anti-seize and lug nuts

[u2slow]

nice.....CF 0.07

sandawg.........you're way over torqued.

So if I understand this right, you'd torque to a ~20% lower value?

 

[sandawgk5]

nice.....CF 0.07



sandawg.........you're way over torqued.

Nice please explain this too me. If you go by their note of it increasing the final torque by 20% and you use the unlubricated torque value of 184 ft-lbs then I get a final torque of 148 ft-lbs as 20% of 184 is 36. If someone can show me otherwise I am not changing the way I do things. And I mean show me with facts not my uncle jim bob whose friend knows a guy who wants to be an engineer says.

Oh and C5A is a Felpro lubricant for high temp I use it on almost everything. It is also a substitute for Mil-A-907 for you military types.



Ira

 

[sandawgk5]

This calculator here says I am good and it gives values for no lube, plated, light lube, etc.

http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/screws/calc_bolt_torque.cfm#Answer

Ira

 

[Goose]

I too use anti-seize or locktite on about everything. I've also broken many a bolt, usually by taken them off things that were not lubed. I've also broken a few putting stuff together before I saw the light. If you wrench enough and brake enough you learn the "feel" of a bolt as it starts to stretch. That feel is what I typically use now days. Just enought that the bolt is in tension, but not close to breaking.

 

[sandawgk5]

Oh and I am not arguing that it changes the required torque value. I just dont think it changes it enought to cause permanent fastener damage.

Ira

 

[u2slow]

If you go by their note of it increasing the final torque by 20% and you use the unlubricated torque value of 184 ft-lbs then I get a final torque of 148 ft-lbs as 20% of 184 is 36. If someone can show me otherwise I am not changing the way I do things.

My GM shop manual says 129 lb-ft for the 9/16 lug nuts. So even if you lubed them and torqued to 129, you wouldn't be past 184 effective torque.

 

[ntsqd]

I didn't thoroughly read my own link. I had forgotten that the "K" value is not a Cf, but is an experimentally derived "fudge factor" number.

This calculator here says I am good and it gives values for no lube, plated, light lube, etc.

http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/screws/calc_bolt_torque.cfm#Answer

Ira

I originally used a G8 for the material spec there. given the Cf of ~0.07 use the "well lubricated" row in the resulting table. The G8 assumption may be a big one, but it nearly concurs with the posted GM manual spec. Absent that sort of info it would be safer to go with the G5 material spec which calls for 91 ft-lbs as the re-usable fastener torque spec.

 

[sandawgk5]

I didn't thoroughly read my own link. I had forgotten that the "K" value is not a Cf, but is an experimentally derived "fudge factor" number.

I originally used a G8 for the material spec there. given the Cf of ~0.07 use the "well lubricated" row in the resulting table. The G8 assumption may be a big one, but it nearly concurs with the posted GM manual spec. Absent that sort of info it would be safer to go with the G5 material spec which calls for 91 ft-lbs as the re-usable fastener torque spec.

I figured wheel studs were G8 as they are a pretty important fastener but do we really think a majority of us on here are stressing the studs to a point where they are unsafe?

Ira

 

[ntsqd]

Given the number of broken studs I've seen over the years, yes I think a lot of people over-torque them.
When you've got 8, popping one isn't too big a deal. When you've only got 4 or heaven forbid a Citroen 2CV......
(Note I'm not suggesting that someone is torquing their 4 lug car to 184 ft-lbs, but.....)

 

[blazersnburban]

thats neat

This calculator here says I am good and it gives values for no lube, plated, light lube, etc.

http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/screws/calc_bolt_torque.cfm#Answer

Ira

thats a neat , handy little calculator there, i bookmarked, but can you explain why the fractions are listed twice, in different size fonts?

 

[sandawgk5]

thats a neat , handy little calculator there, i bookmarked, but can you explain why the fractions are listed twice, in different size fonts?

Ira

 

[Slapperbar]

I use it as I have twisted the 7/16 studs off of my 10 bolt .

If I overstretch a 9/16 Dana 60 stud then I don't need to lift weights anymore . Here in the Navy there is not a fastener anywhere that does not have some form of lubricant put on it to prevent galling of the threads during the torquing process. Unless it has a thread locker on it.

Ira

IRA, Thread locker is a lubricant until it sets.
QAI

 

[sandawgk5]

IRA, Thread locker is a lubricant until it sets.
QAI

Ya what I meant by that was I dont put lubricant on threads where Loctite is called for because it will keep the locker from setting.

Ira

 

[Slapperbar]

AH

 

[DEMON44]

....I'm not saying your lugnuts lubed and torqued are going to go into failure. but they are over torqued for rim retaining purposes.....say for instance you have aluminum rims. I sure don't want or need 180-something ft-lbs clamping force on them. I would suggest its more important to have very even torque on all lug nuts than have extreme force.



I'll be sure to remember ...lubed 187ft-lbs and chuckle....next time I'm torqueing the fluid end liners in a PZ-10 mud pump to 3000ft-lbs by hand