#1: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? [UPDATE 3] Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 5:27 am ---- A while back I raised a topic about main (half) bearing replacement of the crankshaft.
This is on my 2001, TU3JP with 105000Km on the clock, but with lot's and lot's of 'engine-time' due to slow-traffic in town over here.
The reason I wanted to do this was because the crankshaft pulley is clearly wobbling with associated V-belt tensioner following the deviations as well. The pulley itself is definately not to blame and other behaviour of the engine complies with this. I have also removed the bottom pulley altogether, and the end-cog shows that the crankshaft is not turning true.
By contrast, our other identical 206 (2008, 65000 Km) has impecable turning with less vibration and smoother behaviour overall.
This engine has a lower-crankcase (bearing ladder) whereby the caps & shells are not directly accesible from underneath.
However, the M11 bolts are.
I have currently dropped the sump anyway for cleaning (a lot of grease and dirt accumilated) and oil change etc. I am also replacing the pressure piston and associated spring in the oil-pump since I'm in there.
I will not be replacing the shells as that would require possibly engine removal which I don't think is justified in it's current state. Performance is good and overhaul should be done at a much later date.
However, I have a feeling that re-torquing the bolts might be of great benefit considering the slightness of the issue. (I have the correct values and procedure thanks to Addaz)
I would first lock the V-belt tensioner so there is no upward tension on the crankshaft from that belt at least.
Any other recommendations or thoughts about this??
Also, the sump comes with gasket-glue from the factory which was an absolute nightmare to get-off from both surfaces. I do have a quality Elring oiled-paper gasket which is an aftermarket product, and not available from Peugeot at all. What would be the disadvantage of using this instead of gasket-glue as Peugeot recommend?
Many thanks for your thoughts on all this.
Update on Page 2 Last edited by V9977 on Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:44 am; edited 6 times in total
#2: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 5:53 am ---- I've always used Hylomar blue gasket sealant with paper gaskets. Started doing this because of the BL 'A' series engine that used to leak for fun from the timing chain cover. I did try the red stuff once, but found it would come out of the bottle like water. Plus the blue was available from the parts counter so just got booked on a job sheet.
It would be worth re torquing the bolts just for piece of mind. Wouldn't replacing the shells mean the flywheel would have to come off so you can drop the crankshaft? If the bearing caps are already tight, can't really see much benefit from locking the crank in place.
#3: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 5:58 am ---- No, locking the V-belt tensioner to take-away upward tension on the crankshaft I meant.
Are you saying use the oiled-paper gasket AND gasket-glue? My aim is to avoid using glue altogether..
Peugeot use only glue and it was very - very nasty to get-off. They do not list a gasket for the sump at all, for the 206 TU3.
#4: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 6:08 am ---- I think the sealant might be there because the mating faces may not be perfect enough to just use a gasket. I've found the Hylomar blue comes off fairly easily as it goes jelly like.
If you take away the upward tension on the crankshaft, will you not be tightening the bolts against the weight of the crankshaft. I've always done crankshafts with the engine out and upside down, so in effect gravity was pulling the crankshaft into the crankcase. I'm sure you know what I mean by this. Difficult to explain in writing.
#5: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 6:17 am ---- I know exactly what you mean, but this is it:
The bearing caps are NOT underneth in this case.
The bolts go through the lower crank case, or bearing ladder, (not threaded there) and they 'pull-it-up' onto the main block.
That's why it would mean taking-off the entire lower piece to actually replace the shells.
And I'm only looking for a slight improvement not a repair as such.
I'm worried about 'pinching' the crankshaft though!
Last edited by V9977 on Sat May 18, 2013 7:34 am; edited 1 time in total
#6: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: macca1411, Location: Westhoughton, LancashirePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 6:52 am ---- Sounds like a ball ache of a job.
Re-torqueing the bolts may not solve the movement in the crankshaft. It may be the shaft itself that isn't true. The only proper way of telling is engine out and having the crank inspected and measured for trueness. Although if the crank wasn't running true, I'd expect to see an egg shaped oil seal.
