Date:         Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:41:05 -0800
Reply-To:     Tom Young <young@SHERLOCK.SIMS.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         Tom Young <young@SHERLOCK.SIMS.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Torque
Comments: To: "John H. Rodgers" <inua@QUICKLINK.NET>
Comments: cc: Vanagon@VANAGON.COM
In-Reply-To:  <199804011418.IAA11767@quicklnk.quicklink.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hmmm....

      123 - 120 = 3.

       3/123 = 2.4%.

Assuming the torque setting used by Sears was accurate (just for sake of
arguement) then I'd speculate that the difference between 123 ft./lbs.
and 120 ft./lbs. is immaterial i.e.,

        - the lug nuts are evenly torqued

        - the lug nuts are torqued _very_ tight

        - the difference between 123 and 120 ft./lbs makes no
          practical difference when it comes to removing them.

Am I wrong not to worry about the missing 3 ft./lbs. ?


On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, John H. Rodgers wrote:

> -- [ From: John H. Rodgers * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
>
> Use the proper torque as specified. It was engineered for that for safety
> reasons. As for getting them off, keep a 4 ft section of pipe under the rear

> -------- REPLY, Original message follows --------
>
> Date: Sunday, 29-Mar-98 11:19 PM
>
> From: Bill                     \ Internet:    (billv2@prodigy.net)

> I think I'll let them set at 120ft-lbs. I don't want to jump up and down on
> that lug nut wrench trying to get them off during a snow storm in the middle


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Young                young@sherlock.SIMS.Berkeley.EDU
Lafayette, CA  94549     '81 Vanagon
---------------------------------------------------------------------