Stupid question, but I gotta know...
JazzMan
a GM 60° V6. They have been torqued once, but never ran
because the heads had to be taken right back off and sent
back to the machine shop for rework. The engine was never
in the car. Question: I'm assuming that headgaskets can
only be torqued once, and only once, but is that necessarily
true? Can these gaskets be reused? In this motor? Another
motor?
Just wondering,
JazzMan
--
***************************************
In memory of Pincushion
http://www.captured.com/underground/memories/patrick_magee.html
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************
Edgar Montrose
again.
Are you still in the DFW area?
Bob
"JazzMan" <No_...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:74251186D028C557.085C9206...@lp.airnews.net...
> So, here I am with a set of Felpro Blue headgaskets from
> a GM 60° V6. They have been torqued once, but never ran
> because the heads had to be taken right back off and sent
> back to the machine shop for rework. The engine was never
> in the car. Question: I'm assuming that headgaskets can
> only be torqued once, and only once, but is that necessarily
> true? Can these gaskets be reused? In this motor? Another
> motor?
>
> Just wondering,
>
> JazzMan
That depends.......what's your time worth? Very little? use 'em again. You
hate working on cars and don't want to do the job over, buy new gaskets.
Dave Baker
>From: "Edgar Montrose" edgarm...@techie.com_nospam
>Date: 25/05/02 05:36 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <CxEH8.2959$n_5.83...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
>
>Yep, they're trash now. Once the fire ring has been crushed, it can't be used
>again.
>
Nonsense - If the engine hasn't been run and the gasket isn't damaged in an way
then torqueing it back up again puts it into exactly the same state as it is
now. The fact that the fire ring has been crushed is neither here nor there. It
isn't being crushed any further second time round. The only reason not to
resuse a head gasket after running the engine is because they are usually
coated with lacquer that melts to seal imperfections and then comes away as it
sticks to the head or block when you strip the engine. However there are plenty
of non coated gasket types that are quite happy being reused even after the
engine has been run.
The high performance metal layer gaskets you can buy for VW Golf engines for
example - I think they were std on the G60 supercharged engine. We used to
reuse those time and time again on race engines.
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
Dean Dardwin
Nonsense yourself. I can see you don't install many Fel-Pro gaskets! They come with a set of installation tips. For this type gasket, reuse is forbidden.
Dean
Dean Dardwin
Check the installation tips you got with the gaskets. Or check with your
Fel-Pro dealer. In this case, I can tell you that the answer is "no,
they cannot be reused".
Dean
JazzMan
>
> Yep, they're trash now. Once the fire ring has been crushed, it can't be used
> again.
>
So, if the torque spec is 65-90 lbs/ft, and they
were originally torqued to 66 lbs/ft, then
theoretically I could torque them in a different
application to, say, 70 lbs/ft to move the head
back into the plastic region of fire ring
deformation?
Also, what about spray-on gasket adhesives
like Copperkote?
> Are you still in the DFW area?
>
Mostly, lately depends on the day. :(
Dave Baker
>Date: 25/05/02 13:33 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3CEF847...@dxd.com>
>
>
>--------------080209000600000806040105
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Dave,
>
>Nonsense yourself. I can see you don't install many Fel-Pro gaskets!
>They come with a set of installation tips. For this type gasket, reuse
>is forbidden.
>
1) You can be damn sure any manufacturer is going to cover their arse about
installation procedures, especially somewhere as litigation prone as America.
It also helps gasket sales no doubt ! It's a bit like Peugeot specifying that
you cannot skim their cylinder heads by more than a few thou and they even list
a slightly thicker gasket for skimmed heads. But the heads can be skimmed by 60
thou without the slightest hint of a problem and for race engines that's
exactly what you do to get the compression ratio right. In fact if everything a
manufacturer said was gospel then no one would modify any engine in any way
because supposedly the manufacturer would have got it perfect to start with.
On many modern engines you aren't even supposed to recut the valve seats if you
believe the official word. You're meant to throw the cylinder head away and buy
a new one. Yeah right.
2) Reuse after the engine has been run is not the same as reuse just because
the head has been clamped down once. Composite type gaskets like OE stuff and
Felpro quite often leave half of themselves stuck to the head and block when
you take an old one off and of course you can't reuse them if they are in
multiple pieces.
I repeat - if the gasket hasn't yet been exposed to temperature and is not
damaged in any way then clamping it back down to the original torque puts it
into exactly the same state as it was to start with. That's just engineering
common sense. Sadly common sense isn't a common commodity I find these days.