Putting more pressure on the bearings may cause them to fail quicker which could mean you do the overhaul sooner than you expect. Last edited by macca1411 on Fri May 17, 2013 7:00 am; edited 1 time in total
#7: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: Addaz, Location: SuffolkPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 6:57 am ---- There is nothing I know of in relation to re tightening of the conrod bolts but becareful they are stretch bolts and could snap!
Out of the factory they have the torque value of 37nm with I think a degree of 47, yet my arp bolts only required 40nm?!
The v pulley just slides onto the crank with a simple woodruff key locking it into place. If you do rebuild the bottom end, I would recommend rebuilding the oil pump and replacing the chain. Its not a to hard a job, any questions just ask
#8: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 7:08 am ---- Yes, I'm taking-off and cleaning the oil pump as there was loads of crap in the sump.
The only spare items available for the pump is the piston and spring (cost 3 EUR) so might as well stick those in.
The aim is not to take-off the lower crank case or anything else (pulley, oil pump chain etc) at all.
Just to re-torque the bolts in the hope of improving things a bit. You're right, they need replacing normally.
So we are talking about an unprecedented bodge of the highest order. Should be fun.
The figures I have are 20Nm then 44 deg. for aluminium block engine.
Here's a nice question: Undo half a turn first and go to stage one (20Nm), or 'snap' them loose by tightening then do stage one in the right order etc.?
#9: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: MrBSI, Location: What's it to you? ? ?Posted: Fri May 17, 2013 9:28 am ---- Sump top engine block join = Loctite 518 flange sealant & NO paper gasket.
#10: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 10:23 am ----
MrBSI wrote:
Sump top engine block join = Loctite 518 flange sealant & NO paper gasket.
I used 574 for the gearbox join and it worked superbly.
I still have a lot left in the bottle but the sump might need activator because it's painted I think.
However why no paper gasket? How come the people at Elring make them for the exact TU3 and I must say it looks preety good quality.
Will the sump get distorted if not tight-enough or is possible leakage the issue?
If the latter, I can always take it off again at a later date and do the sealant-only system?
#11: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: macj, Location: EssexPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 12:48 pm ---- Just use the sealant my friend.... it was designed that way so stick with it
#12: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: Addaz, Location: SuffolkPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 1:07 pm ---- The sump just hammer to hell till its straight, thats what we do if warranty wont pay for a new. There is no gasket just sealent between the engine block mate.
I will check when I get my computer working again on the stages, if I forget remind me to heck!
#13: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 1:25 pm ---- Don't think there are stages for the sump, just 8Nm in a spiral order.
Sump is straight and clean.
#14: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: kandlbarrett, Location: SwindonPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 2:34 pm ---- It only takes a few thousands of an inch wear for crankshaft bearings to be audibly knocking and oil pressure dropping. If there is no noise from bearing wear or engine oil light on then I do not believe that is the cause of the crankshaft or front pulley run-out. You need to be looking elsewhere.
Think about it - on most cars first crank regrind size to repair worn crankshat is 10 thou. If you can actually see the pulley is out of true it is moving a lot more than that.
It only takes a few thousands of an inch wear for crankshaft bearings to be audibly knocking and oil pressure dropping. If there is no noise from bearing wear or engine oil light on then I do not believe that is the cause of the crankshaft or front pulley run-out. You need to be looking elsewhere.
Think about it - on most cars first crank regrind size to repair worn crankshat is 10 thou. If you can actually see the pulley is out of true it is moving a lot more than that.
There is indeed minute noise consistent with bearing noise that is not from the gearbox or anywhere else. It depends on the situation on how and when it does it and the pulley does not exhibit run-out.
Instead, minute axis error leading to woble probably because of the way the con-rods are pushing the crankshaft.
Therefore thrust-washers between 2&3 should be OK too.
I've always been overly sensitive when it comes to these things but usually come-out the better for it.
I'll be honest to admit I'll be using the Elring oiled-paper gasket and simply keep an eye-out for leaks. (Which I do anyway)
Regarding the cap screws, I have a few things in-mind and I'll report-back (objectively) when the oil-pump parts arrive and I can carry-out the work in around 10 days time.
Thanks for your thoughts everyone and wish me luck.
