[bobfic]

For some of us that may have slight case of OCD..just to clean the rims.

[Walnutbear]

Originally Posted by Scargoes

People do what they want, but there is a reason the spec is 140lbft. It's not out of line either. Ford is 150, Tesla is 135. At least you aren't having to torque my truck wheels, 450-500lbft.

Agreed! Scargoes.
I just installed my new wheels and tires and I tourqed them at 140. It's not really that much effort to do.

[3Putt]

Yesterday I put the stock wheels and tires back on. The dealer had installed the w/t currently on the car and they use an impact driver to install without checking the specs.

All of the bolts were over torqued, I'd guess I had to stand on about have of them.

[Invertalon]

I for one, lubricate my wheel studs.

Anyway, I have had my share of nearly snapped studs and seized lug nuts due to corrosion. Using anti-seize on the wheel studs has eliminated any difficulty with working with the wheels (and the hub-to-wheel interface). Note, I live in the midwest so I deal with salt and all that fun stuff.

When you lubricate, torque will REDUCE by about 25% with Anti-Seize adjusting for the nut factor. So instead of 140 ft-lbs, you are looking at about 105 ft-lbs.

I have done this on multiple vehicles and never had a lug nut back off or require to be re-torqued. I always double check my wheel torques a day or two after any work and never had to snug anything up. Nuts come off so easily with no galling or other issues.

Most people will be worried about lubricating wheel studs, but it makes things easier. You still are achieving the proper load on the bolt, but due to lower friction, you don't require as much torque to overcome that friction. But dry or lubricated, I always check a few days after to be sure everything seated and is properly torqued again.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by Invertalon

I for one, lubricate my wheel studs.

Anyway, I have had my share of nearly snapped studs and seized lug nuts due to corrosion. Using anti-seize on the wheel studs has eliminated any difficulty with working with the wheels (and the hub-to-wheel interface). Note, I live in the midwest so I deal with salt and all that fun stuff.

When you lubricate, torque will REDUCE by about 25% with Anti-Seize adjusting for the nut factor. So instead of 140 ft-lbs, you are looking at about 105 ft-lbs.

I have done this on multiple vehicles and never had a lug nut back off or require to be re-torqued. I always double check my wheel torques a day or two after any work and never had to snug anything up. Nuts come off so easily with no galling or other issues.

Most people will be worried about lubricating wheel studs, but it makes things easier. You still are achieving the proper load on the bolt, but due to lower friction, you don't require as much torque to overcome that friction. But dry or lubricated, I always check a few days after to be sure everything seated and is properly torqued again.

I agree with all of this, except for the percentage of torque reduction. Here is what an engineer well versed in aftermarket design/testing/racing sent to me about that exact topic:

Originally Posted by engineer

"I always have a very light coat of anti-seize on the wheel studs of my cars. Put it on, then wipe off as much as you can.

I reduce the torque level by 10lbs-ft with this change (10% for a ½-20 stud).

Auto manufacturers know that people are going to use impact tools on the lug nuts, so these are one of the most overdesigned clamped joints on the car. With a normal fastener, you would torque it to 80% of its yield strength. In a lot of wheel stud applications, the normal torque value is only 60% of the yield limit. Because the stud is so long, there is a large amount of linear elastic stretch even at such a low torque percent, so that the joint doesn’t come loose. In other bolted joints, where the ratio of grip length to major diameter was lower, a 50% torque spec could allow the joint to come loose with any significant vibration or cyclical stress. In that respect, installing a stiff wheel spacer, will reduce the chances of the lug nuts coming loose!

I wouldn’t drop the torque 30%. That seems too much. Bolted joints are far more likely to fail in use from being under torqued, not over torqued. If you over-torque the joint, you will feel it when you do it. If it survives the torquing, there is almost no chance that it will fail in use.

If you do over torque the studs, it can elastically deform the hub flange, which will then deform the rotor hat, but due to the size and configuration of rotors on modern cars, I don’t think that it will deform the rotor friction surface at all. With older one piece hubs and rotors, this is an actual issue.

You can measure the angle of the nut when torqued on the clean stud, then add antiseize to the stud and adjust the torque so that you achieve the exact same angle with the same nut. Then you would have the same clamp load.

It's important to note that you should NOT put anti-seize on the lug nut seat - just the stud threads. The unaltered friction on that clamping surface is why the torque shouldn't be reduced that much. This is the procedure I plan to follow.

[DaveC113]

I've never seen anti seize be required unless you have open end lug nuts or Ti nuts or something. If you put a closed-end nut on a dry stud there shouldn't be an issue. Using dry studs is the most reliable method because there IS more friction in the threads, this isn't an area you want that friction reduced like you do with engine fasteners because of the nature of the load and also engine studs are torqued to a much higher % of their yield strength, so torquing them dry is unreliable.

If you're going to use anti-seize the best way to figure out torque is to measure elongation of the stud, although using the same angle is probably better than guessing on how much to reduce torque by.

Anyways, I'd recommend NOT using any lubricant on wheel studs, clean and dry is best imo.

Regards,
another engineer.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

I've never seen anti seize be required unless you have open end lug nuts or Ti nuts or something. If you put a closed-end nut on a dry stud there shouldn't be an issue. Using dry studs is the most reliable method because there IS more friction in the threads, this isn't an area you want that friction reduced like you do with engine fasteners because of the nature of the load and also engine studs are torqued to a much higher % of their yield strength, so torquing them dry is unreliable.

If you're going to use anti-seize the best way to figure out torque is to measure elongation of the stud, although using the same angle is probably better than guessing on how much to reduce torque by.