If you think you can tell me how applying the same torque twice changes
anything then I'll be fascinated to hear your reasoning.
Dean Dardwin
You are so far off on this subject I'm not going to encourage you with a reply. Fel-Pro makes the gaskets, they say "NO", that's the answer, period!
Dean
JazzMan
>
> Dave,
>
> Nonsense yourself. I can see you don't install many Fel-Pro gaskets!
> They come with a set of installation tips. For this type gasket, reuse
> is forbidden.
>
> Dean
>
> Dave Baker wrote:
>
>
> Nonsense - If the engine hasn't been run and the gasket
> isn't damaged in an way
> then torqueing it back up again puts it into exactly the
> same state as it is
> now. The fact that the fire ring has been crushed is neither
<snip>
So the question for me becomes, is this once only rule a
result of actual technical reasons, marketing reasons, a
combination of both? From an engineering standpoint, the
fire ring seems to be the main issue, assuming the gasket
didn't delaminate upon dissassembly. When the fire ring
crushes under head pressure it transitions through elastic
into plastic deformation, but there is always a little
elastic recovery when unloaded. Does retorquing to a
slightly higher value, within specs, transition the fire
ring back through plastic deformation again, therefor
leaving the gasket in the same condition as the first
use? Maybe the metallurgy of the fire ring is such that
there is a risk of a work-hardening fracture of the
ring because of it's second trip through the plastic
deformation stage?
I know it's only a head gasket, but this has my
intellectual curiosity piqued.
Peter
but anyone who works on cars will tell you that they would prefer to do a
job once... and only once....do it the proper way the first time & save
time, money & sanity in the long run...........which means using new
gaskets...
Dardwin" <d...@dxd.com> wrote in message news:3CEF8576...@dxd.com...
Dave Baker
>Date: 25/05/02 14:23 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id:
><48236818649FC234.6A23363C...@lp.airnews.net>
You are quite correct in that the fire ring will transition through elastic
into plastic deformation. But there is no need to retorque to a slightly higher
limit second time round. Any elastic recovery when the head is removed will be
reversed when the same torque is applied again. There will be no further work
hardening or any other technical change in the gasket's state second time
round. Only if further plastic deformation was required (which it isn't) would
a higher torque value be needed.
The once only rule will apply to gaskets that have actually been "used" - i.e.
the engine has been run. Torqueing the head down doesn't constitute "use" IMO.
Edgar Montrose
If the manufacturer states it okay to reuse a gasket, then they'd say so on the box.
And it's clear they don't. It really comes down to whether or not you want to do it
again in the future should the gasket fail. If it fails while driving, then you take the
risk of further engine damage.
Just as you'd never steer me wrong on a computer deal (I know you from the DFW.FORSALE NG),
I'd never steer you wrong on an engine job.
JMHO,
EM
"JazzMan" <No_...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:AC004D48786EE993.6BB43AB9...@lp.airnews.net...
Kevin Mouton
procedures used for race engines are good for commute vehicles and most any
mechanic who works on passenger cars for a living will not take the risk of
reusing a head gasket that the manufacturer says not to. You might get away
with it, but the chance of a repeat repair is too great a risk in this case.
Regardless of the reason (engineering, promotional, profit, etc.) the
industry standard is to not reuse any head gasket after it has been torqued
down. I do agree that it may be possible to reuse a head gasket on some
applications and get away with it once in a while, but no technician I know
of would risk eating the job, for the savings of reusing a head gasket.
We all know the manufacturers are not perfect and there are many things that
can be done to improve some of their recommended procedures, but in this
case the safe bet is to go with the manufacturer's recommendation.
--
Kevin Mouton
Automotive Technology Instructor
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy"
Red Green
"Dave Baker" <pumar...@aol.comma> wrote in message
news:20020525091340...@mb-da.aol.com...
JazzMan
motor, one that's reserved for putting in a car while I
work on the main motor. It doesn't take too much time to
swap motors in a Fiero, and the temp motor is unlikely to
accumulate more than a few hundred miles in it's life, so
this makes sense to me to do.
Thanks for everyone's input on this, it's been enlightening!
JazzMan
--
Stan Kasperski
be different about the gasket if it were torqued, released and retorqued? I agree
that common sense is definitely not very. Too many people take manufacturer's self
serving statements without any sense of the context in which they may have been
made.