#16: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: kandlbarrett, Location: SwindonPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 4:35 pm ---- If you can get at the bolts to re-torque them then you should be able to remove the bearing caps. If you can do that and the bearing rumble is very slight I would replace the bearing shells. You should even be able to get the top half of the shells out without removing the crank. Do it like this:-
1 - Loosen and then nip back up each bearing cap.
2 - remove the first cap.
3 - using a very thin bladed screw driver use it to just rotate the top half of the bearing very slightly.
4 - use something like a 15 thou feeler gauge you should be able to push the bearing through 180 degrees where you can then take it out. (the oil film may be holding it to the crank but it will come off.)
5 - replace and push back into position using the same procedure.
6 - fit the bottom half of the bearing to the cap, refit the cap, fit new bolts, fit the bearing cap and nip up the bolts.
7 - repeat the procedure for the rest of the bearings.
8 - follow the manufacturers procedure for final tightening of the bolts.
If you don't know already the bearing halves have a small notch that will only let them turn and be refitted in one direction so check that before trying to rotate then.
Cleanliness and being very careful not to scratch the crank is essential.
Try it. Bearings are quite cheap (stretch bolts may be more expensive though) and with the sump off you don't have much to loose.
Some people will scream that this is a bodge (it is) but, when money is tight and the bearings have only just started to rumble this can work. I have done one or two where the engines were still running silently 30,000 miles later.
#17: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Fri May 17, 2013 5:36 pm ---- Thanks for this, I wanted to do as exactly as above but:
The TU3 has a lower crank-case or 'bearing-case' as Peugeot seems to call it, so the caps are not accesible or even visible from underneath. The first few posts on this thread explain it with a quick diagram I knocked-up as well.
So my thought is.. since I'm in there, give'em a tighten and hope for the best.
Your excellent instructions are supreme by comparison.
I do have the torque & angle tighten values, and a good feel of what is going-on with the engine and how to go about it, so we'll see.
Cheers.
#18: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: kandlbarrett, Location: SwindonPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 8:53 pm ---- As before I wasn't sure of the internal design but assume it must be similar to others and that is that the bearing caps, whatever the design, end up with their faces tight (flat) against the main block casting. Once flush / tight no amount of extra tightening or torque on the bolts will reduce the crank / bearing clearance it will only serve to put extra tension onto the block and bolt threads with the risk of either stripped threads, weakened or even broken bolts.
#19: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Sat May 18, 2013 6:17 am ----
kandlbarrett wrote:
As before I wasn't sure of the internal design but assume it must be similar to others and that is that the bearing caps, whatever the design, end up with their faces tight (flat) against the main block casting. Once flush / tight no amount of extra tightening or torque on the bolts will reduce the crank / bearing clearance it will only serve to put extra tension onto the block and bolt threads with the risk of either stripped threads, weakened or even broken bolts.
OK I strongly agree with this.
In this case there are no sepperate bearing caps, the 'lower crankcase' is a bearing ladder and is infact one large piece.
'Just checked, and genuine bolts from Peugeot are not astronomicaly expensive (1.5 EUR each) I'll see if they are a in-stock item and consider replacing them to avoid major trouble like you say.
#20: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: kandlbarrett, Location: SwindonPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 1:06 pm ---- I am still unsure what you are trying to achieve. If you are hoping that tighter bolts (new or old) will reduce the slight bearing grumble I really think that wont work. Once the main components are face-face no extra torques will reduce the bearing / crank clearance so won't reduce the rumble you are hearing.
As before I don't know how the internals go together but if bolts were loose enough to allow bearings to rumble then your engine would be trash by now.
There is a lot of technical considerations when determining the size and tightness of a bolts (stress loads it will experience, diameter of the bolt to cope with that, material it is made from, vibrations etc.) but while bolts seem cheap, if you are doing this to reduce clearances and bearing noise I really think you are wasting time and money. After the first few NM or Ft.Lb torque the component faces are flush and the rest of the torque is to preload the bolt to both cope with forces it will endure and ensure it doesn't come undone and it does not further reduce clearances. Last edited by kandlbarrett on Wed May 22, 2013 1:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Nothing to be gained by changing bolts. The shell carrier wont allow the shells to nip tighter... bite the bullet and replace the shells before the crank needs doing
#22: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Wed May 22, 2013 4:20 pm ---- Many thanks for additional thoughts,
I think there's quite likely nothing wrong with the shells themselves.
