No, initial torque settings according to my 93 and my 95 manual in front of me was 30ft-lbs then a 90 degree torque angle. When I reverse torqued mine during teardown, it was darn near 45ft-lbs to loosen each bolt with my torque wrench. I know it sounds rediculous, that's why I posted the question back in 07' because the manual and Archer Racing both told me 30ft-lbs and a 1/4 turn was all I needed. That's why simply re-torquing the old gasket to a slightly higher torque setting seemed to delay the leaks according to Chuck. I believe that the gasket failures are more due to someone dropping the ball in determining the proper torque specs. I know they were paper/fiber, but the angualar spec was aweful to begin with. Even GEN2's initally in the early manuals had a torque spec of 35 plus 1/4 turn before it was revised with an adendum shortly after.
40/80/120 for new bolts, Chuck said 45/90/120 for old bolts, but I agree, the difference won't matter much.
What I actually did, to make me feel better, I torqued 30/45/90/120 with Chuck's permission, and the difference between 30 and 45 was, guess what, a 1/4 turn on each bolt, solidifying how wrong Chrysler's original method was.
I am sorry to keep dragging this up, since it is pointless afterall:
-Of every Gen-1 HG job I have done, there is no way any of them were near 45 pounds prevail. 75-85 is the norm. However, 75-85 reverse-prevail is about 90-100 forward torque. It does not take as much to break a bolt out than to torque it down. Also keep in mind, those old gaskets seat and loosen over time as they compress- MLS does not do this. Of course, this is tainted because it is a static condition, so any torque readings are meaningless as the bolts have been in place for so long.
-The original head gaskets as well as the coolant was to blame for failure, not as much the torque. The old coolant when left in breaks down the metal matrix fiber, and the gasket starts to seep through the gasket material itself. Re-torquing can slow this, but the gaskets are already compromised. No matter what, that gasket design will continue to losen over time because of the expansion of the aluminum block. MLS cannot compress beyond the embossing, so they are safe to use in an aluminum block without torquing multiple times.
-You cannot compare a torque-angle method of a metal-matrix gasket to an MLS gasket. MLS uses an embossed section, and those low torque numbers would never seat the embossing, ultimately screwing up the torque angle method. Torque angle is based on a seated gasket and a certain amount of bolt stretch. Unless the pre-torque is enough to collapse the embossing, the torque angle will always be wrong, and 30-35 is nowhere near enough to collapse an MLS completely on that gasket design. In short, the angle torque method would be "tighter" on the matrix version than it is on an MLS that isn't correctly seated.
-Assuming a collapsed gasket, 1/4 turn is a decent amount of stretch on that bolt size actually. 1/4 turn on a 9/16-12 = .021", which is about 2.5x more than that bolt size would normally be stretched to tighten. Sure that doesn't take into account deflection of materials, but with that bolt size of course, there wouldn't be a ton. What I am getting at, is that 1/4 turn even on an MLS that is properly seated first WOULD actually work. The problem always comes back to the gaskets, and their use in an aluminum engine.