r.e spec/compatibility of bolts Gaskets - and Angular Torque specs


i.e - the use of Elastomer Gasket with 10.9 spec bolts - from what i can make sense of it = the Higher tensile 10.9 spec bolts where intended for use with the MLS Gasket ? and the Angular Torque specs are specific to the use of these Bolts with MLS Gasket and Upgraded Oil Rail ?

So - Using the 10.9 bolts and revised angular torque spec with the Elastomer Gasket should be incompatible ?

I know folks have fitted the Elastomer Gasket with 10.9 bolts - I may have this in my car currently.


I'm swaying back to my initial preference of Kamax 9.8 bolts - for peace of mind when fitting the new Cylinder Head - with Elastomer Gasket = 20nm followed by 2 x 180 degree rotations (4x 90 degrees ) and I know I'm using the intended specs/parts

*to add - other info i've just seen suggests the revised Angular Torque procedure 20nmx180x135 degrees is specific to the use of the MLS type Gasket WITHOUT the Head Saver Shim (is this the N-type? Gasket) so not specific to the bolts tensile rating ?

Paul.

[Lovel]

Originally Posted by Sheraton

the more i read the less informed i feel r.e spec/compatibility of bolts Gaskets - and Angular Torque specs


i.e - the use of Elastomer Gasket with 10.9 spec bolts - from what i can make sense of it = the Higher tensile 10.9 spec bolts where intended for use with the MLS Gasket ? and the Angular Torque specs are specific to the use of these Bolts with MLS Gasket and Upgraded Oil Rail ?

So - Using the 10.9 bolts and revised angular torque spec with the Elastomer Gasket should be incompatible ?

I know folks have fitted the Elastomer Gasket with 10.9 bolts - I may have this in my car currently.


I'm swaying back to my initial preference of Kamax 9.8 bolts - for peace of mind when fitting the new Cylinder Head - with Elastomer Gasket = 20nm followed by 2 x 180 degree rotations (4x 90 degrees ) and I know I'm using the intended specs/parts

*to add - other info i've just seen suggests the revised Angular Torque procedure 20nmx180x135 degrees is specific to the use of the MLS type Gasket WITHOUT the Head Saver Shim (is this the N-type? Gasket) so not specific to the bolts tensile rating ?

Paul.

Before the MLS came out I have found two engines with the higher tensile bolts and elring elastomer head gasket. Both vehicles were in the srap yard and had no emulsified oil. I have fitted one elastomer head gasket and higher tensile bolts too. That was probably around 5 years ago and it is still holding up to this day I believe

[Sheraton]

Originally Posted by Lovel

Before the MLS came out I have found two engines with the higher tensile bolts and elring elastomer head gasket. Both vehicles were in the srap yard and had no emulsified oil. I have fitted one elastomer head gasket and higher tensile bolts too. That was probably around 5 years ago and it is still holding up to this day I believe

So r.e torque - would it be correct to assume 10.9 rated bolts with Elastomer Gasket should be 20nmx180x180 degrees(0r 4x90 degrees ) - 10.9 bolts with MLS (+ Head saver Shim) and Uprated Oil Rail should be the same 20nmx180x180 - and only the N-series(?) MLS Gasket (without the saver shim) and uprated Oil Rail should have the revised 20nmx180x135 torque spec ?


I've sourced a supplier for a Payen BW750 Gasket and Payen HBS005 Head Bolts - at a Good price - I figure that i can't go wrong with this combo - although the supplier doesn't list the 75 as compatible, so i have to wait for them to confirm my reg number before ordering....lol... I missed office hours today so should be Monday before i can order them

I've probably been overthinking this one It's nice to know which end is which and why when possible.

I'll do these bolts 20nmx180x180



Paul.

Paul.

[Lovel]

Originally Posted by Sheraton

So r.e torque - would it be correct to assume 10.9 rated bolts with Elastomer Gasket should be 20nmx180x180 degrees(0r 4x90 degrees ) - 10.9 bolts with MLS (+ Head saver Shim) and Uprated Oil Rail should be the same 20nmx180x180 - and only the N-series(?) MLS Gasket (without the saver shim) and uprated Oil Rail should have the revised 20nmx180x135 torque spec ?


I've sourced a supplier for a Payen BW750 Gasket and Payen HBS005 Head Bolts - at a Good price - I figure that i can't go wrong with this combo - although the supplier doesn't list the 75 as compatible, so i have to wait for them to confirm my reg number before ordering....lol... I missed office hours today so should be Monday before i can order them

I've probably been overthinking this one It's nice to know which end is which and why when possible.

I'll do these bolts 20nmx180x180



Paul.

Paul.

I used 20nm, 180deg, then 135deg for 10.9 rated bolts. The higher tensile bolt requiring less rotation to apply sufficient clamping force. I never calculated the difference if any in overall clamping force between the originals and the 10.9’s with the final 135deg turn. Perhaps the overall clamping force on the gasket sandwich is the same? Also noticed that the 10.9’s have a distinct higher pitched ring if you tap them together compared to the original fitted bolts.

