LIM Torque ? - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


1992-1999 Series I L27 (1992-1994 SE,SLE, SSE) & Series II L36 (1995-1999 SE, SSE, SLE) and common problems for the Series I and II L67 (all supercharged models 92-99) Including Olds 88's, Olds LSS's and Buick Lesabres Please use General Chat for non-mechanical issues, and Performance and Brainstorming for improvements.

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-24-2007, 07:41 PM   #1
Junior Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Buddy is on a distinguished road
Default LIM Torque ?

Just installed my lower earlier this morning. FSM specifies 89 in in lbs. twice in sequence.
95 SE Series II Engine NA "K". Installed upper at 89 in lbs per FSM also.
I just read about a possible misprint of torque value in FSM?
Please advise. Thanks guys.

Buddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2007, 10:27 PM   #2
PopaDopaDo
True Car Nut
 
popatim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 4,957
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
popatim is on a distinguished road
Default

Torque specs are in Tech Info (under where it says Bonneville Club at the top) under specifications.

Heres a link: http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/...e=article&k=18

89in-lbs looks right to me but better to doublechack.
popatim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2007, 11:21 PM   #3
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 367
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
BonnevillesSince62 is on a distinguished road
Default

11 FT lbs on the LOWER intake to the heads.

89 IN lbs (which I call "two fingers snug" with a 1/4" ratchet, never needed an in lbs torque wrench) is for the upper to lower.
BonnevillesSince62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2007, 11:25 PM   #4
PopaDopaDo
True Car Nut
 
popatim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 4,957
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
popatim is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnevillesSince62
11 FT lbs on the LOWER intake to the heads.
Not according to our own Tech Info. Its 89in-lbs for a 95.
popatim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2007, 11:34 PM   #5
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 367
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
BonnevillesSince62 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by popatim
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnevillesSince62
11 FT lbs on the LOWER intake to the heads.
Not according to our own Tech Info. Its 89in-lbs for a 95.
Then what'* the "11" for right under those 89 in lbs numbers? How about this?





There'* no real difference on a Series II VIN K motor from any other. There'* no way that would seal an intake to the heads with 89 in lbs. I've done 3 ('97, '98, 2000), and used 11 FT LBS for the LIM to heads.
BonnevillesSince62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2007, 11:35 PM   #6
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 367
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
BonnevillesSince62 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quoted from our tech info...

Intake Manifold________________________Ft/Lbs
87-90 Vin 3 (in sequence)..............47
87-90 Vin C (twice, in sequence).......88 (In/Lbs)
Throttle body bolts....................20
91-99 (except 95-97 Vin 1 and K).......89 (In/Lbs, twice, in sequence)
1995 Vin K (twice, in sequence)........89 (In/Lbs)
96-97 Vin K (in sequence)..............11
95-99 Vin 1............................11


That needs be be clarified big time. That is misleading at best.

EDIT: I admit I have never messed with a '95 VIN K. Is there something drastically different? If so, I apologize in advance. Off to do some searching...

89 in lbs is like 7 ft lbs and some change, so it'* not THAT much difference.

Ahhhhhhh, well. Shaking head at this one, as I frequently end up doing when working on stuff put together by the General.
BonnevillesSince62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2007, 12:53 AM   #7
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

The specs in Techinfo are correct. They changed over the years. And no, it'* not much different.

Please don't post specs out of a 2k spec sheet when referencing a 92-99.
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2007, 05:49 AM   #8
Junior Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Buddy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by willwren
The specs in Techinfo are correct. They changed over the years. And no, it'* not much different.

Please don't post specs out of a 2k spec sheet when referencing a 92-99.
So my take of this is I am good to go? TB is about ready to go back on..
btw willwren..your tech info article on TB teardown/cleaning was really helpful/good read.

IF anyone has a 95 FSM look over LIM/Upper procedure...look at figure it refers to
for install... :o
Thanks again guys for feedback.
Buddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2007, 01:41 PM   #9
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: B'ham.AL
Posts: 435
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ron350 is on a distinguished road
Default

Buddy if your lower intake manifold bolts are 5/16x18 threads like on my 96 they need to be torqued to 11 foot pounds or 132 inch pounds.

My 1996 factory service manual has the torque specs wrong.

http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/...anifold+torque

My 96 manual is not just wrong on one page but it has the upper and lower torque specs reversed (wrong) all the way through the manual.
ron350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2007, 04:10 AM   #10
Junior Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Buddy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ron350
Buddy if your lower intake manifold bolts are 5/16x18 threads like on my 96 they need to be torqued to 11 foot pounds or 132 inch pounds.

My 1996 factory service manual has the torque specs wrong.

http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/...anifold+torque

My 96 manual is not just wrong on one page but it has the upper and lower torque specs reversed (wrong) all the way through the manual.

It appears that you are right ron350...same problem in my 95 FSM. It didnt feel
right when I tq my lower..double checked FSM and saw misprint...double checked
Tech info specs...same tq value..thats why I posted earlier.
Upper LIM gasket didnt seem to want to align front left corner.


Buddy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UIM/LIM Torque turkaloo 2000-2005 2 12-17-2008 12:06 PM
LIM Torque spec's Roadrunner1 1992-1999 17 06-06-2007 08:20 PM
torque specs and tightening squence of the LIM and UIM? showshocka2k 1992-1999 7 03-18-2007 03:59 AM
Locking Torque converter twilks 1992-1999 13 12-12-2002 03:47 AM
Low Torque Fuel Filter? Allmachtige 1992-1999 1 10-10-2002 09:25 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:15 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.