| Author |
Message |
msinabottle
Samba Member
Joined: September 20, 2005
Posts: 3492
Location: Denver Area, Colorado
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:37 pm Post subject: The Vanecronomicon: Bad Specs! |
 |
|
That is not fixed, when published specs are wrong...
And from a short mistake the repair time can be long...
--Hans Holzkopf, the Wacky Wurtemburger of Wolfsberg
Malign forces that hate Vanagons stalk our vehicles from Beyond... And one of the way they seek our destruction is with...
 BAD SPECS!
I've got two. Let's get more, preferably with minimal bloodshed or brains devoured by eldritch horrors.
330 ft./lbs. on the rear castle nut.
I am told that's not enough to preserve the rear bearings. Do it again, put still more (how much more?) on it, then stick in the cotter pin.
135 ft./lbs. on the lug nuts on Winston's alloys.
I am told that's a mere 40 ft./lbs. too much. The correct spec is 95.
Anybody else got some horrors to add?
_________________
'Winston,' '84 1.9 WBX Westy
Vanagon Poet Laureate: "I have suffered in
many ways, but never, never, never in silence." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
?Waldo?
Samba Member
Joined: February 22, 2006
Posts: 9752
Location: Where?
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diesel cam sprocket bolt spec according to the book is 33. I've heard of several slipping at that torque, one of which was a single owner vehicle that had never had the cam bolt touched from the factory. When the cam slips on the diesel, pistons hit valves and punches a big hole in your wallet so the money can pour out unhindered. VW kept that torque spec through the end of the AHU 1.9TDI engine and it's never been enough... I make sure the mating surface is brake cleaner clean and torque mine to 45. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmranger
Samba Member
Joined: January 14, 2010
Posts: 701
Location: Quebec
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: The Vanecronomicon: Bad Specs! |
|
|
| msinabottle wrote: |
135 ft./lbs. on the lug nuts on Winston's alloys.
I am told that's a mere 40 ft./lbs. too much. The correct spec is 95.
|
I don't want to argue, but I always thought that the torque that must be applied is defined by the vehicle, not the wheel. I've never seen an aftermarket wheel that comes with its own torque specification.
I've seen wheel spacers that have maximum torque specification that are below the 135 ft-lbs specification for the vanagon - and that's one of the reasons why I'm still running the OEM steelies.
So... where does this come from ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanagonjr
Samba Member
Joined: October 07, 2010
Posts: 3431
Location: Dartmouth, Mass.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:50 am Post subject: Re: The Vanecronomicon: Bad Specs! |
|
|
| msinabottle wrote: |
135 ft./lbs. on the lug nuts on Winston's alloys.
I am told that's a mere 40 ft./lbs. too much. The correct spec is 95.
|
86 Owner's manual says 123 Ft-Lbs /17 mkg
no mention of difference torque on steel vs. alloy wheels.
Bentley says - 1980-1984 (170Nm) 125 Ft-Lbs
From Nov 1984 (180Nm) 133 Ft-Lbs
Again no mention of alloy vs. steel - but going out on a limb here, I am going to guess that the increase in torque from 1984 may be to account for some vehicles having alloy wheels. If my timing is wrong on when Vanagons started having alloy wheels, then surprisingly (to me) it is for some other reason.
Typically when a fastener seats against aluminum, there will be more friction, than when seating against steel. Based on what was just stated, alloy wheels should probably have a different tq spec than steel wheels, but VW likely wanted a common tq spec and determined that the higher tq spec was still safe for steel wheels. Note -speculation on my part.
_________________
John - 86 Wolfsburg Westfalia "Weekender"
Flint reversed 1.8T W/Passat 5-Speed
LiMBO (late model bus club) www.limbobus.org
LiMBO is on Facebook too! https://www.facebook.com/groups/
FAQ thread: http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=525798 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insyncro
Banned
Joined: March 07, 2002
Posts: 15086
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Syncros had a higher lug torque spec. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsmitch11
Samba Member
Joined: July 02, 2011
Posts: 337
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:58 am Post subject: Re: The Vanecronomicon: Bad Specs! |
|
|
| jmranger wrote: |
| msinabottle wrote: |
135 ft./lbs. on the lug nuts on Winston's alloys.
I am told that's a mere 40 ft./lbs. too much. The correct spec is 95.
|
I don't want to argue, but I always thought that the torque that must be applied is defined by the vehicle, not the wheel. I've never seen an aftermarket wheel that comes with its own torque specification.
I've seen wheel spacers that have maximum torque specification that are below the 135 ft-lbs specification for the vanagon - and that's one of the reasons why I'm still running the OEM steelies.
