You don't say whether it's a 603A (aluminum pan) or 617(A) (steel pan), so I can't comment on that bolt/"nut" interface. For a Cadmium plated (probably what our older bolts are, rather than newer enviro/"green" zinc), 4.8 grade (cheezy), 12 mm bolt torqued to 50 Nm, the resultant load corresponds to a 90% proof strength torque; right at the limit for what you would aim for as a designer. If it's 4.8, 14 mm, 50 Nm, then it's about 55%. 4.8, 16 mm, 50 Nm, 37%.
I can also tell you that, on the filter housing, 30 Nm (/ 1.356 ~= 22.1 ft-lb), on a Cadmium plated (probably what our older bolts are, rather than newer enviro/"green" zinc), 8.8 grade, 8 mm bolt corresponds to a 90% proof strength torque; right at the limit for what you would aim for as a designer. Buuuut, the flange nuts on the housing would have a much greater frictional torque (due to greater action radius of that mating friction) than these engineering formulae are set up to calculate, so correspondingly less load would be applied to the fastener shank.
The "not copper" washer is probably dead-soft, commercially-pure aluminum, which has similar sealing/crush properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah-kay
Have a beer and forget about it until the next oil change.
|