|
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is bolt tightening torque to be reduced for lubed threads & underhead areas vs. dry?
Yes. How much? A chart is attached which gives some guidance. As a general matter, a reduction of ~25% seems to be a satisfactory rule of thumb. For MB 12mm wheel bolts with a dry thread torque range of 80-100 lb-ft., a lubed range of 60-75 lb-ft. would be appropriate. The remainder of the chart can be viewed via google>Repair Engineering. Last edited by Frank Reiner; 12-31-2018 at 04:42 PM. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I would think that your problem likely was caused by rusting of the hub threads. If you look at the ends of the lug bolts you will likely see a lot of rust on the threads. The lugs are plated, so the rust has to come from the hub. The best way to protect the hub threads, in my opinion, is to use antisieze on the threads only, which will transfer to the hub threads and protect them. I understand the torque argument, but most of the torque is developed between the lug and the wheel due to the increased diameter of this contact area, again, in my opinion.
__________________
'97 E 300 D |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Are any of you armchair/google engineers actually mechanics? Lol. These forums never cease to amuse me.
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"For MB 12mm wheel bolts with a dry thread torque range of 80-100 lb-ft., a lubed range of 60-75 lb-ft. would be appropriate."
Just as I stated, go to the low side and you are within 5%, single digit percentage. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Reducing the torque on a lug where antisieze is only applied to the threads, could be dangerous. It is not reasonable to consider this to be a lubed bolt. The torque generated by the seat/wheel friction, is unchanged by the antisieze. I would not go less than 80 ft. lbs.
__________________
'97 E 300 D |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"*dry thread torque range of 80-100 lb-ft., a lubed range of 60-75 lb-ft. would be appropriate."
Low end of dry=80, high end of lubed =75... show me what math makes 5ft/lbs out of 80 25%. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
The torque spec for the lug bolt on a given application is 80lb or 90lb or 100lb, etc. not 80-100lb. Conveniently choosing the high and low ends of two different ranges using creative math to support some claim you made is disingenuous at best. If you don't know why that is then you have no place working on someone's car much less charging them for it. Using similar methodology with the same set of numbers to prove a different point you could say that the spec goes from 100lb-ft to 60lb-ft and is 40% less for lubed fasteners which could potentially be equally if not more unsafe.
And this is independent of whether anti-seize affects torque specs or not. Last edited by party; 01-04-2019 at 04:46 PM. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"It is absolutely not common sense as you claim. "
I think this statement from your first useless post pretty well sums up your mechanical knowledge and abilities. All mechanical work is common sense. I seriously doubt you own a torque wrench, much less have a clue what one looks like or how to use it. Of course, if you aren't using a recently calibrated beam and dial type, you can't really know what the torque is, right? |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
We are all friends here.
I am pretty sure there is someone on the forum who actually has the correct information. This subject has been discussed in quite a few threads and has probably been answered by an expert. Are you out there? |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
I don’t think there’s an expert that can establish consensus on a matter of science vs established practice. How many have had their minds changed by an oil thread or brake fluid flush frequency thread? Science means more to some, practice to others.
Sixto 98 E320s sedan and wagon 02 C320 wagon |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
No, all mechanical work is not common sense. That's exactly why training and experience is so important. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Would not be surprised for someone to come up with a chart showing torques with and without locktite.
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|