Stan K.
Dave Baker
>Date: 26/05/02 21:47 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3CF149E0...@ev1.net>
>
>I've got to agree with Dave on this one. Makes so much sense. What could
>possibly
>be different about the gasket if it were torqued, released and retorqued? I
>agree
>that common sense is definitely not very. Too many people take manufacturer's
>self
>serving statements without any sense of the context in which they may have
>been
>made.
>Stan K.
There's also probably a fundamental difference in approach and outlook between
general repair or garage type people and specialist engine designers. For
repair work the person is just following the book. That's all he needs to do to
claim a good job and anything that then doesn't work is the manufacturer's
responsibility.
In race engine work, especially at the limits of technology, almost by
definition you're pushing the boundaries, not following what anyone else does
because all you'll achieve that way is the status quo. To innovate and improve
you need to ignore accepted practice, think laterally and understand not just
what a component does but why it does it and how it can be made to do it
better.
The "book", if things like Haynes manuals and installation guides can be
summarised that way, have to be aimed at the likely user, and maybe even the
lowest common denominator. Why go into a lengthy description of how to check
and measure if something is acceptable for reuse when the person may not have
the measuring equipment or the experience to spot faults? It's easier to just
say fit a new one. That's what I'd do too if I sold gaskets.
In a country where takeaway cups of hot coffee have to carry a warning saying
"this cup of coffee may contain very hot liquid" or whatever, who can blame a
manufacturer for saying don't reuse a gasket whether or not it may be fine to
reuse?
Edgar Montrose
Hmmmmm...............UK huh? Home of the famous BSA - built to leak.....
;-)
Dean Dardwin
I'll sure sleep better at night knowing that both of you are awake all night inventing conspiracy theories... "there is a sinister plan by gasket manufacturers to sell more gaskets by telling customers not to reuse them...". HA! HA! HA!
The facts are...
1) No one who actually builds engines would ever consider reusing a once-torqued head gasket. It has been standard practice over the last 40 years I know of to replace them, period. This is mandatory with the "no re-torque" gaskets the original post referred to.
2) No one with any common sense at all would risk a $2,500 engine for a lousy $40 gasket set. Especially when the manufacturer specifically forbids reuse.
3) Fel-Pro, now owned by Federal-Mogul, makes the finest gaskets available. I, along with other pro engine builders, refuse to use any other. These people have forgotten more about gaskets than the rest of us will ever know. I'm smart enough to know when someone is smarter than I am and I readily defer to their expertise.
While I certainly respect your right to have and express your opinions, you must understand that people depend on NGs to get (hopefully) accurate information. Do what you like to you own engine but please don't mislead some poor guy who obviously doesn't know any better.
BTW, seen any unmarked black helicopters lately? ;-)
Dean
Mike Graham
>1) No one who actually builds engines would ever consider reusing a
>once-torqued head gasket.
Dave builds engines. For a living. Race engines.
Your claim is false.
>2) No one with any common sense at all would risk a $2,500 engine for a
>lousy $40 gasket set. Especially when the manufacturer specifically
>forbids reuse.
Really? Where do they specifically forbid re-torquing?
>3) Fel-Pro, now owned by Federal-Mogul, makes the finest gaskets
>available. I, along with other pro engine builders, refuse to use any
>other. These people have forgotten more about gaskets than the rest of
>us will ever know. I'm smart enough to know when someone is smarter than
>I am and I readily defer to their expertise.
They specifically say that even their 'no re-torque' gaskets relax a
bit if you release the torque. That means that if you release the
torque and reapply it, there is still 'spring' in there to seal.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Graham | Fighting the good fight against porosity,
mi...@metalmangler.com | lack of fusion, and people who constantly
<http://www.metalmangler.com>| try to correct the spelling of 'weldor'.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rex Burkheimer
were the "car to have" :)
Brian Evans
"Dean Dardwin" <d...@dxd.com> wrote in message news:3CF21D5D...@dxd.com...
Dean Dardwin
Mike Graham wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2002 06:49:49 -0500, Dean Dardwin <d...@dxd.com> wrote:1) No one who actually builds engines would ever consider reusing a
once-torqued head gasket.
Dave builds engines. For a living. Race engines.
Your claim is false.
2) No one with any common sense at all would risk a $2,500 engine for a
lousy $40 gasket set. Especially when the manufacturer specifically
forbids reuse.
Really? Where do they specifically forbid re-torquing?
