6.0 Cylinder Walls Pitted

Considering the heat treating process, the surfaces will have irregularities.

At ARP.







But, hey, they take phone calls for any questions. I know I've called them probably way too much.

I used a hybrid method.

Ford and many other companies use a Torque/Angle sequence, with or without TTY. Torque has a lot of scattering, and in the engineering world, it's typical for a factor of 15% variation to be expected in the tension, even with lubrication. Torque wrench accuracy is on top of that.

The biggest reason for using the angle method, you rotate a thread a certain amount of degrees, and the bolt is stretched how many threads have been advanced. There's no variation. You have a 1.0mm thread; 360º stretches 1.0mm. The exception is when there is a compressive element or inconsistency in flatness between the objects. And we have that with a gasket.

So the 6.0 procedure developed was to use torque to set the base or 'floor.' Torque as measurement will adjust for the bending and compression of components. When done at a lower compressive condition, the lower torque, the 15% deviation is not much of a factor.

Then you come at it with the heavy hitters, the angular stretching of the bolts, after you've set your floor.

So I set my floor following Ford's initial torque values, then did three steps to the ARP torque steps. What the ARP lube has going for it is the unique ability, more consistency than the standard oil because, from what I can tell, it does not allow the threads to get polished. And thread polishing not only affects reuse tension values but consistency fastener to fastener. Since torque is a measurement of movement force, frictional variation causes that 15% scatter.

With studs, you should have minimal tension loss due to twisting the fastener's shaft, as long as the threads have low friction. There is still some, but not like a bolt where the rotation is transmitted from the head, the shaft, and the threads. Eventually, that unwinds to some degree. If it's head rotation with a bolt, then no issue. If it's thread movement, it unwinds with a loss of tension.

So with the studs, it's essential to keep the rotating surfaces controlled, which should be the top threads, the nut face, and one washer face. So that's where my lube went to. You don't want the washer to become a bearing, so no lube between the washer and head if it's smooth. I had a discussion with ARP over this on our engines, and the guy really didn't know what our head surfaces were like, to say if the washer to rocker box should be lubed or not. Another example is that these are fastener experts but have no individual engine detailed experience. But he agreed if the stanchions through the 6.0s rocker boxes are smooth, there should be no ARP lube between the stanchion and washer.

Another variation in tension that occurs during fastening is the compression of asperities. That can be in the compressed objects: washers, nut faces, and threads. With critical fastening, a good procedure is to step away and let the recently tightened object sit for about 30 minutes before the last step. Thread asperities will be at both ends of the studs. Some talk about waiting hours or a day, but the engineering studies I found said 80-90% of any loss of tension occurring from this is during the 30 minutes after the step is complete. That might even be in Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design.

Even if you go back, loosen the assembly, and retighten by torque, you will not get back to the same point of asperity compression. So the last step is a wing-it. The non-rotating surfaces already have their crush, including that non-rotating washer.

I did the 30 minutes at the final step.

I'm not telling anyone to do it the way I did it; it deviates from ARP.

First, I set my floor the same as the Ford procedure. Next, I index marked the nuts, studs, to the heads. Then I continued with the next two steps, to step 4 of 5. Waited the 30 min at a minimum and completed the last step, number 5. Finally, I checked that all the nuts rotated against the studs to the same degree, by the mark and by the torque/angle readout of my Snap-On Torque wrench.

Angular tensioning is more precise than torque, TTY or not; 5% vs 15%. The ARP lube is supposed to bring torque to that level, so part of my work for the videos was to doc if that was true. It pretty much is. However, the concern I have of it is that since it has the ability to lube well and prevent thread polishing, lowering the torque necessary to stretch a fastener (otherwise we may be torquing to 260lbft, also means it has the potential to allow for nuts/bolts to back off, because of the lower friction. Many times when backing off bolts or nuts you hear a POP. That's the release of static friction to moving, dynamic friction. But it doesn't mean that a fastener never backed off. You can't judge a fastener like that, just as you can't audit a fastener by reloading the torque wrench to see if it moves again. If it does, then both the static and dynamic friction became lower than how it was first rotated to. But it still can be lower, it's just that static friction is typically always higher than dynamic, so you'll never see that loss.

The rest, you'll have to wait until I can recover 1TB of Powerstroke images and videos off my contentious MAC #1. If it doesn't end in the trash.

Although I have a few things on MAC #2. And I can overthink things.




Post step 2.

Studs, typo. I'll throw my 2¢.

Me, one-half turn up from the bottom. If they do turn, bottomed, there will be additional upward pressure on the threads, additive to the upward force of the force that exists from tensioning. The force can change from finger tight to the loading you sometimes see when someone runs them home with an impact gun, even with a light trigger.

