1969 GT350 intake manifold torque spec?

[Mike H]

1969 GT350 intake manifold torque spec? 20lbs?

[Bob Gaines]

1969 GT350 intake manifold torque spec? 20lbs?

Yes. Start with 10 then 15 and finally the 20. The sequence to tighten each bolt is in the shop manual.

[roddster]

Tip: and then retorque it the next day or so.  Surprising how much the gaskets settle.

[pbf777]

    "20 ft.lbs." on a 5/16" x 18t fastener requires a "good", aka. one of the "higher", grade ratings and though the O.E.M. fastener (in good condition) is capable and I understand what the manual calls out, don't forget your also pulling down on an aluminum intake manifold (?); so I generally will not pull them past "18 ft. lbs.", which is quite suitable for the application.

    And yes, re-torque later.   

    Scott. 

[Mike H]

thank you everyone

[TA Coupe]

Make VERY  sure you use a good torque wrench. I once used an old fashioned one where the inside spring was worn out and ended up breaking off the corner of a 2x4 intake trying to torque it to 18 ft lbs.

     Roy

[shelbydoug]

The left rear corner of those intakes are very susceptible to breaking off. It is better to have it a little down on torque then broken.
Also I think 20lb-ft is for the iron intake?

In the "olden days" before many owned torque wrenches we used a 12 point box wrench and just snugged them up. Man am I old or what?

[Bob Gaines]

The left rear corner of those intakes are very susceptible to breaking off. It is better to have it a little down on torque then broken.
Also I think 20lb-ft is for the iron intake?

In the "olden days" before many owned torque wrenches we used a 12 point box wrench and just snugged them up. Man am I old or what?

23 -25 is the Ford listed torque setting for the cast iron 289 intake manifold .According to SA in their intake manifold instructions, instruct to torque to 8 pounds first and then using the intake manifold bolting sequence to 15 pounds and in bold it says EXCEPT NUMBER 11. That is the back ear should remain to only 8 pounds. It also goes on to indicate bolts 9,10,11,12 are unsupported and should be careful with. I should have gotten the book out first instead of relying on my memory.

[pbf777]

     Just a note:

     I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350.   

     Scott.

[Bob Gaines]

Just a note:

     I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350.   

     Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

[68blk500c]

Bob's reply #7 is documented and should be followed.

[shelbydoug]

Just a note:

    I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350. 

    Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

No argument by me but in this case experience should out way theory. It is in explicable why seemingly identical manifolds have fatal variations.

Those two intakes are not identical. Why would you presume identical results? I've always used the 15-20 number as the guide arriving at 18 as the one with a safety factor but as always, do what you want to. If you aren't asking for experienced advice, why ask?

[Bob Gaines]

Just a note:

    I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350. 

    Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

No argument by me but in this case experience should out way theory. It is in explicable why seemingly identical manifolds have fatal variations.

Those two intakes are not identical. Why would you presume identical results? I've always used the 15-20 number as the guide arriving at 18 as the one with a safety factor but as always, do what you want to. If you aren't asking for experienced advice, why ask?

Just a note:

    I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350. 

    Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

No argument by me but in this case experience should out way theory. It is in explicable why seemingly identical manifolds have fatal variations.

Those two intakes are not identical. Why would you presume identical results? I've always used the 15-20 number as the guide arriving at 18 as the one with a safety factor but as always, do what you want to. If you aren't asking for experienced advice, why ask?

I didn't .    

[shelbydoug]

Just a note:

    I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350. 

    Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

No argument by me but in this case experience should out way theory. It is in explicable why seemingly identical manifolds have fatal variations.

Those two intakes are not identical. Why would you presume identical results? I've always used the 15-20 number as the guide arriving at 18 as the one with a safety factor but as always, do what you want to. If you aren't asking for experienced advice, why ask?

Just a note:

    I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350. 

    Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

No argument by me but in this case experience should out way theory. It is in explicable why seemingly identical manifolds have fatal variations.

Those two intakes are not identical. Why would you presume identical results? I've always used the 15-20 number as the guide arriving at 18 as the one with a safety factor but as always, do what you want to. If you aren't asking for experienced advice, why ask?

I didn't .    

 

[pbf777]

   

author=Bob Gaines link=msg=237199 date=1794521011]
Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the '69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

    Well, I believe the '69 GT350 has the "351W" engine, this perhaps as equipped with the appropriate "SHELBY" (there are also "FORD" & no-name examples) aluminum intake.  Now, though both the 289/302 and the 351W do share residence in the Ford Small Block family, this with "similar" bolt fastening arrangement, but they're "not the same"!  As for example the '69 351W has four (4) 'extra' boltings, and the intake castings are quite different with among other things better support for the #10, #11 & #12 bolt positions.   

    Next, the cylinder head intake face landings are longer so as to not have the intake unsupported at the four corners as of previous examples in the S.B.F. family, this disqualifying the "special needs" concern of those bolt positions to torque loadings; this as perhaps Ford had learned of the drawbacks of their earlier engineering execution.   

    So perhaps, we shouldn't just . . . . "assume"?   

    Scott.