3) Fel-Pro, now owned by Federal-Mogul, makes the finest gaskets
available. I, along with other pro engine builders, refuse to use any
other. These people have forgotten more about gaskets than the rest of
us will ever know. I'm smart enough to know when someone is smarter than
I am and I readily defer to their expertise.
http://www.federal-mogul.com/felpro/counterpro/essentials_of_engine_sealing/cylinder_head_gaskets/index.html
They specifically say that even their 'no re-torque' gaskets relax a
bit if you release the torque. That means that if you release the
torque and reapply it, there is still 'spring' in there to seal.
I know the reason they can't be reused, it has NOTHING to do with "spring". If you would actually buy a friggin' gasket set and read the friggin' instructions, you would not make yourself look so foolish here!
Dean
Mike Graham
>He says he does. I don't believe him. You don't know that for a fact, so
>your claim is BS.
How do you know I don't know it for a fact? I've been reading
Dave's stuff for years on RCM. I've seen independent descriptions of
his shop and whatnot.
>LIKE I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST, ON THE FRIGGIN' INSTALLATION TIP SHEET
>YOU GET WITH THE GASKET SET. IT'S EVEN PRINTED IN ENGLISH.
Quote it. Quote where it says "You can only apply torque that
squeezes this product once and once only."
>This means no such thing silly person. Have you ever actually installed
>a Fel-Pro Gasket? Or are you just making this BS up like Dave does.?
Yes. Yes I have installed a Fel-Pro gasket. Many of them. One of
them, on a quad-4, haunts me to this very day.
>I know the reason they can't be reused, it has NOTHING to do with
>"spring". If you would actually buy a friggin' gasket set and read the
>friggin' instructions, you would not make yourself look so foolish here!
Waving your arms won't convince me. Nothing on the Fel-Pro website
indicates that they frown on re-using un-fired gaskets. I've given
you one URL for their site already that implies that there won't be a
problem, and here's another:
http://www.federal-mogul.com/felpro/index.html
For those who don't want to chase it down, here's the relevant quote:
"PermaTorque® Gaskets - When installing a cylinder head gasket which
has a stamped part number suffix of “PT”, you do NOT have to retorque
the gasket. If desired, it may be retorqued when using standard head
bolts (the amount of clamping force against the gasket only increases
and will not damage the gasket). Do NOT retorque if using
Torque-To-Yield (T-T-Y) head bolts."
The important part, there, is the part about 'will not damage the
gasket'. So the gasket can be squeezed tighter and work fine. Now,
if this is the case, then how can it possibly be that re-using the
gasket in an un-fired head (no heat involved) would be unacceptable?
That's what we're talking about here... re-using an un-fired gasket.
I say it's fine, Fel-Pro implies that it's fine, and if they feel
otherwise then they're being awfully coy on their website. No such
information can be found in their section on training counter help, or
in the FAQs or fact pages.
Jim
> >Subject: Re: Stupid question, but I gotta know...
> >From: Stan Kasperski skasp...@ev1.net
> >Date: 26/05/02 21:47 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3CF149E0...@ev1.net>
> >
> >I've got to agree with Dave on this one. Makes so much sense. What could
> >possibly
> >be different about the gasket if it were torqued, released and retorqued? I
> >agree
> >that common sense is definitely not very. Too many people take manufacturer's
> >self
> >serving statements without any sense of the context in which they may have
> >been
> >made.
> >Stan K.
>
> There's also probably a fundamental difference in approach and outlook between
> general repair or garage type people and specialist engine designers. For
> repair work the person is just following the book. That's all he needs to do to
> claim a good job and anything that then doesn't work is the manufacturer's
> responsibility.
You've pretty much described it.. Working as a professional, I have
to stand behind my work. While I would consider re-using the gasket in
the situation described (working on my own car), there's no way I
would consider re-using it while working on a customers car. Doing
bleeding edge engine work, it's not unheard of for things to go
'boom'. With maintenance/general repair work, doing things outside of
accepted standards and practices assures that, no matter the actual
reason for the failure, it's going to be the mechanic's fault.
> In race engine work, especially at the limits of technology, almost by
> definition you're pushing the boundaries, not following what anyone else does
> because all you'll achieve that way is the status quo. To innovate and improve
> you need to ignore accepted practice, think laterally and understand not just
> what a component does but why it does it and how it can be made to do it
> better.
