rampage
3/4 ton status
Says 160 minimum there too. All the rest of the responses were conjecture.
As I posted in another thread, my ‘89 GM manual says for a 10 bolt it’s 160 minimum... take it or leave it
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Inner axle nut - small tip for washer is worn down
- Thread starter Noek
- Start date
Says 160 minimum there too. All the rest of the responses were conjecture.
As I posted in another thread, my ‘89 GM manual says for a 10 bolt it’s 160 minimum... take it or leave it
Seriously, after all of the work I have done to my truck, I would viciously argue against this point, and I don't even know you
From an engineering standpoint, I think it's pretty hard to argue against what much of GM did on these trucks, at least when it comes to drivetrain and the technology available at the time. The only drivetrain aspect I think GM missed the boat on was EFI much earlier than 1987. I'm sure someone can think of something, but off the top of my head I can't think of more than a couple examples of drivetrain component that don't go 20+ years without regularly needing replacement if everything else is up to par and not abused.
Yes, the early 700's were problematic, and 8.5" gov-locks don't last very well for most of us, but for being a "light" axle, the 8.5" front seems to be pretty dang good until you start dealing with massive tires.
Green Monster
1/2 ton status
I must be missing something. Nowhere in my Chilton does it say anything should be torqued to 160.
Never seen 160 either.
Me neither..
Though my service manual dont fit well in my scanner,here is what they recommend for the 4x4 front wheel bearing adjustment procedure--first one is a GM manual,the other,a Haynes manual...
Though my service manual dont fit well in my scanner,here is what they recommend for the 4x4 front wheel bearing adjustment procedure--first one is a GM manual,the other,a Haynes manual...
Here is what Factory 1985 and 1991 have to say, both say 160Ft pounds MINIMUM
Maybe I'll be that guy and have a wheel fall off killing a bus full of nuns but I cannot see where 160 ft lbs is either necessary or good on the parts (namely the spindle threads). I always torque the outer nut to 50 ft lbs and leave it, hasn't failed me yet.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
- Posts
- 1,434
- Reaction score
- 1,448
Why you coming for me, bro?
i do the outer nut to the german spec of GOOD-N-TIGHT 
I really suspect there was a misprint somewhere in the past, and its been handed down ever since. What that misprint was, I have no idea. And its fairly irrelevant. The outer nut is a jam nut, and its only purpose is to prevent the "holey" ring from moving out far enough to let the pinned nut rotate.
Unless the pin is sheared or pressed in, the outside nut torque can only have the tiniest effect on the bearing preload. When you tighten the outside nut, it will press the inside nut in to the limit of the slop of it's threads.
The ring and pin combo will prevent the inside nut from turning. The tightness of the inside nut is crucial, but the outside one just needs to be tight enough to stop it from backing off under vibration.
Just to throw a different slant on it, the lock-a-matic Warn hubs on my old '60 CJ5 replaced the two nut system with a completely different setup.
It had no Jam nut. Instead, the bearing adjust/retaining nut was the only one. And it had no flats to tighten it with. It was smooth on the outside. Instead, it had a couple of holes drilled into the face of it, and you used a spanner type wrench to tighten it. The keyed washer with the holes went under it between the nut and the bearing.
There was an extra threaded hole in the face of the nut. Inside was an allen setscrew. When you got the bearing preload set, you used a 1/8 inch allen wrench to tighten that setscrew. I went through the nut, and into one of the holes in the washer. Locking the nut in place.
Unless the pin is sheared or pressed in, the outside nut torque can only have the tiniest effect on the bearing preload. When you tighten the outside nut, it will press the inside nut in to the limit of the slop of it's threads.
The ring and pin combo will prevent the inside nut from turning. The tightness of the inside nut is crucial, but the outside one just needs to be tight enough to stop it from backing off under vibration.
Just to throw a different slant on it, the lock-a-matic Warn hubs on my old '60 CJ5 replaced the two nut system with a completely different setup.
