ARP 625s: 1, CR Head: 0

well that is reasonable did you check block and head for flatness when assembled ?
 
Here's another defective Chinese head.
 

Attachments

  • chinese head.bmp
    525.4 KB · Views: 0
If 160 ft lbs did that you can bet the 125 ft lbs on a set of standard ARP's would have caused similar damage.
 
SINNER said:
If 160 ft lbs did that you can bet the 125 ft lbs on a set of standard ARP's would have caused similar damage.
Click to expand...

Let it be known that I am not blaming the damage on the fact that 625's were used.
 
coon smile said:
Didn't know they existed. Like I said, the head was purchased earlier this year from a member that was selling: I bought the head and injectors.

The injectors were definitely not from an '05 - wrong number of holes.
Click to expand...

The turbo model was also wrong... Not saying it wasn't just a mistake, but so far it doesn't appear that the parts were batting 1000 for the description.
 
applications include, but are not limited to, crappy metalurgical versions of thhe CR head being sold on ebay, and other engine "mass" manufacturers to be put on reman longblocks and as "new" heads to replacce ones that were cracked or damaged.
 
crackerman said:
applications include, but are not limited to, crappy metalurgical versions of thhe CR head being sold on ebay, and other engine "mass" manufacturers to be put on reman longblocks and as "new" heads to replacce ones that were cracked or damaged.
Click to expand...

Sad.
 
Is there anything that doesn't come from China today? Seems like they've copied damn near everthing...
 
coon smile said:
Let it be known that I am not blaming the damage on the fact that 625's were used.
Click to expand...

Well I am no English professor but your title and comments would lead a 3rd. grader to the conclusion that you were in fact blaming the higher torque values associated with the 625's...
 
coon smile said:
I was thinking dog **** casting.
Click to expand...

coon smile said:
Let it be known that I am not blaming the damage on the fact that 625's were used.
Click to expand...

I don't think you realize it, but you pretty much admitted that you can't read above a 3rd grade level.

You don't have to be an english professor to comprehend simple text. The title mearly demonstrates that the arp proved to be a stronger metal than the head. However, I guess it's much simpler to just assume, when you fail to fully grasp the topic of discussion.

The comment about the 160 ft-lbs was simply a fact and an answer to a question that would have eventually been asked. It was more so directed at Chase and the false tightness.

I thought for sure the "dog ****" casting comment made it clear. Sorry for confusing you.
 
SINNER said:
Well I am no English professor but your title and comments would lead a 3rd. <------ grader to the conclusion that you were in fact blaming the higher torque values associated with the 625's...
Click to expand...

I almost hate to do this, but you don't need a period there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top