>
> The "book", if things like Haynes manuals and installation guides can be
> summarised that way, have to be aimed at the likely user, and maybe even the
> lowest common denominator. Why go into a lengthy description of how to check
> and measure if something is acceptable for reuse when the person may not have
> the measuring equipment or the experience to spot faults? It's easier to just
> say fit a new one. That's what I'd do too if I sold gaskets.
Regardless of if you're selling gaskets or not, what's wrong with the
theory of 'When in doubt, throw it out'? While I may be inclined to
'experiment' on my own vehicles, 'experimenting' on customers cars is
a sure way to have comebacks.
>
> In a country where takeaway cups of hot coffee have to carry a warning saying
> "this cup of coffee may contain very hot liquid" or whatever, who can blame a
> manufacturer for saying don't reuse a gasket whether or not it may be fine to
> reuse?
(I assume you might be referring to the McDonalds coffee case.. if
not, it's a good case of what seems to be a silly lawsuit actually
being quite reasonable)
Using the reasonable person test, would a reasonable person understand
that 'this cup of coffee may contain very hot liquid' to actually mean
'Based on past experiences, accidently spilling this cup of coffee on
yourself may result in severe burns, up to and including 3rd degree,
with the resultant injuries requiring a week-long stay in the hospital
and skin grafts'?
Last time I was in the hospital, I shared a room with a guy who
burned himself badly with hot grease. He was deep frying something on
the stove, and the pot of grease caught fire. He tried to carry it out
of the house, but tripped and fell. 3rd degree burns on hands and
feet. I expect that damage from flaming grease.. but not from coffee.
Regards,
Jim
Dean Dardwin
If I put www.brainsurgeon.com after my name does that make me a brain surgeon?
While you have attempted to search Fel-Pros site for information, you failed to work hard enough. It clearly states "the gasket cannot be reused" (speaking of the Perma-Torque gasket, of course).
Which brings us to my real point. The original question was very specific. Go back and reread it. You and others have fallen into the trap of getting off-topic. You have espoused Dave's theory about a gasket being reusable because it can be retorqued. You didn't think it through. This theory is nonsense. There are other factors that influence reusability. You clearly don't understand that. I can explain it but you won't get it.
The facts remain. Fel-Pro says "NO". No pro engine builder would reuse a gasket the manufacturer says is non-reuseable. And anybody who would risk an expensive engine for a $40 gasket set is a metal butcher, not a mechanic.
It has been fun to watch the two of you sit on the sidelines and snipe about something you know very little about. Had one of you had the class to ask me to explain the specific reason, I would have. But you're a couple of "know-it-alls", at least in your minds. I've wasted enough of my time trying to educate people who should know better about one of the most basic of all shop concepts... "do the job right or do it over".
Dean
spam...@spamstop.net
<mcg...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#F0FEFF" link="#0000EE" vlink="#551A8B" alink="#FF0000">
> The last set I bought for a V-6 cost $40.00. Not much of a
>debate required.
><p>JazzMan wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE>So, here I am with a set of Felpro Blue headgaskets
>from
><br>a GM 60° V6. They have been torqued once, but never ran
><br>because the heads had to be taken right back off and sent
><br>back to the machine shop for rework. The engine was never
><br>in the car. Question: I'm assuming that headgaskets can
><br>only be torqued once, and only once, but is that necessarily
><br>true? Can these gaskets be reused? In this motor? Another
><br>motor?
><p>Just wondering,
><p>JazzMan
><br>--
><br>***************************************
><br>In memory of Pincushion
><br><a href="http://www.captured.com/underground/memories/patrick_magee.html">http://www.captured.com/underground/memories/patrick_magee.html</a>
><br>***************************************
><br>Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
><br>Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
><br>***************************************</blockquote>
>
></body>
></html>
>
Please post in plain text.
bobby
throw in a comment but:
If the head was warped when installed, removed, resufaced and reinstalled, I would not
expect the fire rings to all compress to the level they were compressed to the first
time. Since this head was reworked (I assume resurfacing was part of the rework) I
would definitely get a new gasket as it is a different head for practical purposes.
If the head had simply been removed and reinstalled for some other reason, the
arguments are valid and it looks like there is no agreement. Personally, I'd probably
change the gasket but I'd expect there is a good chance it would perform just fine
bb.
Mike Graham
>While you have attempted to search Fel-Pros site for information, you
>failed to work hard enough. It clearly states "the gasket cannot be
>reused" (speaking of the Perma-Torque gasket, of course).
