Hmmm..who has a copy of the great FSM handly?

I removed the spec from techinfo for the time being as with my metal "upper" I have no issue going to 20. Again..that'* on a paper gasket, whereas the L36'* are a rubber gasket.

TB bolts for L27, L67, and L36 should all be 20 ft/lbs. Those large threaded inserts distribute the load.

Did you clean your TB and remove the TPS sensor while doing so, and could you have put the TPS back on incorrectly? Maybe someone else can chime in on that.

That'* a good point, Dill. It'* possible to install the TPS so the tab isn't engaged by the throttle shaft flag pin.

You need to rotate the TPS as you insert it, then turn it slightly so it takes up tension as you line up the screw holes.

All right then...I had better get back to the engines I did as all the specs I have for the L36 engines (no FSM) showed 89 inch pounds for the TB, and that'* what I used! No leaks....so far - but I'm not gonna take any chances!

Chilton'* #28200 page 3-53, under the intake manifold section, it only lists one value for TB bolts at 20 ft/lbs, or 27 nm.

L27 (Vin L) are listed in the 95 FSM as 88 in/lbs for the plastic intake, not 89 like the VinK, but that'* no difference.

In the 95 FSM, I can't find specs for torquing the TB for the Vin L, Vin 1, or Vin K. All it says is to install and tighten.

I'm getting my information from the same place that he got his conflicting info. Alldatadiy for a '98, '99 and 2000. They all show the 89 inch pounds (no conflicting information for those years). I have a FSM for my 2000 but unfortunately, I don't have it with me right now.

FSM for my 96 says 11 ft/lbs = 89 in-lbs.

That'* what the APN spec sheet said as well.

Well, 20 ft-lbs on a 6mm bolt into plastic is just asking for trouble. I cannot believe that is the correct torque spec. It would not be the first time that torque specs have been widely published and have been wrong. Same thing happens with the flywheel bolts on the '95. If you torque those little 8mm bolts to the specified torque, they simply break. 7.5 ft-lbs is all I have ever used with those little TB nuts and bolts on a plastic upper, and I have never had a leak yet.

[edit: here are some general torque specifications from the Engineer'* Handbook online for metric fasteners:
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/torque1.htm

for cap screws:
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/torque2.htm

for steel bolts:
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/torque.htm

All these give torque specs for DRY bolts. The same bolt tension or clamping force (which is really what we are trying to normalize when we torque fasteners) is achieved with less torque if the bolt is lubricated. According to this source, http://www.raskcycle.com/techtip/webdoc14.html oiling the bolt reduces the torque requirement by up to 25%. With a dry lubricant, the torque requirement drops by half! When you analyze these and other similar data from a variety of sources, the conclusion is that 89 in-lb will provide all the clamping force these bolts were designed to provide.

willwren is correct to say that those bolts have a wide distributing nut set in the plastic that speads the clamping force widely around the base of the bolt. The problem is not that the bolts pull out, it is that the plastic can crack and distort when too much force is applied. This sealing surface is an area that is prone to distortion by warping anyway, and anything we can do to minimize warpage and distortion is a good idea.

I believe this is simply a case where some printed specifications are wrong. It is not common, but it does happen.]

Thanks, Bill. I think that I'll leave things as they are, then.