MEL 430 Head bolts

[63-4drpost]

add 10%

There are better bolts than grade 8, some Ford bolts have 6 dashes on them. I figure Ford made the bolt to thier specs, not necasarilly grade 8???? Also, I always add 10% to the torque value specified, just the way I allow for cheap torque wrenches and used bolts. never install a bolt dry!!

The SD Series are huge brutes. They were the heavy truck gasoline engines before heavy diesel became the norm.

[YellowRose]

MEL 430 Head bolts

Thanks for the full link, Gary. Maybe Bill will find the information he needs there. Yes, I saw that about the 534MEL not really being a MEL engine. I can see this coming... Someone will want to pop a 534 into their Tbird for more power!! We might need to create a new sub-forum.. "The 534 SDE Forum For Squarebirds"! Lol..

Bill, this might be the Forum that Gary was speaking of, though I do not see a MEL Marine Engine Forum on it as such.

http://ford-mel-engine.com/

I should have been more specific- http://ford-mel-engine.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=296

Ask Chris Craft any marine engine questions.

There is an interesting thread regarding the 534 MEL as converted for marine use by Seamaster here.

http://ford-mel-engine.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=122

Or maybe this one might help.

http://www.marineengine.com/boat-forum/

but I think it is the first one, as I see that KULTULZ is on that one also.

The 534 was not a MEL, it was a member of the SUPER DUTY ENGINE FAMILY (401-477-534) (Med-Hvy Truck) introduced in 1958 also.

I stopped going over there about a year or so ago.

[YellowRose]

MEL 430 Head bolts

Bill, this might be the Forum that Gary was speaking of, though I do not see a MEL Marine Engine Forum on it as such.

http://ford-mel-engine.com/

There is an interesting thread regarding the 534 MEL as converted for marine use by Seamaster here.

http://ford-mel-engine.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=122

Or maybe this one might help.

http://www.marineengine.com/boat-forum/

but I think it is the first one, as I see that KULTULZ is on that one also.

Interestingly.....

I looked closer at the manual page after printing it out and while I know the engine sits backward in my boat[the fly wheel in front] My thermostat is on the flywheel end of the intake [front of my mounted motor,back of conventionally mounted motor]. As though the intake has been reversed on my boat.

Everybody follow that?

The question is....you will note that the intake manifold gasket blocks the water passage from intake to head at the thermostat end of the intake.

There is a MEL MARINE SECTION on the MEL ENGINE FORUM. This can be answered there.

I know how it goes on automotive but marine is a completely different subject.

[simplyconnected]

Here's what ARP says:

"Recommended torque is equal to 75% of the fastener’s yield strength."

If the bolt offers 16,300-lbs before it yields, does it make sense to eat up 90% of it's limit in torque? That only leaves 1,630-lbs before it breaks. Remember, pressures add up.

75% is much more reasonable (especially for a premium grade bolt).

Bill, all I can offer is Ford Engine Engineering Dept. spec's. Maybe the reason you are breaking bolts is because you have deviated from that, but I don't know. Fastenal must know something Ford hasn't found out about, yet.

Here are part numbers for different head bolts:
59/60 C0SZ 6065-A 430-cubic in. (20) BOLT - CYLINDER HEAD-9/16"-12 x 4.28"/4.34" <--This is yours.

68/ C8SZ 6065-A 429 & 460-cubic in. (10) BOLT - CYLINDER HEAD-9/16-12 x 5-1/8"
68/ C8SZ 6065-B 429 & 460-cubic in. (10) BOLT - CYLINDER HEAD-9/16-12 x 4-3/4"
69/70 C8SZ 6065-B 429-cubic in. (20) BOLT - CYLINDER HEAD-9/16-12 x 4-3/4"

Maybe you can get one from '68-'70 that's 4-3/4", cut 7/16" off, and dress the point. - Dave

[wrooper]

clamping force

Bill, you may want to invest in any Ford Shop Manual that includes your 430. They are all the same. Just follow the manufacturer's instructions.

Bolts are not hard to find. Any bolt will fail with 40% more twist than the specifications allow. Consider yourself very fortunate that the cast iron threads didn't strip out. - Dave

Edit: Go online and Google "bolt strengths"
I found that a:
1/2"-13 grade 8 bolt, dry torqued to 106 ft/lbs., clamps at 12,770 pounds of force.
9/16"-12 grade 8 bolt, dry torqued to 106 ft/lbs., clamps at 16,375 pounds of force.

More torque does not yield more strength. The REAL objective is to measure stretch. ARP sells a micrometer to use on rod bolts. Torque readings are just a very vague and crude means to get to stretch, because the threads may be upset, dry, different class fit, etc.

