Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

Yesterday was a semi-nice day, so I decided to catch up on some
maintenance --oil and filter change (M1 the Puro 30001 sure works nice
on a 4.0!), TB cleaning, new Puro air filter, front-end lube, powerwash
engine and fenderwells, a quick run through the local car wash, the
usual. Work is slow right now and I'm bored.

I later decided to go the extra mile and do a 4-wheel tire rotation and
change out those el-cheapo OEM lug nuts with a good set of heavily
chromed, forged steel lugs. While I had one side up in the air doing
my thing, a neighbor commented on my practice of applying bearing
grease to the studs before torquing the nuts down to 90 ft/lbs.

He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.

I know this all sounds petty, but I'm wondering if anyone here has
heard of mishaps that were the direct result of 'lug nut greasin'? I
like knowing that the nuts will spin off easily many years later and
won't rust up, no matter how much muck I plow through. And I make sure
everything is cool to the touch before everthing gets tightened down
--all pretty common sense stuff IMO.

Am I offbase here? Admittedly, this is 'old-school' technology, but it
makes a lot of sense to me, much like 'priming' the engine after an oil
change before actually firing it up. (Yeah, I do that too; I
disconnect the crank sensor, then reset the MIL when I'm done.)

-JD

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

Factory torque specs are for clean dry threads. Opinions on the web are
strongly in favor of both positions. That said, I have always used
antiseize so that they come off easier. The last thing I want to be
doing in the middle of the woods is standing on a breaker bar swearing
about a rusted up lug nut. I typically torque about 10 ft-lb less since
less of the torque is being lost as friction, but this is just a guess
on my part. YMMV

--
jeff



JD Adams wrote:
> Yesterday was a semi-nice day, so I decided to catch up on some
> maintenance --oil and filter change (M1 the Puro 30001 sure works nice
> on a 4.0!), TB cleaning, new Puro air filter, front-end lube, powerwash
> engine and fenderwells, a quick run through the local car wash, the
> usual. Work is slow right now and I'm bored.
>
> I later decided to go the extra mile and do a 4-wheel tire rotation and
> change out those el-cheapo OEM lug nuts with a good set of heavily
> chromed, forged steel lugs. While I had one side up in the air doing
> my thing, a neighbor commented on my practice of applying bearing
> grease to the studs before torquing the nuts down to 90 ft/lbs.
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.
>
> I know this all sounds petty, but I'm wondering if anyone here has
> heard of mishaps that were the direct result of 'lug nut greasin'? I
> like knowing that the nuts will spin off easily many years later and
> won't rust up, no matter how much muck I plow through. And I make sure
> everything is cool to the touch before everthing gets tightened down
> --all pretty common sense stuff IMO.
>
> Am I offbase here? Admittedly, this is 'old-school' technology, but it
> makes a lot of sense to me, much like 'priming' the engine after an oil
> change before actually firing it up. (Yeah, I do that too; I
> disconnect the crank sensor, then reset the MIL when I'm done.)
>
> -JD
>

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

Factory torque specs are for clean dry threads. Opinions on the web are
strongly in favor of both positions. That said, I have always used
antiseize so that they come off easier. The last thing I want to be
doing in the middle of the woods is standing on a breaker bar swearing
about a rusted up lug nut. I typically torque about 10 ft-lb less since
less of the torque is being lost as friction, but this is just a guess
on my part. YMMV

--
jeff



JD Adams wrote:
> Yesterday was a semi-nice day, so I decided to catch up on some
> maintenance --oil and filter change (M1 the Puro 30001 sure works nice
> on a 4.0!), TB cleaning, new Puro air filter, front-end lube, powerwash
> engine and fenderwells, a quick run through the local car wash, the
> usual. Work is slow right now and I'm bored.
>
> I later decided to go the extra mile and do a 4-wheel tire rotation and
> change out those el-cheapo OEM lug nuts with a good set of heavily
> chromed, forged steel lugs. While I had one side up in the air doing
> my thing, a neighbor commented on my practice of applying bearing
> grease to the studs before torquing the nuts down to 90 ft/lbs.
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.
>
> I know this all sounds petty, but I'm wondering if anyone here has
> heard of mishaps that were the direct result of 'lug nut greasin'? I
> like knowing that the nuts will spin off easily many years later and
> won't rust up, no matter how much muck I plow through. And I make sure
> everything is cool to the touch before everthing gets tightened down
> --all pretty common sense stuff IMO.
>
> Am I offbase here? Admittedly, this is 'old-school' technology, but it
> makes a lot of sense to me, much like 'priming' the engine after an oil
> change before actually firing it up. (Yeah, I do that too; I
> disconnect the crank sensor, then reset the MIL when I'm done.)
>
> -JD
>

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

Factory torque specs are for clean dry threads. Opinions on the web are
strongly in favor of both positions. That said, I have always used
antiseize so that they come off easier. The last thing I want to be
doing in the middle of the woods is standing on a breaker bar swearing
about a rusted up lug nut. I typically torque about 10 ft-lb less since
less of the torque is being lost as friction, but this is just a guess
on my part. YMMV

