Why do the old avatars remain in my old entries after being removed?
Re: Valve Adjustment - 1991 Toyota Tercel
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

CarGuru > Technology > Re: Valve Adjustment - 1991 Toyota Tercel 3 May 2005 02:48:09

  Recent blog posts: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

Re: Valve Adjustment - 1991 Toyota Tercel

Kathy and Erich Coiner 3 May 2005 19:20:43
 Buy another feeler gauge.
Cut it with a pair of scissors.
Use as directed
Put your "special tool" in your toolbox where it will lie unused for the
next
35 years. :)­

Erich

"Danny Beardsley" <dbeardsl@gmail.com­> wrote in message
news:1115103873.385­814.261320@g14g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com.­..> I just adjusted the valves on my car and was wondering if anybody else> who has done this on an older tercel like mine could give me some> pointers.>
The rocker arms have small downward metal protrusions on either side of> the valve stem that prevent the rocker from slipping off sideways.> Unfortunately, this also prevents me from sticking a normal feeler> gauge between the rocker and the valve stem. So I'm forced to do the> measurements between the rocker and the cam instead. This point is> closer to the rocker pivot point so the measurements are smaller. As> per my calculations, the measurement between the rocker arm and the cam> should be about 57% of the measurement between the rocker and the valve> stem. The reccommended clearance for all valves is 0.008" so I did my> best to adjust them so there is a clearance of 0.0045" between the> rocker and the cam. I was also told to adjsut the exhaust valves a> little loose, so I adjusted them to 0.006", which translates to about> 0.010" at the valve stem.>
My Chiltons manual said to measure 0.008" where the valve stem meets> the rocker, but I can't measure there so I was forced to do it as> described. Has anybody done this before? Did I do the right thing?>


Add comment
Danny Beardsley 3 May 2005 02:48:09 permanent link ]
 I just adjusted the valves on my car and was wondering if anybody else
who has done this on an older tercel like mine could give me some
pointers.

The rocker arms have small downward metal protrusions on either side of
the valve stem that prevent the rocker from slipping off sideways.
Unfortunately, this also prevents me from sticking a normal feeler
gauge between the rocker and the valve stem. So I'm forced to do the
measurements between the rocker and the cam instead. This point is
closer to the rocker pivot point so the measurements are smaller. As
per my calculations, the measurement between the rocker arm and the cam
should be about 57% of the measurement between the rocker and the valve
stem. The reccommended clearance for all valves is 0.008" so I did my
best to adjust them so there is a clearance of 0.0045" between the
rocker and the cam. I was also told to adjsut the exhaust valves a
little loose, so I adjusted them to 0.006", which translates to about
0.010" at the valve stem.

My Chiltons manual said to measure 0.008" where the valve stem meets
the rocker, but I can't measure there so I was forced to do it as
described. Has anybody done this before? Did I do the right thing?

Add comment
Shep 3 May 2005 21:30:31 permanent link ]
 While we are at it here what were all the problems with the compression
issue on your engine?
"Danny Beardsley" <dbeardsl@gmail.com­> wrote in message
news:1115103873.385­814.261320@g14g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com.­..>I just adjusted the valves on my car and was wondering if anybody else> who has done this on an older tercel like mine could give me some> pointers.>
The rocker arms have small downward metal protrusions on either side of> the valve stem that prevent the rocker from slipping off sideways.> Unfortunately, this also prevents me from sticking a normal feeler> gauge between the rocker and the valve stem. So I'm forced to do the> measurements between the rocker and the cam instead. This point is> closer to the rocker pivot point so the measurements are smaller. As> per my calculations, the measurement between the rocker arm and the cam> should be about 57% of the measurement between the rocker and the valve> stem. The reccommended clearance for all valves is 0.008" so I did my> best to adjust them so there is a clearance of 0.0045" between the> rocker and the cam. I was also told to adjsut the exhaust valves a> little loose, so I adjusted them to 0.006", which translates to about> 0.010" at the valve stem.>
My Chiltons manual said to measure 0.008" where the valve stem meets> the rocker, but I can't measure there so I was forced to do it as> described. Has anybody done this before? Did I do the right thing?>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensore­d-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed­s.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Add comment
Mike Romain 3 May 2005 23:53:30 permanent link ]
 I just cut the one I have. That size will likely only ever be used for
that application and even so the smaller will still work anywhere
anyway.

I prefer a 'dremil' rotary tool with a fiberglass reinforced cut off
blade for sizing things like that. Using scissors or snips can warp
them.

