Torque Wrenches - my answer...

[Huw Powell]

> Yikes, I hate doing this.

Hehe, don't worry about it...

> Huw's post below, however, is dead wrong.  Do not use only 258 foot 
> pounds on the crank bolt.  The correct value is 330 foot pounds at the 
> bolt.

I'm not arguing with that... heck, I'd say be safe and go for 400 ft 
lbs.  No one wants that bolt coming off!

> The 2079 tool does in fact act as a force multiplier, in addition to 
> being a little better in the use of space.  Note the use of the term 
> force.  You can't solve this math problem using only torque, you must 
> convert the 258 foot pounds of torque to force at the handle end of the 
> torque wrench.  The length of the extension, the length of the torque 
> wrench, and the length of the combined torque wrench and extension are 
> all pertinent to the problem to be solved.  The force at the handle end 
> of the torque wrench over the combined length of torque wrench and 2079 
> is the torque at the crank bolt.

Which I am perfectly happy with, sort of.  Except for one little thing. 
  That is that the length of the torque wrench handle is an unknown, 
unspecified variable, so the "problem" can't really be "solved." 
Luckily we have that 330 ft-lb figure form one of Phil's many manuals.

One resolution of that undefined variable might be if Audi expects its 
techs to use a VAG standard issue torque wrench, with known length. 
Then all the numbers fall into place nicely.

PS, ignoring the issue of how tight that bolt should be, I still stand 
by my reasoning.  All of it, except its relevance!

-- 
Huw Powell

http://www.humanspeakers.com/audi

http://www.humanthoughts.org/