Anyways, I'd recommend NOT using any lubricant on wheel studs, clean and dry is best imo.

Regards,
another engineer.

I agree that closed-end nut on dry threads is great when you can do it. Unfortunately that's not always the most feasible option. I guess I don't really see the problem with reducing thread friction (but only on the threads) using anti-seize, since the seat will remain dry and provide lots of friction (probably a lot higher friction than the threads since the wheel is soft aluminum and the diameter and surface area is a lot greater). Also, unless I'm missing something, if you torque the same angle wet as you do dry, the stud stretch has to be the same. As my friend notes, there's a lot more stretch on a typical stud that most other critical fasteners, even though the percent-of-yield-strength is lower. So those lug nuts aren't going anywhere.

I'll be switching over to longer studs and open-end nuts in a bit, and I'll be curious to find out the torque value after lightly coating the threads with anti-seize and tightening to the same angle. I'll try to remember to report back.

[Invertalon]

To clarify, yes, anti-seize only on the thread (lightly) and wipe any excess.

As far as torque reduction, I used to design industrial equipment subject to thermal, vibration, etc... Spent a lot of time researching threaded fasteners, gasket sealing and various fastener types. It's not easy to specify and often you are just "close enough" with your final torque value.

Endless references out there for what occurs with dry vs. lubricated threads and how it affects the "K factor". So while 10% reduction may be right, so can 20-30% depending on application and factors.

Here is a good reference for those curious by Fastenal:

https://www.fastenal.com/content/fed...t%20Design.pdf

Also, a tool they have for torque values based on size and dry/lubricated:

https://www.fastenal.com/en/83/torque-calculator


If you pop in the 14x1.5 bolt size and 10.9 class, they give a torque of 148 ft-lbs. Close enough to what Chevy requires. Lubricated, 111 ft-lbs. Actually comes out to the same reduction (25%) as I had pulled from my excel calculators I had put together as design tools for work noted in my original post. Also, you can find the K factors of various anti-seizes on different types of threaded fasteners published by manufacturers. Such as:

http://www.adhetec.net/wp-content/up...adherentes.pdf

Lots of references though! But it can vary of course, there is a lot of factors to the perfect torque spec.

[Emoto]

Originally Posted by Msquared

Holy shit, people! The torque spec isn't open to interpretation! These studs are 14mm, much bigger than what most cars use...probably because these cars are heavy. A Mustang GT has the same M14x1.5 studs, and Ford calls for 150lb/ft. So it's not like Chevy is out on a limb here. A 14mm stud has a well established torque spec, and 140lb/ft is it. The spec is zip to do with any other factor.

Just because you're "a racer" and never used this high a torque spec before doesn't mean you shouldn't now. You probably never had a car with 14mm studs before. If someone is breaking lug nuts on 14mm studs and thinks they torqued it to 140lb, then either their torque wrench is really off or the studs had previous damage of some sort. If you need a long breaker bar have to stand on the end of it to break loose these lug nuts, then you had considerably more than 140lb/ft on them.

It's your car and you can do what you want, but please stop advising others to torque their lug nuts to less than the factory spec! That's just irresponsible.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Msquared

Also, unless I'm missing something, if you torque the same angle wet as you do dry, the stud stretch has to be the same.

Forgot to respond... Yes, I agree it will be the same if you torque to the same angle... what I was getting at is measuring elongation is more accurate, but it's not practical in many cases.

If you're going to do it, it would be interesting to compare the result of dry vs the k-value Invertalon posted just above in the last link.

I can see using anti-seize if you're going to longer studs w/ open end lugs. With closed-end lugs, the ends of the +1" ARP studs I installed up front are still rust-free, I cut the "nose" off of them so they work with or without a spacer while still being able to use closed-end lugs. I was going to paint them then thought I'd wait and only do it if they rust, but they haven't. So, I don't see the need for anti-seize and I do believe the greater friction in the threads is an advantage in this application, but using open-end lugs changes all that because of exposure to the elements.

[Timbo-1LE]

Man this is serious... So adding a twist.

I was bored and bought some sweet titanium kit nuts from Katech made for the camaro. Light and look nice too.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Timbo-1LE

Man this is serious... So adding a twist.

I was bored and bought some sweet titanium kit nuts from Katech made for the camaro. Light and look nice too.

I'd put that cash into more tires, lol... but yeah, you need to use anti-seize to prevent galling. Ask the mfg'er what kind and how much to adjust torque.

IMO... the risk of galling makes this questionable on cars you don't change wheels on frequently...

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

I can see using anti-seize if you're going to longer studs w/ open end lugs. With closed-end lugs, the ends of the +1" ARP studs I installed up front are still rust-free, I cut the "nose" off of them so they work with or without a spacer while still being able to use closed-end lugs. I was going to paint them then thought I'd wait and only do it if they rust, but they haven't. So, I don't see the need for anti-seize and I do believe the greater friction in the threads is an advantage in this application, but using open-end lugs changes all that because of exposure to the elements.

And I agree totally with this. FWIW, I still have stock studs and lug nuts right now and I don't use any goop on them at all. Dry threads and seat and 140lb/ft, just like the owner's manual says. I have looked at switching to open lug nuts, which is the only reason I even researched the use of anti-seize on the threads.

[thescreensavers]

Applying a light coating of lube/antisize to threads only is absolutely not an issue. You just have to reduce your torque spec appropriately. This has been debated for decades.



Spend more time ensuring your hub and wheel mounting surfaces are clean and free of grease.


Also you should not use a 0-150ft/lb torque wrench for our lugs. 250ft/lb wrenches are going to be better suited for 140ft/lb as it's right in the middle of the tools range.