--
jeff



JD Adams wrote:
> Yesterday was a semi-nice day, so I decided to catch up on some
> maintenance --oil and filter change (M1 the Puro 30001 sure works nice
> on a 4.0!), TB cleaning, new Puro air filter, front-end lube, powerwash
> engine and fenderwells, a quick run through the local car wash, the
> usual. Work is slow right now and I'm bored.
>
> I later decided to go the extra mile and do a 4-wheel tire rotation and
> change out those el-cheapo OEM lug nuts with a good set of heavily
> chromed, forged steel lugs. While I had one side up in the air doing
> my thing, a neighbor commented on my practice of applying bearing
> grease to the studs before torquing the nuts down to 90 ft/lbs.
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.
>
> I know this all sounds petty, but I'm wondering if anyone here has
> heard of mishaps that were the direct result of 'lug nut greasin'? I
> like knowing that the nuts will spin off easily many years later and
> won't rust up, no matter how much muck I plow through. And I make sure
> everything is cool to the touch before everthing gets tightened down
> --all pretty common sense stuff IMO.
>
> Am I offbase here? Admittedly, this is 'old-school' technology, but it
> makes a lot of sense to me, much like 'priming' the engine after an oil
> change before actually firing it up. (Yeah, I do that too; I
> disconnect the crank sensor, then reset the MIL when I'm done.)
>
> -JD
>

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

Factory torque specs are for clean dry threads. Opinions on the web are
strongly in favor of both positions. That said, I have always used
antiseize so that they come off easier. The last thing I want to be
doing in the middle of the woods is standing on a breaker bar swearing
about a rusted up lug nut. I typically torque about 10 ft-lb less since
less of the torque is being lost as friction, but this is just a guess
on my part. YMMV

--
jeff



JD Adams wrote:
> Yesterday was a semi-nice day, so I decided to catch up on some
> maintenance --oil and filter change (M1 the Puro 30001 sure works nice
> on a 4.0!), TB cleaning, new Puro air filter, front-end lube, powerwash
> engine and fenderwells, a quick run through the local car wash, the
> usual. Work is slow right now and I'm bored.
>
> I later decided to go the extra mile and do a 4-wheel tire rotation and
> change out those el-cheapo OEM lug nuts with a good set of heavily
> chromed, forged steel lugs. While I had one side up in the air doing
> my thing, a neighbor commented on my practice of applying bearing
> grease to the studs before torquing the nuts down to 90 ft/lbs.
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.
>
> I know this all sounds petty, but I'm wondering if anyone here has
> heard of mishaps that were the direct result of 'lug nut greasin'? I
> like knowing that the nuts will spin off easily many years later and
> won't rust up, no matter how much muck I plow through. And I make sure
> everything is cool to the touch before everthing gets tightened down
> --all pretty common sense stuff IMO.
>
> Am I offbase here? Admittedly, this is 'old-school' technology, but it
> makes a lot of sense to me, much like 'priming' the engine after an oil
> change before actually firing it up. (Yeah, I do that too; I
> disconnect the crank sensor, then reset the MIL when I'm done.)
>
> -JD
>

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

JD Adams wrote:
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.

I grease all threads, usually with never sieze, but often with grease.

I was taught that it was a sound mechanical practice and have never seen
an issue due to the lube. This is especially important with dissimilar
metals to prevent galling.

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

JD Adams wrote:
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.

I grease all threads, usually with never sieze, but often with grease.

I was taught that it was a sound mechanical practice and have never seen
an issue due to the lube. This is especially important with dissimilar
metals to prevent galling.

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

JD Adams wrote:
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.

I grease all threads, usually with never sieze, but often with grease.

I was taught that it was a sound mechanical practice and have never seen
an issue due to the lube. This is especially important with dissimilar
metals to prevent galling.

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

JD Adams wrote:
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.

I grease all threads, usually with never sieze, but often with grease.

I was taught that it was a sound mechanical practice and have never seen
an issue due to the lube. This is especially important with dissimilar
metals to prevent galling.

Re: Wheel stud lubrication - good or bad?
 

You are damaging the studs by over-torquing them. The lugs could snap
because they have stress fractures or the nuts could come loose because
the lug is stretched so not stable any more.

The specs call for a dry torque of 90 to 115 not a wet torque. The wet
torque settings are a lot lower. I don't know them because I would
never use them.

We were told/taught 'never' to use any lube on the lug threads when I
worked in garages way back when. Not just one garage either, but coast
to coast in Canada.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

JD Adams wrote:
>
> Yesterday was a semi-nice day, so I decided to catch up on some
> maintenance --oil and filter change (M1 the Puro 30001 sure works nice
> on a 4.0!), TB cleaning, new Puro air filter, front-end lube, powerwash
> engine and fenderwells, a quick run through the local car wash, the
> usual. Work is slow right now and I'm bored.
>
> I later decided to go the extra mile and do a 4-wheel tire rotation and
> change out those el-cheapo OEM lug nuts with a good set of heavily
> chromed, forged steel lugs. While I had one side up in the air doing
> my thing, a neighbor commented on my practice of applying bearing
> grease to the studs before torquing the nuts down to 90 ft/lbs.
>
> He claims that it's a bad practice, and that the lugs will loosen over
> time because of it. I politely disagreed, saying that it is the
> friction between the tapered nut face and the wheel that keeps
> everything tight rather than friction from fastener threadfaces, and
> that the only real way to get good, accurate, consistant torque is to
> put a TINY BIT of lubricant on the threads before reassembly.
>
> I know this all sounds petty, but I'm wondering if anyone here has
> heard of mishaps that were the direct result of 'lug nut greasin'? I
> like knowing that the nuts will spin off easily many years later and
> won't rust up, no matter how much muck I plow through. And I make sure
> everything is cool to the touch before everthing gets tightened down
> --all pretty common sense stuff IMO.
>
> Am I offbase here? Admittedly, this is 'old-school' technology, but it
> makes a lot of sense to me, much like 'priming' the engine after an oil
> change before actually firing it up. (Yeah, I do that too; I
> disconnect the crank sensor, then reset the MIL when I'm done.)
>
> -JD