These aluminium castings are all over the place, much like a cylinder head.
'Will update soon.
#23: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? [UPDATE 1] Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:44 pm ---- OK, finaly did the work today and results are so far, good - to quite good.
Work carried:
1) Cleaned all the 'stuff' accumilated in the bottom of the sump for the past 12 years.
2) Cleaned & re-built the oil pump and replaced pressure spring and piston inside it. (pain)
3) Re-torqued bearing ladder bolts as follows:
a) Locked the V-belt tensioner to remove one-sided upward force on the crank pulley.
b) Used a jack under the bearing-ladder block to push it up (cancel weight) with a piece of wood wedged in between.
c) Turned crank pulley bolt to turn over the engine and help neutralise forces (theoreticaly).
d) With a torque wrench, slowly worked-up it's scale to find point at which each bolt 'snaped-loose' (tightening).
This turned-out to be around 50N/m, gradualy and slightly increasing towards the fly-wheel end bolts.
e) Decided NOT to use the new bolts but instead re-torque the existing ones in-place in a spiral order as recomended. As each bolt was loose, I would take it to around 70N/m with 'give' being more at the crank pulley end. Decided NOT to angle-tighten, as recomended (44 deg) for when fitting new bolts on a 'naked' engine.
f) Kept continualy turning the crank pulley AND flywheel end (fourth gear engaged) to help neutralise forces, and made 2 more 'rounds' to get them all even.
4) Re-fitted everything, oil-pump, sump etc but used the oiled-paper TU1/TU3 gasket (Elring 984.451) instead of gasket paste. It works fine so far and I'll be keeping an eye on it to report how it holds-up.
5) Also made sure the oil-pump cog wheel was engaged exactly as before on the chain by marking both of them and lining up again. (ultimate pain)
6) New oil added (Shell Helix Ultra 5W40 syn), and oil filter.
First results:
1) The car still works.
2) Crank-pulley now spins straight (camber angle) and a lot less wobbly, with much reduced action of the V-belt tensioner absorbing the tension variations as it turned.
3) Less vibrations and reduced 'whiring' noise which I felt was from the way the crankshaft was sitting in the shells (might not have been).
4) Much less V-belt noise (hardly none) due to correct sitting on the crank pulley and no rubbing on the flange.
5) It appears for now that the crankshaft has not been 'pinched' and it turns as well as before. I hope it stays that way.
6) The valves are out now! I never considered that the miniscule change of the crankshaft position with respect to the camshaft parallel above it, would cause an effect on the highly sensitive valve timing. The position of the pistons is slightly different (relative to each-other) compared to before.
It is a tiny amount, but just enough to percieve it and I estimate at least 300 miles needed for them to settle back down. Then, re-adjust and a further 300 miles to get to the state I had them before. We'll see.
I'll update when needed regarding all of this, for long-term effects and how it's going etc.
Cheers for everyone's help so far.
#24: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? [UPDATE] Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:20 am ---- 1) Another update, a previous problem with clutch noise has now completely disappeared ( www.206info.co.uk/Foru...tml#596203 ).
2) Valves will need to be re-adjusted ASAP and then as per above.
3) At some point in the car's life someone had fitted 1560 V-belt instead of the required 1564. This meant incredibly tight fit (until it stretched and somewhat settled) but still putting a massive upward tension on the crank pulley and hence crankshaft, and ultimately causing this 'tilt'.
I stress that obviously it's not suddenly all perfect, but absolutely worth the improvement from this counter-bodge so far...
#25: Re: Crankshaft half shells: Re-torque? [UPDATE 2] Author: V9977, Location: Athens, GreecePosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:40 am ---- Still good, oil is breaking-in nicely now as well.
We are not responsible for comments posted by our users, as they are the property of the poster
Interactive software released under GNU GPL,
Code Credits,
Privacy Policy
Membership:
Latest: 
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 17134
Online Now [634]:
Visitors: 633
Members: 0
Staff Online Now:
Page Views:
General
