Yamaha Outboard Parts
Yamaha   Yamaha Outboard Parts
 
Yamaha Outboard Forum Yamaha Outboard Parts Discussion Forum Yamaha Outboard Parts Boat Parts Yamaha Outboard Forum Outboard Motor Parts Contact Us
Yamaha Parts
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2017
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 22
Default Torque

Can any body tell me the torque on low pressure fuel pumps bolts on a 150 hpdi and I have a mystery piece but not sure how to post pic thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: KDH NC
Posts: 9,071
Default

dude.
its a 6mmx1mm fastener.
1/4 drive ratchet and one hand.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2017
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 22
Default

Sorry Rodbolt but you lost me.Those bolts that hold on the two LP pumps must have a torque spec. The mystery piece is from some where below the fuse box.I had the powerhead rebuilt and it popped off .
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,507
Default

2.2 pound feet on the screws.

5.8 pound feet on the bolts.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2017
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Sebring, Fla
Posts: 1
Default

70 inch pounds
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2017
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 22
Default

Thanks for the info 99
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enki 4040 View Post
Sorry Rodbolt but you lost me.Those bolts that hold on the two LP pumps must have a torque spec. The mystery piece is from some where below the fuse box.I had the powerhead rebuilt and it popped off .
I think Rodbolt simply meant to use a 1/4" rachet and snug the bolts up...hard to over tighten them with a small rachet. All fasteners technically have a torque spec but most people don't use a torque wrench on all the fasteners on a engine...just the important ones like head bolts, crank case bolts...ect.

If you are not comfortable with just hand tightening, by all means, use a torque wrench
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,507
Default

What does Transport Canada say about the use of a torque wrench? Is it an option if you are comfortable with not using it?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boscoe99 View Post
What does Transport Canada say about the use of a torque wrench? Is it an option if you are comfortable with not using it?
I am going to plead the fifth on that one.

"I Refuse to Answer on the Grounds That It May Incriminate Me"

Actually its not up to Transport Canada, they say that you will follow the manufactures instructions And you will use a calibrated torque wrench( at least yearly calibrated) and clearly marked as such, when it is required.

So the manufacturer will specify if the nut, bolt, screw requires a certain torque or not. There are certain instances when a torque wrench is not required.

So I always use one...if required.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by panasonic View Post
I am going to plead the fifth on that one.

"I Refuse to Answer on the Grounds That It May Incriminate Me"

Actually its not up to Transport Canada, they say that you will follow the manufactures instructions And you will use a calibrated torque wrench( at least yearly calibrated) and clearly marked as such, when it is required.

So the manufacturer will specify if the nut, bolt, screw requires a certain torque or not. There are certain instances when a torque wrench is not required.

So I always use one...if required.
Since we have diverted to aeroplane matters, and it has been slow on this forum lately, let's continue for a bit.

If a manufacturer specifies that a piston engine be overhauled at say 2000 hours or 10 years, does TC mandate that it be done? Here in the states this has been a contentious issue for general aviation. The FAA apparently looks the other way on this one and does not mandate that operators follow this part of the documentation for continued airworthiness. So, some stuff the manufacturers say has to be done while other stuff, apparently not.

Have you heard about Bombardier and Boeing? Boeing complained to the US government about Bombardier dumping airplanes here in the US below cost. Based on the Canuck government giving unfair subsidies to Bombardier. In a sale to Delta Air Lines. Delta says they are not paying a 220% tariff. Canada says they may not buy Boeing military airplanes in retaliation.

In the words of that ole sage, Rodney King "can't we all just get along"?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Savannah GA
Posts: 2,628
Default

Transport Canada same as FAA?

Interesting as you mentioned a tiff between Boeing and Canada?

Corporation on one side and government on the other. These things get too twisted. Should be Corp versus Corp and Governments dealing with Governments. Pipe dream......

Is Bombardier owned and operated by Canadian government? I guess Airbus is another example.

Governments tend to screw up businesses.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pstephens46 View Post
Transport Canada same as FAA?

Interesting as you mentioned a tiff between Boeing and Canada?

Corporation on one side and government on the other. These things get too twisted. Should be Corp versus Corp and Governments dealing with Governments. Pipe dream......

Is Bombardier owned and operated by Canadian government? I guess Airbus is another example.

Governments tend to screw up businesses.
Transport Canada is the Canadian equivalent of our FAA.

The tift is now between the US and Canada. Based on Boeing's complaint.

Bombardier just about went belly up but were rescued by the Canadian government. Kind of like the US rescuing GM, Chrysler and Lockheed. And God only knows who else.

