Torque value discrepancies

[nismou20]

So now I’m confused, as under Engine technical, torque value for rod big ends to be @65 but under Torque Settings in wiki it’s listed at 45. This is a U20. So now I can’t remember which value I used. If 45 I’m under and would have to drop pan. Anyone? Oh brother!

[Nissanman]

My Service Manual says 65.1ft-lb [9Kg-m].

[ToddW]

My service manual also says 65.1ft/lb.

[nismou20]

Thanks guys, the wiki needs to be corrected. 65 it is.

[theunz]

Has this absolutely been confirmed as 65 being correct? I'm in the same situation as nismo20. Seems odd that the rods receive the same torque as the mains which are usually larger bolts.

[jhayden]

Yes, Mike – Todd’s info is correct per page 41 of the Nissan Service Manual. If that surprises you, consider the following comparison (per Chilton, all values in ft-lbs):

Cyl head bolts, Main bearing bolts, Rod bearing bolts, Crank pulley bolt

U20: 65, 65, 65, 145

L24: 47, 33-40, 20-24, 116-130

The first time you rebuild a 240Z with the L24, you will be amazed at how fragile and lightweight the bottom end seems compared to the U20 (which is derived from a forklift). They are amazingly bulletproof, though, and the single cam chain design avoids the chain-through-the-valve cover malady suffered by so many neglected U20s.

Jon

[C.Costine]

I went by the 65 Lbs for my 1600 and stripped a nut and had to get the rod resized. I notified 311s but it doesn't appear that anything changed.

[jhayden]

Ouch!

Yes, the corresponding numbers for the “R” are:

45-50, 71-81, 35-45, (n.a.)

Per both sources cited above

Jon

[theunz]

Thank you Jon, I'll go ahead and drop the pan and double check. It's time to get the break in oil out anyway. Everybody loves an oily mess, don't they?

Anyone know where I can acquire a young persons memory
I'm sure it would save me a lot of grief!

[S Allen]

Give me the link where it needs changed please.....

S

[theunz]

Well, that was a lot of work for nothing! But I will sleep better now