So... where does this come from ? |
I have always been told that the torque for these is determined by the wheel studs. If you use after market wheel studs you use there torque numbers.
_________________
1984 Vanagon Westfalia Syncro Hightop
1986 Vanagon Syncro(RIP)
1989 Vanagon Wolfsburg Whitestar Edition(RIP)
My Van syncro conversion/restoration
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=535730&highlight=black+diamond |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanagonjr
Samba Member
Joined: October 07, 2010
Posts: 3431
Location: Dartmouth, Mass.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| insyncro wrote: |
| Syncros had a higher lug torque spec. |
And yet no mention of such in the Bentley. I doubled checked my 86 Owner's manual- lower torque than what is in the Bentley. 170Nm vs. 180Nm, 123 vs 133 Ft-Lbs
If the Syncro has the same wheel, studs and the nuts in the rear as the 2WD, then I can't see why the torque should change. Maybe the higher torque is simply the later 180Nm(133Ft-lbs) vs. the earlier van tq. specs?
_________________
John - 86 Wolfsburg Westfalia "Weekender"
Flint reversed 1.8T W/Passat 5-Speed
LiMBO (late model bus club) www.limbobus.org
LiMBO is on Facebook too! https://www.facebook.com/groups/
FAQ thread: http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=525798 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
randywebb
Samba Member
Joined: February 15, 2005
Posts: 3815
Location: Greater Metropolitan Nimrod, Orygun
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:41 am Post subject: Re: The Vanecronomicon: Bad Specs! |
|
|
| msinabottle wrote: |
[i][b]
I am told ...
|
ms, this is what worries me
_________________
1986 2.1L Westy 2wd Auto Trans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamzcab86
Samba Moderator
Joined: July 26, 2008
Posts: 7917
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
My 1990 owner's manual tells me 130 ft. lbs. for the wheels.
_________________
~Kamz 
1986 Cabriolet: www.Cabby-Info.com
 1990 Vanagon Westfalia: Old Blue's Blog
2016 Golf GTI S
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." - 孔子 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanagonjr
Samba Member
Joined: October 07, 2010
Posts: 3431
Location: Dartmouth, Mass.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: The Vanecronomicon: Bad Specs! |
|
|
| msinabottle wrote: |
330 ft./lbs. on the rear castle nut.
I am told that's not enough to preserve the rear bearings. Do it again, put still more (how much more?) on it, then stick in the cotter pin.
|
My Bentley lists 500Nm for this, but their Ft-Lb conversion values differs. On Pg. 42.4 (and back cover) it is listed as 360 ft-lbs. On Pg. 46.6, it is listed as 369 Ft-Lbs.
369 Ft-Lbs is indeed a more accurate conversion from 500Nm, heck 370 is closer than 360.
Hope that helps. Where was 330 Ft-Lbs listed?
_________________
John - 86 Wolfsburg Westfalia "Weekender"
Flint reversed 1.8T W/Passat 5-Speed
LiMBO (late model bus club) www.limbobus.org
LiMBO is on Facebook too! https://www.facebook.com/groups/
FAQ thread: http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=525798 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psych-illogical
Samba Member
Joined: October 14, 2004
Posts: 1181
Location: AZ
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've always thought that the rear castle nut spec was kind of a funny one. I've never, ever known anyone who had a torque wrench that went that high. Personally, I have a 75 ft/lb and a 150 ft/lb (as well as an in/oz one for the light stuff). I've owned a dozen VWs over the past 40 years and I've always used my weight standing the appropriate distance out on a breaker bar (180 lbs. out at 2 feet = 360 ft/lb), take it to the next point where I can insert the cotter pin and call it good. Never, ever had a problem.
_________________
83 1/2 Westy waterboxer
'57 Beetle-sold 
Coupla '81 BMW motorcycles (R80G/S; R100RS)
'96 BMW R1100GS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dubbified
Samba Member
Joined: March 03, 2010
Posts: 1406
Location: Redmond, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| damn, to tighten mine, I used a floor jack to support the massive "Socket" with a 2 ft 1 inch breaker with a 3 ton "handle/tube" over that for another 1.5 ft, and then I stood on it.. hope that wasnt too much then.. cause I'm a fatass. I even bounced on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dobryan
Samba Member
Joined: March 24, 2006
Posts: 16503
Location: Brookeville, MD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buildyourown
Samba Member
Joined: March 01, 2009
Posts: 1668
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a 500 ft/lb wrench. Well, work does, so I used it. 360 is a lot. The wrench is 3 ft long and that nut feels really tight.
But yeah, it can't be that crucial since you'll end up going signifgantly over as you keep turning to line up the cotter pin hole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
