LIM Torque ?
#1
Junior Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Buddy is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
![Shocked](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
#2
PopaDopaDo
True Car Nut
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
Heres a link: http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/...e=article&k=18
89in-lbs looks right to me but better to doublechack.
#3
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![BonnevillesSince62 is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#5
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![BonnevillesSince62 is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by popatim
Originally Posted by BonnevillesSince62
11 FT lbs on the LOWER intake to the heads.
![](https://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c120/BCGearhead/2000%20Specs/specs12.jpg)
![](https://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c120/BCGearhead/2000%20Specs/specs13.jpg)
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.
#6
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![BonnevillesSince62 is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#7
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
Please don't post specs out of a 2k spec sheet when referencing a 92-99.
#8
Junior Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Buddy is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
Please don't post specs out of a 2k spec sheet when referencing a 92-99.
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.
#9
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Join Date: May 2003
Location: B'ham.AL
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![ron350 is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Buddy if your lower intake manifold bolts are 5/16”x18 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.
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.
#10
Junior Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Buddy is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by ron350
Buddy if your lower intake manifold bolts are 5/16”x18 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.
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.
![Roll Eyes](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)