Low Boost? SOLVED!

[Phil Rose]

At 10:35 AM -0400 5/26/02, Chrisellenhem at aol.com wrote:
>
>With regard to the infamous loosened plugs, have all the victims been
>actually torquing them to the Bentley spec of 30 N-m (22 lb-ft)?  I have
>always trusted my 'feel' using a standard length 3/8" drive ratchet for fear
>of destroying aluminum threads in what I'm certain is a very costly cylinder
>head;

Trusting ones "feel" is actually what often leads to destroying the threads.

>decided in this instance to 'torque-to-spec' and was astounded at just
>how 'tight' the spec feels - could barely move them with the ratchet
>afterwards!  Could this be the source of most people's repeated problem?

Not necessarily. Sure, if they (plugs) start out "loose" they'll end
up looser, but I've encountered very loose plugs after careful
torqueing. It's not uncommon, AFAIK.

>Breakaway torque of the plugs removed (which I had previously R&R'd by
>'feel') was nearly 'unmeasureable'; <5lb-ft...

Fortunately, the fine threads tend prevent significant compression
loss even after a plug becomes quite loosey-goosey. There was a
qlist"thread" about this a few years ago--in which some nerdy guy
expained the physics of why engines can operate normally with loose
plugs..

>Thanks for everybody's advise/help - now see if I can get away with the ECU
>upgrade w/o new boost issues...

Yep, it's nice to go into that (chipping) with everything on an even
keel. I lost my WGFV a few days before sending off the ECU for a
chip. When the chipped ECU came back I still had to wait a couple of
weeks before the new WGFV arrived. Talk about delayed gratification!
:-(

Phil
--

Phil Rose				Rochester, NY USA
'91 200q	(130 Kmiles, Lago blue)
'91 200q   (57 Kmiles, Tornado red)
	mailto:pjrose at frontiernet.net