RJ_RS_SS_350

Haynes has the 2.0 at 22 lb.ft. + 100 degrees.

They show 63 lb.ft. + 30 degrees for the 2.2 up through 2008, for the sprockets, because non-VVT.

Not that Haynes is the definitive.... They also show ft. lbs., so....

donbrew

The curious thing is that Haynes, Mitchell and AllData are the same company.

rlee63a4

And the GM shop manuals don't agree between 2008 and 2009 for the same 2.0 with VVT.

So, what's the verdict? 22 + 100 or 63 + 30? Are they equivalent? One close enough to the other? A curious mind (mine) needs to know since the last of the parts arrived this morning.

Oldblue

I suggest you go with the applicable specifications for your year .

donbrew

That's the problem!

They sound like about the same, 63/30 would be easier.
22 is snug by hand, 63 is "snug with a 3/8 ratchet handle" by Pabst Blue Ribbon rules.

rlee63a4

That's what I was thinking, and 63/30 is in my 2009 SS GM shop manual anyway. Maybe that's simply why the GM shop manual changed--for the service tech, an addition 30 degrees much easier to control than an additional 100 degrees, and GM decided to add the retention tool while they were at it.

So, 63/30 it is.

And who knows what was going on during production in 2008-2009 while this was taking place then and before...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...reorganization

Oldblue

It could have been a new supplier for the bolts or the cam, maybe an update for failure in the 2008 configuration, who knows!

rlee63a4

Here we go again. Different 2.0 torque specs for crankshaft balancer bolt depending on what manual.

74 lb ft + 75 degrees or 74 lb ft + 125 degrees

That's quite a difference. I'd rather do +75 degrees. Maybe I should split the difference and torque to 74 lb ft + 100 degrees.

Recommendation?

donbrew

Both of mine say 74 + 125

Oldblue

My Chilton, says 74 ft/lbs torque and then 125 degrees .