Where? Give me the URL of the page in question.
>Which brings us to my real point. The original question was very
>specific. Go back and reread it.
Okay, for the benefit of those who can't get back to it easily, here
is Jazzman's original message:
>So, here I am with a set of Felpro Blue headgaskets from
>a GM 60° V6. They have been torqued once, but never ran
>because the heads had to be taken right back off and sent
>back to the machine shop for rework. The engine was never
>in the car. Question: I'm assuming that headgaskets can
>only be torqued once, and only once, but is that necessarily
>true? Can these gaskets be reused? In this motor? Another
>motor?
The part that is important, to me, is "but never ran". No heat
means no seal, and no seal means no damage from removing them.
>The facts remain. Fel-Pro says "NO".
It's a context issue. We're not talking about re-using a gasket
with 100,000 miles on it, we're talking about re-using a gasket with
not even one revolution on it. Totally different.
> No pro engine builder would reuse a
>gasket the manufacturer says is non-reuseable.
Again, show me where Fel-Pro specifies that even in an engine that
hasn't been run yet, the head gasket can't be re-used.
>It has been fun to watch the two of you sit on the sidelines and snipe
>about something you know very little about.
I'm so glad you enjoyed it.
> Had one of you had the class
>to ask me to explain the specific reason, I would have.
There *is* no specific reason. If you had one, you would have
pointed it out when you got resistance. If not, you were asking for
what you got.
>couple of "know-it-alls", at least in your minds. I've wasted enough of
>my time trying to educate people who should know better about one of the
>most basic of all shop concepts...
Run away.... run away....
JazzMan
have degenerated into a name calling festival, I'd like
to make a few observations, if I may.
Dean Dardwin wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> If I put www.brainsurgeon.com after my name does that make me a brain
> surgeon?
>
> While you have attempted to search Fel-Pros site for information, you
> failed to work hard enough. It clearly states "the gasket cannot be
> reused" (speaking of the Perma-Torque gasket, of course).
>
> Which brings us to my real point. The original question was very
> specific. Go back and reread it. You and others have fallen into the
> trap of getting off-topic. You have espoused Dave's theory about a
> gasket being reusable because it can be retorqued. You didn't think it
> through. This theory is nonsense. There are other factors that
> influence reusability. You clearly don't understand that. I can
> explain it but you won't get it.
>
> The facts remain. Fel-Pro says "NO". No pro engine builder would reuse
> a gasket the manufacturer says is non-reuseable. And anybody who would
> risk an expensive engine for a $40 gasket set is a metal butcher, not
> a mechanic.
>
Metal butcher, eh? Ok, I guess we'll find out in a couple of weeks
when I fire up this engine that I'm rebuilding. It's only my second
full rebuild, the first being a SB in my '81 Camaro back in '89, and
my third engine job on cars that I own. My current car has 223k miles
on it, all the metal butchering has been done by me. :)
> It has been fun to watch the two of you sit on the sidelines and snipe
> about something you know very little about. Had one of you had the
> class to ask me to explain the specific reason, I would have. But
> you're a couple of "know-it-alls", at least in your minds. I've wasted
> enough of my time trying to educate people who should know better
> about one of the most basic of all shop concepts... "do the job right
> or do it over".
>
> Dean
>
Dean, I've read many of your posts, and you do seem to have a lot
of knowledge and do make it freely available here. But, I've also
observed that you seem to be fairly arrogant and opinionated, a
trait that can rub both ways. There's no doubt that you have a great
deal of experience, but perhaps, every once and a while, it's OK
for someone else to have some experience that's different from yours?
My original question was meant to help me gather other's thoughts
and experiences, and I've learned a lot from that. But your name
calling, and total lack of ability to see something, anything, from
any angle but your own sort of negated any value that your contributions
had to this thread. Sure, FelPro says "Don't Reuse", but I want to
know the why and hows so that I can make an informed decision. Maybe
in this case the "party line" is just that. Just so you know, I'm
going to reuse these, but not on the engine that I'm building. I'm
going to reuse them on a cheapie rebuild that will be solely a temp
motor, something to have in the car to facilitate moving it around
and occasional driving. It's unlikely that the motor will accumulate
more than a thousand miles in it's lifetime, so I'm not worried about
the gasket failing.
Since just the head set is $243 for this motor, it doesn't make sense to
do the perfect rebuild on it.
For everyone else, thanks for the info, I really appreciate it.