That's informative but what if the heads require 20,000 lbs of force. When I google torque specs, tables all specify that 9/16 torque limit is around 150 ftlbs. Some tables vary depending upon dry or oiled or plated etc. The stretch you refer to is the quality that keeps the bolts from backing out from vibration etc. My understanding is you need to torque to 90% of limit to get the stretch B

[wrooper]

Super Sport

Yellow Rose,
THAT is my boat[albeit at 17'?? and small block] You can see the fins centered in the white paint and wrapping around the stern...

[wrooper]

Torque value

Thanks again Dave,
I am under the impression that I will be making a mistake to torque at less than 90% of fastener strength. The 9/16 Grade 8 bolt is supposed to take 150 ftlbs according to Fastenal.

My original bolts all torqued to 140 ftlbs except 2 which I determined later were already "necked". One of these I broke and that has led me here......Bill

[wrooper]

430 Chris Craft

Interestingly.....
I looked closer at the manual page after printing it out and while I know the engine sits backward in my boat[the fly wheel in front] My thermostat is on the flywheel end of the intake [front of my mounted motor,back of conventionally mounted motor]. As though the intake has been reversed on my boat.

Everybody follow that?

The question is....you will note that the intake manifold gasket blocks the water passage from intake to head at the thermostat end of the intake.

When I disassembled, the gasket was placed to block the passage at the "front" of the motor.

The new gasket in my hand has "front" printed on it.

But in my boat that gasket blocked the passage at the rear of the boat ,away from my thermostat.

Does anyone think the critical point s/b to block the passage nearest the thermostat?

My engine was rebuilt by a vintage boat repair guy back in 1990. He never mentioned this issue but knowing the motor was in backward he placed the gasket to block the passage away from the flywheel and the thermostat.

Hope this is clear enough to start some scuttle#$@.......

[simplyconnected]

...Thanks for the manual page. I admit I was relying on BB Ford specs for my 140 ftlbs torque value...

Bill, you may want to invest in any Ford Shop Manual that includes your 430. They are all the same. Just follow the manufacturer's instructions.

Bolts are not hard to find. Any bolt will fail with 40% more twist than the specifications allow. Consider yourself very fortunate that the cast iron threads didn't strip out. - Dave

Edit: Go online and Google "bolt strengths"
I found that a:
1/2"-13 grade 8 bolt, dry torqued to 106 ft/lbs., clamps at 12,770 pounds of force.
9/16"-12 grade 8 bolt, dry torqued to 106 ft/lbs., clamps at 16,375 pounds of force.

More torque does not yield more strength. The REAL objective is to measure stretch. ARP sells a micrometer to use on rod bolts. Torque readings are just a very vague and crude means to get to stretch, because the threads may be upset, dry, different class fit, etc.

[wrooper]

Thanks!!

Thanks for all the good info

I was mistaken ,it is the 460 not the FE head bolt that I thought might work. I am going out to look tomorrow now that I have a part # for that bolt. I will run one in to make sure it will work.

I am a little worried about the "shoulder" on the 460 bolt? may interfere with it going completely in but I have been reassured that the shoulder will only cause a snug fit when fully in.

I wasn't able to open one of the boat pictures posted but the other photo of the boat for sale does not look like mine. There are some Chris kit boats that I have seen being called Super Sports. They are plywood hulls. I will try to post some photos after I get it back out of my garage. Mine has mahogany plank construction but is late enough that as a nod to modernity[and the early 60's Cadillac] there are wrap around fiberglass splash rails down each side above the waterline....

Thanks for the manual page. I admit I was relying on BB Ford specs for my 140 ftlbs torque value. Although I must admit the machine shop confirmed this from their book that apparently listed the 430. I know this motor is a Lincoln 430,anyone else have an opinion on torque values? Also, shouldn't torque values relate to fastener diameter? The BB Ford uses a 9/16 bolt....

Thanks again Bill

[simplyconnected]

...I have spoken to ARP technical support and they were nearly as useless as the parts counter folks who can only say "we have nothing in the computer for that application"...

...May I suggest you buy more grade-8 bolts and try it again using the factory torque specifications...

ARP has good bolts, but they make their REAL money by selling them in kits. Yes, if you look at their catalog, they sell "bulk" bolts (and studs) in sizes UP TO 7/16". I KNOW they sell bigger bolts, because my 351Windsor has 1/2" ARP head bolts.

So, forget ARP. Back in the day, Ford cold-headed their own bolts, depicted by the "F" on each bolt head. Oddly enough, they were grade-6, not grade-8.

Fastenal is only one company; albeit convenient, they aren't the only guys on the block. Tool and Die shops buy grade-8 bolts all the time and NONE of them are ARP.

Call this number during regular business hours: UNBRAKO (in Cleveland) 216-581-3000

If they don't have your bolts, they will steer you to someone who does. - Dave

I wouldn't try common fasteners again. You need the real thing. Might consider ARP head studs if the heads can be pulled straight up.

You would think ARP would have an open hardware listing by type, size and strength needed. Maybe there is a liability/waranty problem doing it that way.