anti seize question - NCRS Discussion Boards

anti seize question

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Duke W.
    Beyond Control Poster
    • January 1, 1993
    • 15662

    #16
    Re: anti seize question

    Originally posted by Jim Lockwood (2750)
    How do you know by how much to adjust the torque spec to allow for the lubricity of the anti-seize?

    Jim
    You don't, although you can probably use the low end of the range, if the torque spec is a range rather than a single value.

    Most GM wheel nuts of the era are speced at 80 lb-ft, which is what I use, and they always torque up nice and smooth and consistent and the same on breakaway.

    Especially if you have multiple sets of wheels and tires, like I have for my cars and swap them frequently, anti-seize will save everything from galling damage.

    Duke

    Comment

    • Michael H.
      Expired
      • January 29, 2008
      • 7477

      #17
      Re: anti seize question

      Originally posted by Duke Williams (22045)
      You don't, although you can probably use the low end of the range, if the torque spec is a range rather than a single value.

      Most GM wheel nuts of the era are speced at 80 lb-ft, which is what I use, and they always torque up nice and smooth and consistent and the same on breakaway.

      Especially if you have multiple sets of wheels and tires, like I have for my cars and swap them frequently, anti-seize will save everything from galling damage.

      Duke
      Here's a bit of info on lubed/dry bolt torque/load. I'll let ya'll add the coefficient of friction factor. (steel, lubed/dry)

      Some pretty amazing clamping loads.

      The wheel lug nut torque for most 63-67 Corvettes was around 50-60.
      Last edited by Michael H.; August 12, 2011, 12:12 AM.

      Comment

      • Dick W.
        Former NCRS Director Region IV
        • June 30, 1985
        • 10483

        #18
        Re: anti seize question

        Originally posted by Michael Hanson (4067)
        Here's a bit of info on lubed/dry bolt torque/load. I'll let ya'll add the coefficient of friction factor. (steel, lubed/dry)

        Some pretty amazing clamping loads.

        The wheel lug nut torque for most 63-67 Corvettes was around 50-60.
        My head hurts
        Dick Whittington

        Comment

        • Clem Z.
          Expired
          • January 1, 2006
          • 9427

          #19
          Re: anti seize question

          Originally posted by Michael Hanson (4067)
          Here's a bit of info on lubed/dry bolt torque/load. I'll let ya'll add the coefficient of friction factor. (steel, lubed/dry)

          Some pretty amazing clamping loads.

          The wheel lug nut torque for most 63-67 Corvettes was around 50-60.
          torque on aluminum wheels is 100# ft

          Comment

          • Michael H.
            Expired
            • January 29, 2008
            • 7477

            #20
            Re: anti seize question

            Originally posted by Clem Zahrobsky (45134)
            torque on aluminum wheels is 100# ft
            Is that for C6 Clem?

            Comment

            • Clem Z.
              Expired
              • January 1, 2006
              • 9427

              #21
              Re: anti seize question

              Originally posted by Michael Hanson (4067)
              Is that for C6 Clem?
              The Corvette Service Manual page 3-81 states 100 lb ft.

              Comment

              • Michael H.
                Expired
                • January 29, 2008
                • 7477

                #22
                Re: anti seize question

                Originally posted by Clem Zahrobsky (45134)
                The Corvette Service Manual page 3-81 states 100 lb ft.
                For what year? Not 63-67.

                Comment

                • Clem Z.
                  Expired
                  • January 1, 2006
                  • 9427

                  #23
                  Re: anti seize question

                  Originally posted by Michael Hanson (4067)
                  For what year? Not 63-67.
                  97 up and i did not ever see a 63-67 corvette with aluminum wheels back in the my 63-67 days. i think you need the 100# ft on "real" aluminum wheels because of the expansion and contraction due to heat on the new aluminum wheels where the nuts hold the wheels.

                  Comment

                  • Michael H.
                    Expired
                    • January 29, 2008
                    • 7477

                    #24
                    Re: anti seize question

                    Originally posted by Clem Zahrobsky (45134)
                    97 up and i did not ever see a 63-67 corvette with aluminum wheels back in the my 63-67 days. i think you need the 100# ft on "real" aluminum wheels because of the expansion and contraction due to heat on the new aluminum wheels where the nuts hold the wheels.
                    Looks like they increased the torque for the newer cars. I think all 63-67's were around 50-60 lb ft but it was raised to around 80 lbs for the 70's cars?

                    I think 67 with aluminum wheels were also 50-60?

                    Comment

                    • Duke W.
                      Beyond Control Poster
                      • January 1, 1993
                      • 15662

                      #25
                      Re: anti seize question

                      The '63 ASM does list 55-65 lb-ft.

                      Duke

                      Comment

                      • William F.
                        Extremely Frequent Poster
                        • June 9, 2009
                        • 1363

                        #26
                        Re: anti seize question

                        67 Chevy Service Manual, section 10-4 "Wheels and Tires", paragraph "Change (W/Wheels)" states:"Proper torque on nuts is 55-75 ft. lbs.(75-85 ft. lbs. for Corvette aluminum wheel nuts." not 55-65 or 100 or other values as some have opined.

                        Comment

                        • Michael H.
                          Expired
                          • January 29, 2008
                          • 7477

                          #27
                          Re: anti seize question

                          Originally posted by William Ford (50517)
                          67 Chevy Service Manual, section 10-4 "Wheels and Tires", paragraph "Change (W/Wheels)" states:"Proper torque on nuts is 55-75 ft. lbs.(75-85 ft. lbs. for Corvette aluminum wheel nuts." not 55-65 or 100 or other values as some have opined.
                          The 63 AIM calls for 55-65 ft lbs. (ok, I missed it by 5 lbs)

                          The 66 service manual shows 55-65 ft lbs.

                          Comment

                          • John H.
                            Beyond Control Poster
                            • December 1, 1997
                            • 16513

                            #28
                            Re: anti seize question

                            Originally posted by Michael Hanson (4067)
                            I think 67 with aluminum wheels were also 50-60?
                            Michael -

                            All 67's, both steel and N89 aluminum bolt-on wheels, used the same lug nuts, and torque was 55-75 ft-lbs.

                            Comment

                            • Michael H.
                              Expired
                              • January 29, 2008
                              • 7477

                              #29
                              Re: anti seize question

                              Originally posted by John Hinckley (29964)
                              Michael -

                              All 67's, both steel and N89 aluminum bolt-on wheels, used the same lug nuts, and torque was 55-75 ft-lbs.
                              Thanks John. That must be the year for the new longer stud?

                              Comment

                              • John H.
                                Beyond Control Poster
                                • December 1, 1997
                                • 16513

                                #30
                                Re: anti seize question

                                Originally posted by Michael Hanson (4067)
                                Thanks John. That must be the year for the new longer stud?
                                Michael -

                                Dunno for sure - P&A shows they went from the 1-3/8" stud to the 1-3/4" stud in '65.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                Searching...Please wait.
                                An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                                Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                                Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                                There are no results that meet this criteria.
                                Search Result for "|||"