When I installed mine, I marked the studs to tell if they would turn. During the initial torque sequence, they can, even if bottomed, there some rotation. Once you get the first step of tension on the studs, they do not rotate; the frictional value of the threads keeps them in place. But I also used engine oil on the lower coarse threads rather than ARP lube to make sure those lower threads did have more friction than ARP lube would provide. Engine oil still protects from the static galling (asperity contact and welding under pressure) from cyclic loads that ARP warns of. They also have no issue if you want to use Loctite, as long as you preload the fasteners thoroughly before the Loctite has cured. If it has cured, it gets crushed during later tensioning.

Coarse threads are more prone to movement, including backing off, due to the higher thread angle. Another reason I did not want ARP lube on the lower threads and initially considered Loctiting them.

Easy typo; I do it all the time.

Correct, that's my methodology. Right or wrong.

I have no problems with using the stock TTY bolts. Theoretically, TTY has some advantages; ARP says their torque value is just slightly above stock (testing with a load cell but not with gasket compression), and I'd love to get a labs test on the stock bolts. It still would not be with a gasket sandwich. Considering you can buy stock bolts for a fraction of their value and cost of ARP studs, it could be the bargain of the century.

I went with ARP studs for two reasons. First, if I get run over when getting the mail, my wife would have difficulty getting the value of the work done on the engine due to the bashing of "it ain't got studs" in the marketplace. Second, examining the bolts that came out of my engine, like everything else with this reman, they did not clean the internal threads in the block when they bolted up the engine. There are signs in the bolt threads of pitting, debris embedding into the surfaces. So the block threads are compromised to some degree. Considering when using bolts, these threads, for at least the third time, would go through the stress of rotational friction, I did not want to expose them to that. In my cautious nature, I'm thinking of more asperities (tension loss) and possible stress cracks in the threads, weakening the attachment.

I had a long talk with an engineer at one test lab, and he thought I was right that the stock head bolts are 11.8 grade. He also thought my presumption of these bolts' preload (clamping force) might be low, as I used the minimum spec values for 11.8-grade bolts. He said in critical applications; it is rare for a fastener manufacturer to supply bolts at the minimum value. And my presumption from engineering literature of TTL at 25% above the yield value is educationally correct, but in application often higher than that.

There's a reason engine manufacturers have moved to the design of TTY fastening across a wide range. TTY is not a cheap nor weight-saving solution as its ofter portrayed.

Stones typically are too fine. It's funny how lately how Ed seems to be videoing subjects of mine after I publish one. He got it wrong.

Using sharpening stones available are too fine, typically 400 grit and finer. Lapping stones to flatten a sharpening stone can be around 280 grit, still too fine. They will polish the surfaces to a degree the Ra will be lower than should be achieved, and then you risk the situation that DTR commented on one time, the deck surface was too smooth.

As I've said in my videos, you need a flat surface. Some of the stock at metal sellers is fine; it can be checked with a straight edge. You can hone an aluminum plate to flat if you have a granite plate. You can use three aluminum plates to hone each to flat, using a two or three-plate method.

What is needed is 150 grit and 180 grit, and 180 grit can get below 10 Ra if you use the paper for too long. After that, the grit breaks down to a finer level, and you end up at 220 grit or 360 grit.

We all make choices of how much work we want to put into our trucks. For me, hours of lapping with the intent to better the head gasket situation was not that much of a task.

But as my old director would say to me, you're willing to do a lot more than others in your situation. One of those times was instrumenting a Waste Management garbage truck in the middle of summer in Atlanta because as the department manager, I couldn't ask my employees to do it by themselves if I wasn't. It washes off.

Ed is just finding a way to make money; they rape and pilage on things like this.

You can do it or not. People have been fine not lapping the decks.

150 then 180. You're done.

New paper, top-down, left to right and back.
New paper, top-down 45º angle, left to right and back.
New paper, top-down -45º angle. left to right and back.
New paper, left-right, top to bottom, and back.

You have to keep changing paper because the hard iron surface destroys the grit. Otherwise, it takes longer. Sandpaper is cheap.

Depending on the surface and cleanliness, repeat.

When the surface starts to look good, switch to 180 grit.

You need a flat plate or object. Some guys have run a piece of hard lumber through a plane until it "sparks out," measured flat. I've bought aluminum and steel cutoffs from my metal supplier for a few dollars that measured flat with the straight edge I took with me.

You can buy an aluminum plate from McMaster and check it for flatness. If not flat, they take anything that's not been used back, like Amazon.



Amazon has lapping plates; this one says it's flat to 0.0005", like mine.


They have other stone flattening tools that might be as flat. You have to measure.

Here's one that says it's 150 grit; I'm surprised. But I wouldn't use it bare; I'd use the paper, and this would be the holder. But, again, it needs to be checked for flatness.


There are different ways of doing this; you need to get imaginative.