One other thing to consider is the later Chinese engines were pressure cast whereas MGR (Powertrain) engines were gravity fed castings, which would suggest the castings are less dense and more likely to deform under higher clamping loads than they were originally designed for. So it is questionable whether we should use the later ultimate Chinese gasket kit and bolts as it may be possible to distort the cylinder block and oil rail sandwich too much?

[Sheraton]

Originally Posted by Lovel

I used 20nm, 180deg, then 135deg for 10.9 rated bolts. The higher tensile bolt requiring less rotation to apply sufficient clamping force. I never calculated the difference if any in overall clamping force between the originals and the 10.9’s with the final 135deg turn. Perhaps the overall clamping force on the gasket sandwich is the same? Also noticed that the 10.9’s have a distinct higher pitched ring if you tap them together compared to the original fitted bolts.

One other thing to consider is the later Chinese engines were pressure cast whereas MGR (Powertrain) engines were gravity fed castings, which would suggest the castings are less dense and more likely to deform under higher clamping loads than they were originally designed for. So it is questionable whether we should use the later ultimate Chinese gasket kit and bolts as it may be possible to distort the cylinder block and oil rail sandwich too much?

I think i may have read one of your posts elsewhere online recently from a few years back.

it may have been mentioned by someone on there - the revised torque spec 20nmx180x135 degrees only applied to the later MLS gasket that has no head saver shim - I'm sure the reasoning being stated was the Elastomer and early MLS with shim would compress to the same thickness and the later MLS without shim would be thinner ? I could buy that maybe ? .... with less stretch in the Bolts and a thinner Gasket the desired clamping force would be reached sooner(with less rotation) after initial torque is set ? and a full 2x180 degree rotations would have the bolts threaded farther into the Oil Rail ? and potentially snapping bolts (I've not had my hands on the Oil Rail yet so i'm not sure if Bolts can thread all the way through the Rail, Or if they can get Bottomed Out?)



Or - Is it More Simply - 10.9 bolts have less stretch, so only require the final 135 degree rotation to achieve desired Clamping force regardless of Gasket used ?



there must be some MG/Rover tech bulletins or such from the time explaining the revisions and why ? specifically the torque spec revisions ?

it's a bit late Now - I may spend some time looking tomorrow




Paul.

[Lovel]

Originally Posted by Sheraton

(I've not had my hands on the Oil Rail yet so i'm not sure if Bolts can thread all the way through the Rail, Or if they can get Bottomed Out?)
Or - Is it More Simply - 10.9 bolts have less stretch, so only require the final 135 degree rotation to achieve desired Clamping force regardless of Gasket used ?
there must be some MG/Rover tech bulletins or such from the time explaining the revisions and why
Paul.

The oil rail has tapped through holes and there is no danger of the head bolt threads bottoming out. There may have been cases of the stud hitting the bottom of the sump perhaps, but I have not witnessed this. This could only occur if using non original bolts or perhaps there had been too many skims of the head or even the Block itself !

10.9 have less stretch therefore more torque for less degrees turned.

Landrover or perhaps Powertrain never released the 10.9 bolts afaik. They did the engineering work on the MLS for the Freelander as it suffered more due to cylinder block/head flex and then every man and his dog jumped onto the MLS use in MGR products thinking it was the ultimate solution. Therefore I don’t believe there has ever been a specific MGR engineering bulletin relating to these parts. They skimmped a lot by the lol of it. Look at T4 diagnostics development which was poor and full of bugs sketchy and compare against Landrover who paid that bit more to omitec and got good software which was updated a lot. If MGR employed all the recommended engineering designs, helped out customers with the issues and truly believed in the k-series then the would have helped themselves stay in the game.

Lotus k-series customer feedback or racing needs? may also have a hand in the engineering too perhaps this is where the 10.9 head bolts came in?

The Chinese took Powertrains engineering concepts and put it into production successfully with high pressure casting methods along with new strengthining webs and MLS gasket combination and higher tensile head bolts resulting in a more robust head joint which appears to have paid off in reliability.

Bottom line is with the low pressure cast Powertrain engines to apply the final 135deg turn and no more with the 10.9 higher tensile bolts or you might inadvertently start to deform the casting landing area such as the wafer thin lip the cylinder liner sits on. It will seal for a while but eventually the liners may sink allowing failure to occur.

Btw I prefer the Payen bw750 elastomer version to anything else, but one observation which cannot go unmentioned is the elastomer bead on the Elring version is pretty substantial compared to the Payen version. My head tells me the the Elring version should be more robust in the long term, however I have continued with Payen despite their one or two quality issues popping up on here. The majority of failures of the gasket is the elastomer bond to the gasket which fails over the years allowing water and oil to mix, usually to differential pressure cycles through out engine lifespan the water is higher pressure than the oil side so invariably always ends up the bottom of the sump and then get sucked into the inlet side making the well known mayonnaise.
And finally I have found that the Rienz version is a Payen. Reinz just box it in their logo.

[Sheraton]

thanks I found a few tech bulletins from Federal Mogul etc.. r.e Bolts/Gaskets
- nothing relating to the Higher Tensile Rating of the Bolts tho....


"10.9 have less stretch therefore more torque for less degrees turned."


this seems a more valid explanation for the revised torque spec than the thinner Gasket explanation



Paul.