Canada has privatized their air traffic control system. While the one here in the US is government run. Some in the US are advocating that ATC here in the states should be privatized. All hell has broken loose in the US aviation community. Government does nothing right or government is the solution to all. Depends upon the time of day and viewpoint.

Methinketh all governments are hypocrites.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boscoe99 View Post
Since we have diverted to aeroplane matters, and it has been slow on this forum lately, let's continue for a bit.

If a manufacturer specifies that a piston engine be overhauled at say 2000 hours or 10 years, does TC mandate that it be done? Here in the states this has been a contentious issue for general aviation. The FAA apparently looks the other way on this one and does not mandate that operators follow this part of the documentation for continued airworthiness. So, some stuff the manufacturers say has to be done while other stuff, apparently not.

Have you heard about Bombardier and Boeing? Boeing complained to the US government about Bombardier dumping airplanes here in the US below cost. Based on the Canuck government giving unfair subsidies to Bombardier. In a sale to Delta Air Lines. Delta says they are not paying a 220% tariff. Canada says they may not buy Boeing military airplanes in retaliation.

In the words of that ole sage, Rodney King "can't we all just get along"?
If am not 100% sure about TBO overhaul on piston poppers. I believe if you use the airplane for "commercial use" it will be overhauled at 2000 hours period. If it is used for private use then it can run "on condition" indefinitely as long as it meets certain parameters. I am not a piston engine mechanic.

Remember these piston engines have been around since the 50's and older. Back then the only way to monitor the engines health was to cut open oil filters, monitor oil consumption, and leak down test basically. Now we have a multitude of monitoring. Spectrum oil Analysis, super stereo bore scopes, computer monitoring of head Temps, oil pressure. ,fuel flow..ect

I highly suspect that the 2000 hour TBO has been around since these engines where designed and government regulatory requirements are very difficult to change.

Lycoming and Continental only suggests an Overhaul at 2000 hours.

Last edited by panasonic; 10-12-2017 at 11:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 22
Default

I really opened up a can of worms . Moving on to another subject I was wondering if any body thinks of this . On the rebuild I had the mechanic remove the basket filters in the high pressure fuel pump . I am no mechanic but feel that the hpdi motors flaw is that they put them ( filters or screens) in bad location 's . I run a external 3 micron filter water seperator. Good tip Panisonic on torque question
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2017
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boscoe99 View Post
Since we have diverted to aeroplane matters, and it has been slow on this forum lately, let's continue for a bit.

If a manufacturer specifies that a piston engine be overhauled at say 2000 hours or 10 years, does TC mandate that it be done? Here in the states this has been a contentious issue for general aviation. The FAA apparently looks the other way on this one and does not mandate that operators follow this part of the documentation for continued airworthiness. So, some stuff the manufacturers say has to be done while other stuff, apparently not.

Have you heard about Bombardier and Boeing? Boeing complained to the US government about Bombardier dumping airplanes here in the US below cost. Based on the Canuck government giving unfair subsidies to Bombardier. In a sale to Delta Air Lines. Delta says they are not paying a 220% tariff. Canada says they may not buy Boeing military airplanes in retaliation.

In the words of that ole sage, Rodney King "can't we all just get along"?
I don't uusually weight in on the political crap. But I will this time.

Bombardier, Boeing, Airbus and Embraer have all been accused of under pricing thier aircraft to get customers...and they all have done it...especially with a all new airplane.

Also they have all received money from their governments to keep them going when things go wrong, all of them.

The Bombardier C SERIES is a good airplane and is very fuel efficient, quiet and easier to maintain. This is what is current operators are saying about it. I work on ALL Bombardier products so I am biased.

Boeing only asked for a 80% tariff and someone came up with 220% !!!!

Should we have slapped a huge tariff on USA cars when the tax payers bailed them out as someone mentioned already. No because many car parts are made here in Canuckastan.

Most folks don't realize that there are a huge amount of US companies making parts for commercial aircraft. No aircraft manufacturer can possibly produce all the parts itself. There are American parts on just about every aircraft in the world....even on Russian ones...and I have seen that with my own eyes by the way.

So that is the **** they play, they don't make any money on the Airplane itself..it's the gazillion amount of money they make off you for the next 20-30 year's in parts. Which are made around the world and big time in the USA.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 AM.

Outboard Parts

Other Forums
Mercury Parts
Suzuki Parts
Evinrude Parts
Johnson Parts
Honda Parts

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Outdoor Network LLC