And hey, I just got to use some 'special' tools I have had kicking
around for 25 years! LOL. My wife got a kick out of that.....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Kathy and Erich Coiner wrote:>
Buy another feeler gauge.> Cut it with a pair of scissors.> Use as directed> Put your "special tool" in your toolbox where it will lie unused for the> next> 35 years. :)­>
Erich>
"Danny Beardsley" <dbeardsl@gmail.com­> wrote in message> news:1115103873.385­814.261320@g14g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com.­..> > I just adjusted the valves on my car and was wondering if anybody else> > who has done this on an older tercel like mine could give me some> > pointers.> >
The rocker arms have small downward metal protrusions on either side of> > the valve stem that prevent the rocker from slipping off sideways.> > Unfortunately, this also prevents me from sticking a normal feeler> > gauge between the rocker and the valve stem. So I'm forced to do the> > measurements between the rocker and the cam instead. This point is> > closer to the rocker pivot point so the measurements are smaller. As> > per my calculations, the measurement between the rocker arm and the cam> > should be about 57% of the measurement between the rocker and the valve> > stem. The reccommended clearance for all valves is 0.008" so I did my> > best to adjust them so there is a clearance of 0.0045" between the> > rocker and the cam. I was also told to adjsut the exhaust valves a> > little loose, so I adjusted them to 0.006", which translates to about> > 0.010" at the valve stem.> >
My Chiltons manual said to measure 0.008" where the valve stem meets> > the rocker, but I can't measure there so I was forced to do it as> > described. Has anybody done this before? Did I do the right thing?> >
Add comment
Mike Romain 4 May 2005 00:07:06 permanent link ]
 You math is strange.....

The engine with 110 in it is dead and would be a minor miracle if it
starts...

'If' your compression is too high, then the head could have easily been
planed down just for that reason or just to square it up if it was
slightly warped. The higher compression makes it sort of a
'performance' engine like a Japanese replacement engine likely is. The
valves have likely been ported too if it was done on purpose.

Your compression isn't unrealistic at all for a played with engine. You
likely have more under the hood than you realize.....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Danny Beardsley wrote:>
I never really resolved them... still have no idea why I'd be getting> 200psi. I recently did a compression test on a different car with a> similar compression ratio (9:1 ish) and was getting the more expected> 110psi (using a different compression tester though).>
Unless... hum, don't know why I didn't think of this before... I> guess it's been a while since I took a thermodynamics or physics class.> The gas-compression in a cylinder causes the gas to heat up and thus> increases it's pressure beyond the 8.9:1 volume ratio. infact, if the> process is totally adiabatic (no heat in the air is lost to the> cylinder walls), the pressure ratio should be about 8.9 ^ 1.4 = 21.3> times atmospheric pressure which gives about 313 psi. Under cranking> speeds, the process is pretty far from adiabatic, which is why the> pressure is lower...>
I guess that solves the compression problem, just me over simplifying> things. Thanks.
Add comment
Steve B . 4 May 2005 04:11:55 permanent link ]
 On 3 May 2005 11:42:14 -0700, "Danny Beardsley" <dbeardsl@gmail.com­>
wrote:
I never really resolved them... still have no idea why I'd be getting>200psi. I recently did a compression test on a different car with a>similar compression ratio (9:1 ish) and was getting the more expected>110psi (using a different compression tester though).>


200 isn't reaqlly high. I would expect 180 out of a good engine that
I didn't know the exact number on. Heck I just checked a Cadi 4.1
week before last and they were all at 190 (except the dead hole) and
that sure as heck isn't a performance engine.

Steve B.
Add comment
Sdlomi2 4 May 2005 20:16:17 permanent link ]
 
"Steve B." <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:hj4g71pv4259js­pmnigprff1p5le9jus4c­@4ax.com...> On 3 May 2005 11:42:14 -0700, "Danny Beardsley" <dbeardsl@gmail.com­>> wrote:>
I never really resolved them... still have no idea why I'd be getting> >200psi. I recently did a compression test on a different car with a> >similar compression ratio (9:1 ish) and was getting the more expected> >110psi (using a different compression tester though).> >
200 isn't reaqlly high. I would expect 180 out of a good engine that> I didn't know the exact number on. Heck I just checked a Cadi 4.1> week before last and they were all at 190 (except the dead hole) and> that sure as heck isn't a performance engine.>
Steve B.
Steve, congrats to you! There should be so many of us who are delighted
to find a competent mechanic willing to touch a Caddy 4100. Most techs in
our (rural?) area decline to work on them. Don't even wish to replace plugs
(exaggeration, of course!) in 'em. All jokes aside, I'll now cease running
down those problematic (for us around here) engines.
BTW: I was surprised, just off the cuff, to hear they had compression as
high as 190. Of course, I was merely associating 190 as being quite high
for such an , again problematic, engine. They DO get good gas mileage,
tho', esp. on level, non-hilly roads--quite a feat for GM's big & supposedly
premium-built luxury car! Keep up the good work, s


Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


CarGuru > Technology > Re: Valve Adjustment - 1991 Toyota Tercel 3 May 2005 02:48:09

see also:
Re: 68' vert turn signal issue...
update on problems with my 98 cobra
ASA: LMS: Racing season news 2007-03-12
pass tests:
see also:
1994 volvo 850
1998 Saturn SL2 Outside Mirror
FORD FIESTA 2002-REAR WASHER TUBE…

  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .