V6 Discussion and questions about the base carbureted or MPFI V6's and the rare SFI Turbo V6.

Intake gasket question?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 7, 2004 | 10:57 PM
  #1  
gunfixr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Car: 88 camaro
Engine: 2.8 v6
Transmission: 700r4
Intake gasket question?

I plan on changing my intake gaskets on my 2.8 V6. Fel-Pro gaskets have a "Do not cut" warning stamped on their intake gaskets. I don't see where the problem would occur if they were cut to slip around the pushrods . There is no sealing surface in that area, and as long as the gaskets are aligned with the ports in the cylinder heads why is this a problem as long as they don't slip when positioning them during installation?

I can't see the justifacation in removing the whole rocker arm/pushrod assy just to install a set of gaskets.

Or is there something that I'm missing here?

From where I'm sitting, there's no legitimate reason for removing the entire valve train.
Reply
Old Mar 7, 2004 | 11:07 PM
  #2  
FbodTrek's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 1
From: Houston
Car: 86 Berlinetta 84 MonteCL
Engine: 3.4 MPFI 3.8 229
Transmission: 700r4 T350
That's what I thought....

It's not that big a deal, gives you an excuse to throw some 1.6 rockers on. just make sure you read up on how to adjust them. DO NOT CUT, it says that for a reason, what reason, I don't know.
Reply
Old Mar 7, 2004 | 11:19 PM
  #3  
gunfixr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Car: 88 camaro
Engine: 2.8 v6
Transmission: 700r4
I can't phantom why they couldn't be cut. Logic dictates that since there's no sealing surface in the "cut" area, why couldn't they be cut?

I've read in this boards archives where some people "reseal" the cut portion with RTV sealant , but in reality that is an exersise in futility. The cut part of the gasket serves no sealing purpose, it's basically in suspension along the cylinder head. I see no legitimate reason why the gasket couldn't be cut and slipped around the pushrod clusters. If anyone out there can find a sound reason why the gaskets shouldn't be cut I'd like to know. All I see here is apprehension out of fear of the unknown .
Reply
Old Mar 7, 2004 | 11:25 PM
  #4  
FbodTrek's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 1
From: Houston
Car: 86 Berlinetta 84 MonteCL
Engine: 3.4 MPFI 3.8 229
Transmission: 700r4 T350
.

That may be true (aprehension), but, the metal would be rather difficult to bend in such a fashion (I thought of doing the same thing the last time). I experimented with it, it could be done, I just don't ignore warnings for some reason (fear of the unknown, yes). But, why not do it the right way (if you can call it "right") and give yourself a performance gift too? Just a thought.
Reply
Old Mar 7, 2004 | 11:32 PM
  #5  
CaliCamaroRS's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,562
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Engine: LH0 3.1L
I don't know why Fel-Pro puts that on their gasket. I've seen people cut the gaskets.


Infact in my Factory Repair Manual, under intake manifold installation, it says "Install new intake gaskets on cylinder heads. Hold in place by extending ridge rtv bead up to 6mm onto the gasket ends. The new intake gasket will have to be cut, where indicated, to install behind pushrods. Cut only those areas that are necessary."
Reply
Old Mar 7, 2004 | 11:57 PM
  #6  
TechSmurf's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,375
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Car: '99 Trans Am, '86 Camaro
Engine: LS1, Scrap
Transmission: T56, T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 Stock ZT, 3.42 Open
probably to keep the gaskets in their correct shape.. however, the gaskets I just pulled off the motor I'm working on now said "Cut here" where the felpros say "Do not cut" ... I'm cutting the felpros... the 3.4's valves are set rather nicely, I'd rather not muck with them.
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2004 | 01:16 AM
  #7  
87CamaroMan's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
From: Johnstown, PA.
Car: Chevy Cobalt & Camaro
Engine: 2.2 DOHC/3.1
Transmission: Not so slushy slush box/Slush Box
Axle/Gears: Stock 3.23
When I cut them it was a disaster. I had coolant in my oil. I wouldn't cut it again. It took me forever to get all of the water out.
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2004 | 11:25 AM
  #8  
gunfixr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Car: 88 camaro
Engine: 2.8 v6
Transmission: 700r4
Messing with the valve train is exactly my point. Why disturb the rocker arm adjustments if there's really no need to? If there were noisy lifters I can see the justifacation.

I do however see another alternative. Each rocker stud has an integral nut where its tightened to the cylinder head. Just for the hell of it, I loosened up one of the rocker studs and it came out quite easy. By doing this, one can remove the rocker/stud assy without disturbing the rocker arm adjustments. The adjustment nut won't turn since it's a locking nut and it can be put together as an assembly without any readjustment of the valves. The only problem with doing this is an 18mm box wrench will have to be modified to manuver around the pushrods. Basically making said 18mm wrench into a flare-nut wrench. It has to be a 12pt to get enough manuverability on the nut.
What do you guys think about this idea?
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2004 | 11:41 AM
  #9  
Dale's Avatar
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,819
Likes: 3
From: AR
Car: 1991 Camaro RS Vert
Engine: 350 S-TPI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: GU5/G80/J65
I wouldnt do that. Them studs have to be torqued to 45lbs. You will have no way with a wrench to tell how tight they are.

I just learned this one the hard way
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2004 | 12:02 PM
  #10  
gunfixr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Car: 88 camaro
Engine: 2.8 v6
Transmission: 700r4
Well I just loosened up two of those studs and they are in no way torqued to 45 lbs. I was able to loosen one of them up with an open-end wrench, if it was torqued to that value the wrench would have sprung. Granted it was tight but nothing that radical.

Thanks to this well engineered motor design [sarcasm], one has to tear apart components that shouldn't even have be touched to change two lousy gaskets.

The "think tank" that designed this motor must have been on one hell of an acid trip when they were engineering it.
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2004 | 12:06 PM
  #11  
MrDude_1's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,550
Likes: 4
From: Charleston, SC
Car: 91 Camaro Vert
Engine: 02 LS1, HX40
Transmission: 2002 LS1 M6
Originally posted by gunfixr

The "think tank" that designed this motor must have been on one hell of an acid trip when they were engineering it.

its that, or i think they were tanked..... :lala:


i vaugly recall my dad b!tching about somthing like this on the fiero... i know they're similar designs.... probly same problem.
Reply
Old Mar 8, 2004 | 12:48 PM
  #12  
Dale's Avatar
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,819
Likes: 3
From: AR
Car: 1991 Camaro RS Vert
Engine: 350 S-TPI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: GU5/G80/J65
LOL.

Just telling you, I swapped studs, they came loose cause I did them hand tight. I put them back in 2nd time to 50-55lbs.

I agree, stupid to have to undo stuff like this.

Another tip. When tightening the intake down, it says torque them to like 20lbs, go back around a SECOND time, and re-torque. By the time you do the last bolt, the first one is finger loose again.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
1992 Trans Am
History / Originality
27
May 10, 2023 07:19 PM
NinjaNife
Tech / General Engine
27
Aug 23, 2015 11:49 AM
theurge
TPI
7
Aug 21, 2015 12:46 PM
redmaroz
LTX and LSX
7
Aug 16, 2015 11:40 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 PM.