I've searched for a while now... I've read all about the BHG problems that exist in the 7M motor as well as the headbolts that werent torqued properly. My question is this: Did Toyota realize this issue was happening by 91/92 after 5 model years of production and start to torque the headbolts to the proper ft/lb? I only ask because as I look for a supra to purchase most of the 91 and 92 cars have not had their HG changed. Most of the 87-89ish cars have rebuilt motors/metal hg's. Thanks in advance for any help.
are 91's and 92's more resistent to blown headgaskets? BHG
- Thread starter mr2fanatic
- Start date
No they are just as bad. Mine blew when it hit the 60k mark. The blocks may have had something to do with it but other than that, 92's are just rare so finding bhg's are just as rare.
well, if I remember corectly, IJ has showed us some pic's of different blocks, and newer blocks are way stronger. While head was not changed, except additional cooling passage in 6th cylinder area.
The fault is not the torque, its the HG itself and the design of the engine.
The fault is not the torque, its the HG itself and the design of the engine.
ViR2;890429 said:
I think you have it backwards....there isnt anything wrong with the design of the 7M or the headgasket, but it was the torque specs that cause the headgasket to fail. I replaced my HG with a cometic and ARP headstuds on a resurfaced block and head and havent had any problems.
Correct. I've run a stock headgasket at the correct torque to WAY over the stock power levels without any problems.2543arvin;890564 said:
That said, I did eventually move to a metal gasket just for the extra insurance. Oh, and the metal gaskets don't mess up your sealing surface like the OEM ones do.
ViR2;890429 said:
way wrong here. the headgasket failure is a result of the torque setting for the bolts being so low. (52ft lbs or something like that). torque them to 72ft lbs on a stock gasket, and it won't blow, assuming you don't treat the car like a bag of crap.