It had no Jam nut. Instead, the bearing adjust/retaining nut was the only one. And it had no flats to tighten it with. It was smooth on the outside. Instead, it had a couple of holes drilled into the face of it, and you used a spanner type wrench to tighten it. The keyed washer with the holes went under it between the nut and the bearing.
There was an extra threaded hole in the face of the nut. Inside was an allen setscrew. When you got the bearing preload set, you used a 1/8 inch allen wrench to tighten that setscrew. I went through the nut, and into one of the holes in the washer. Locking the nut in place.
Noek
Registered Member
Several people have posted from a manual similar to the above scanned that definitely say 160-220lbs. The reason I originally brought it up was because it just seemed “excessive”. That being said, based on this discussion and all of the examples and input, it’s goig to be hard to trust torques specs on something so important going forward, especially if it was a misprint. I digress, I feel I might just tighten the outer to 50lbs. And monitor it.
That's because Chiltons/Haynes are utter rubbish. Not that GM doesn't misprint things, but just because the tail lights stayed the same from 1973-1991, doesn't mean everything ahead of them did. Which is what the Chiltons/Haynes often would have you believe. Like the "typical" wiring diagrams. There is nothing "typical" about wiring, unless utter madness is typical, which is what will happen if you try and use the same chart from 1981 on a 1986.
The factory manuals for just about every year '73-91 are freely available on the web now (see the link in my signature), I see no reason for the Haynes/Chiltons to exist. The pages in the factory wiring diagram are huge (11x15?) for a reason. Haynes/Chilton? 8.5x11.
Well,I have never had any issues with front wheel bearings using the method in the books I posted above,so I'm going to stick with their procedures..
GM might think those super fine spindle threads will hold up with 150 ft/lbs ,but to me that sounds like way too tight--the 4 prong socket probably will not even allow that much to be applied without affecting the socket....and torquing the bearings while spinning the rotor much over the same amount is likely to crush the bearing roller cage if you ask me..
GM might think those super fine spindle threads will hold up with 150 ft/lbs ,but to me that sounds like way too tight--the 4 prong socket probably will not even allow that much to be applied without affecting the socket....and torquing the bearings while spinning the rotor much over the same amount is likely to crush the bearing roller cage if you ask me..
If you look at the the manuals that say 50, they also have lock tabs to bend up to retain the nut at 50. The one is for two wheel drive, which is retained to torque with a cotter pin. The factory manual for 1985 is about 8 times thicker than the generic Haynes or Chilton. The 91 comes in three parts to cover all the material. You get what you pay for.
Last edited:
chulisohombre
1/2 ton status
I wouldn’t tighten the inner nut more than 35 lb unless it’s a new bearing. Then I believe 50 ftlb would be appropriate to lock it all in. . I usually just tighten it down good then spin the wheel. Back it off a little then tighten it back to where it starts to get resistance against the bearings. I don’t loosen it more than a 1/16 of a inch for the spacer to lock in. You can flip it to get it on the pin so it will lock in tighter. Then put the spacer and lock the outer nut as good as the spindle nut tool and 1/2 inch wrench will do. Probably around 100 ft lb. I can’t get it to stay in the grooves much tighter than that. after you do it a few times you will get a feel for how much it needs.
I'd bet half of the 4x4's I've owned had the front wheel bearings set "loose" thanks to moronic previous owners who thought a punch and a hammer were the proper "tools" to loosen and tighten the outer nut!..
More than one had a lot of play when you shook the tire at 12 and 6...
And they probably wondered why the truck loved to wander and feel like it had a 1/2 turn of play at the steering wheel ..
..One truck I bought had death wobble bad at 45 mph or so,turned out both front wheel bearings were very loose,and I had a hard time getting the outer nut off thanks to someone using the hammer & punch method..
More than one had a lot of play when you shook the tire at 12 and 6...
And they probably wondered why the truck loved to wander and feel like it had a 1/2 turn of play at the steering wheel ..
..One truck I bought had death wobble bad at 45 mph or so,turned out both front wheel bearings were very loose,and I had a hard time getting the outer nut off thanks to someone using the hammer & punch method..
