Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Video showing the crank saver stud from Kinetic next to stock
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tob" data-source="post: 16503776" data-attributes="member: 83412"><p>Interesting. If the stock (or ARP) bolt had that much movement it would be dispersed along the length of the threaded shank to the point at which it engages the first thread in the crankshaft. If you now fill the void from the counterbore so that portion can't move, you would be directing forces from that same movement at the balancer to the area where the threads begin for the portion of the stud that retains the balancer. In other words, you'd be redirecting any fatigue to a specific area rather than dispersing it along the length of the threaded shank. If there really is that much deflection from a properly torqued balancer I think you may be asking for trouble by imparting fatigue to the area where the smooth part of the stud shank meets the thread.</p><p></p><p>In addition, it is only the first few threads of a given fastener that does all the work. Threading the stud that much deeper into the crank doesn't somehow better disperse the tension imparted into the stud as that additional threaded section is just mass along for the ride.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tob, post: 16503776, member: 83412"] Interesting. If the stock (or ARP) bolt had that much movement it would be dispersed along the length of the threaded shank to the point at which it engages the first thread in the crankshaft. If you now fill the void from the counterbore so that portion can't move, you would be directing forces from that same movement at the balancer to the area where the threads begin for the portion of the stud that retains the balancer. In other words, you'd be redirecting any fatigue to a specific area rather than dispersing it along the length of the threaded shank. If there really is that much deflection from a properly torqued balancer I think you may be asking for trouble by imparting fatigue to the area where the smooth part of the stud shank meets the thread. In addition, it is only the first few threads of a given fastener that does all the work. Threading the stud that much deeper into the crank doesn't somehow better disperse the tension imparted into the stud as that additional threaded section is just mass along for the ride. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Video showing the crank saver stud from Kinetic next to stock
Top