When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
From: Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die
St. Jude Donor '04-'05-'06-'07
Rear hub spindle nut torque experiment and question
I was under my car this afternoon rechecking everything after putting some miles on the differential swap, u-joint replacement, etc. I did earlier this week. Anyhow, I thought I'd check the torque on the spindle nuts since I've never done that before. My '95 Helms says 164 lbs. ft. so I set my torque wrench on 165 and checked them. They didn't move, okay, fine then. But just for the hell of it, I marked the current location on both sides and went ahead and removed the nuts. They weren't really rusty or anything, came right loose fine, okay then. I wiped off the loose dirt with a rag, lubed them with anti-seize and put them back on, snugged and then retorqued to factory spec. The right side, this time was 1/8th turn advanced from where it was before. For those familiar with torque plus degrees or torque turning methods, this could be rather significant, torque wise. The left side BTW was about 1/16th turn advanced. Just something to think about when checking them. You may want to loosen and retighten and not just put a torque wrench on them. Now the question. Do I remember reading here on the forum that some think the factory torque is insufficient and recommended a higher torque spec? Or was I just dreaming? Sorry so long, thanks.
I remember a few threads a while back that stated the torque was moved up to 200 ft/lbs. Of couse it's almost 7 PM and I have had a few Henry McKenna and water , so I might be in error.
From: Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die
St. Jude Donor '04-'05-'06-'07
Originally Posted by Steel Blue 91
I remember a few threads a while back that stated the torque was moved up to 200 ft/lbs. Of couse it's almost 7 PM and I have had a few Henry McKenna and water , so I might be in error.
That's what I was thinking. Given the size of the spindle, I don't think 200 would be too much at all (that 200 number rings a bell, now). Especially for those of us that truly"enjoy" our cars to their fullest potential at times! BTW, I've had a few brews too and fully intend to have a few more as I enjoy the race from our home track, Charlotte.
Last edited by Corvette Kid; Oct 16, 2004 at 07:36 PM.
well you also "lubed" the spindle nut with anti-seize, which will probably also affect the torque readings. I think you're supposed to torque them down dry, and why use anti-seize anyway? that nut has happily held it's place for 20+ years on my ride without budging...
I'd say 175 ft-lbs and that sucker is not going anywhere, esp. with the cotter pin in place!
From: Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die
St. Jude Donor '04-'05-'06-'07
Originally Posted by Ramanstud
well you also "lubed" the spindle nut with anti-seize, which will probably also affect the torque readings. I think you're supposed to torque them down dry, and why use anti-seize anyway? that nut has happily held it's place for 20+ years on my ride without budging...
I'd say 175 ft-lbs and that sucker is not going anywhere, esp. with the cotter pin in place!
I realize that lubing has an effect on it and meant to mention that originally. However, it's not that I'm worrying about it coming loose as much as I am eliminating any potential for unnecessary movement which can possibly lead to breakage.
Two thoughts on this are: Lubed vs Dry the lubed will be tighter than the dry. 175 lubed might very well be 200 dry. I read something a long time ago giving the variation to expect but have never been able to find it again. I think it was in one of the old Hot Rod "how to" type magazines in the 70's? Any way thought two is that torque on a bolt actually puts it under tension/stretch. How much stretch would equal 1/8 or 1/16 turn?
Not sure if the search function is back up and running, but there was a post maybe 2-3 weeks ago where it was suggested to use 165 ftlb for auto trans and 200 ftlb for 6 speed trans. I questioned where it came from, but was given no proof that is what it should be. My manual says 164 ftlb, and that includes ZR1. Until someone can point me to a TSB or something that says the manual is printed incorrectly, I'm going with what is recommended by GM (Oh, and the fact that my torque wrench only goes to 165 is another good reason too ).
You may want to loosen and retighten and not just put a torque wrench on them.
Actually that's the correct way to do it. The torque measurement will be different when the nut is moving as opposed to when it is sitting still (the coefficient of static friction is higher than the coefficient of kinetic friction). If you stop turning the nut at say 168 ft-lbs, then try to start turning it again, it will take more than 168 to get it going. There are other factors that affect it also, lubing the threads makes a big difference. The specs assume clean dry threads, and the torque wrench needs to be turned smoothly.