Looks like heat scoring. I could be wrong and its just staining, but I don't think so.
Spindle Damage Cause? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CaptBeardilocks
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Too tight or too loose Or dirt in grease. Did you pack the bearings correctly?
mudgudgeon
Resident galah
There's your problem.
I'll second everything @BILT4ME wrote.
I also think you're bearings have shifted due to insufficient preload.
Follow the method above, and check for play in 2-5k miles
I recently had a vibration in the front of my f150 starting from 55mph, and also while braking.
Tell tale signs of lose wheel bearings.
I took the wheel off, and was going to tear into the hub so I could service and adjust the bearings, only to find sealed, unserviceable, teeny weeny bearings.
$330 later, I had a new hub with more unserviceable bearings! Vibration is gone.
Cruiser, i would have been able to retighten the bearings, and button it all up in a fraction of the time it took me to remove the hub, go to the parts store, and fit new hub. Worst case, new bearings would be $100ish, not $330
Made me appreciate Toyota engineering.
mudgudgeon
Resident galah
Trail Gear 300519-KIT Trail-Gear Spindle Nuts | Summit Racing
Free Shipping - Trail-Gear Spindle Nuts with qualifying orders of $109. Shop Spindle Nuts at Summit Racing.www.summitracing.com
Thank me later.
I'll second this too
I use these too, however, the first fit, I had to do a bit of filing on the locking washer to get the screws to go in. It was off just a CH that the tiny screws would cross thread.Trail Gear 300519-KIT Trail-Gear Spindle Nuts | Summit Racing
Free Shipping - Trail-Gear Spindle Nuts with qualifying orders of $109. Shop Spindle Nuts at Summit Racing.
Thank me later.
Oh, and make sure you change the screws provided to button head type with torx heads, not Allen head cap screws
I have a set of these too amazing a must have item!!!
- Thread starter
- #27
Man I love the advice available on here.
The bearings feel ok still, so I'm going to repack them and pre-load per this thread. I check the bearings for play at 12 & 6 at least every 5000 miles when I rotate my tires. I didn't feel any looseness doing that until the driver's side at closer to 6-7k miles since the last check (lost a tire to a massive cut in the sidewall so I no longer had a 5th to rotate in). I'll have to pay closer attention to that, but it's possible that it's just not loose enough to feel that way.
Any chance that having the preload a but light cause my axle seals to fail prematurely? Haha. That's a whole other mystery.
The bearings feel ok still, so I'm going to repack them and pre-load per this thread. I check the bearings for play at 12 & 6 at least every 5000 miles when I rotate my tires. I didn't feel any looseness doing that until the driver's side at closer to 6-7k miles since the last check (lost a tire to a massive cut in the sidewall so I no longer had a 5th to rotate in). I'll have to pay closer attention to that, but it's possible that it's just not loose enough to feel that way.
Any chance that having the preload a but light cause my axle seals to fail prematurely? Haha. That's a whole other mystery.
From your description of the spindle, nothing to worry about but that looks like not enough preload. The weight on the spindle is borne on the underside of the spindle, so that's where you'll first see issues appear. A quick story on preload. I'm restoring a 1982 Toyota Sunrader. These were built on a Toyota 1 ton pickup chassis with dually rear axles. Originally the motorhome builder ordered the empty cab/chassis with 3/4 ton rear axles and then proceeded to overload them with a rear axle weight of 4000lbs. They were recalled and the builders installed Toyota's FF axle which later Toyota used under our 80 series.
Mine has 72k on the axle and I disassembled it Sunday to repack and put new brakes and wheel cylinders on the rear axle. In 540,000 personal miles on my 80s and repacking I have always worried about under torquing the wheel bearings. This experience confirmed it. The rear bearings were original and undisturbed. Normally when I remove the two Phillips screws that lock the bearing retainer on my rigs, I can spin the retainer off with my fingers. Here, set by the factory for what was likely their heaviest duty axle, both sides took a nudge with the 3 prong tool to come loose. Fearing these were too tight, I expected to find bearing/race issues. Nope. The opposite, actually. The bearings literally look like they were put in yesterday. I cannot even discern the path of the bearings on the races. So it's funny this subject came up as I resolved to tighten my Cruiser bearings just a bit more than usual from now on. Also, if you've ever wondered how overbuilt your 80 is, my Sunrader will weigh up to a max of 4300lbs on this rear axle. I have never found an actual weight rating for it, but this will be about 300lbs more than factory due to some gear I'm including in my build.
So, if in doubt, the lesson here seems to be set them up on the tight side, vs the loose side. Especially if it's new bearings/races which will loosen ever so slightly due to wear in. Original bearings will not loosen as much during their service interval. Cheers.
Mine has 72k on the axle and I disassembled it Sunday to repack and put new brakes and wheel cylinders on the rear axle. In 540,000 personal miles on my 80s and repacking I have always worried about under torquing the wheel bearings. This experience confirmed it. The rear bearings were original and undisturbed. Normally when I remove the two Phillips screws that lock the bearing retainer on my rigs, I can spin the retainer off with my fingers. Here, set by the factory for what was likely their heaviest duty axle, both sides took a nudge with the 3 prong tool to come loose. Fearing these were too tight, I expected to find bearing/race issues. Nope. The opposite, actually. The bearings literally look like they were put in yesterday. I cannot even discern the path of the bearings on the races. So it's funny this subject came up as I resolved to tighten my Cruiser bearings just a bit more than usual from now on. Also, if you've ever wondered how overbuilt your 80 is, my Sunrader will weigh up to a max of 4300lbs on this rear axle. I have never found an actual weight rating for it, but this will be about 300lbs more than factory due to some gear I'm including in my build.
So, if in doubt, the lesson here seems to be set them up on the tight side, vs the loose side. Especially if it's new bearings/races which will loosen ever so slightly due to wear in. Original bearings will not loosen as much during their service interval. Cheers.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Threads
- 200
- Messages
- 12,473
- Location
- Boise - Idaho
- Website
- www.snlandcruisers.com
I don’t think I have ever set them at the FSM 4inlbs setting. I usually set the inner at 25ftlbs, had my first at that setting get a touch loose after 15,000 miles and probably 15 or more trips in the rocks.
Cheers
Cheers
Any water/mud crossings, did you bary that wheel? Looks like corrosion!
- Thread starter
- #33
All desert driving. No water to speak of. I think the guys here nailed it with low preload.
mudgudgeon
Resident galah
Useful video from an old school mechanic who knows what's what.
I borrowed his hammer on the side of the tire technique, but use my deadblow hammer.
Everytime I've changed bearings and used the hammer, I get a touch more rotation on the adjusting nut before its back to torque.
Notice the tools he uses. Not an SST in sight.
His comment about some extra preload for hard use is pertinent.
COS80
SILVER Star
I'm 99% sure I misread that and tightened my inner nuts to 48 lb*ft. I just pulled the wheels off and measured with the fish scale, and they are both still in spec (although I do have the brakes intact). Regardless, I'm thinking I should redo them as described previously (35 lb*ft on the inner nut). Agree?
There are a few guys on here that run them at 45 LB-FT. If I was to be going slow and crawling and maybe trailer to a location, yes. Being tighter can generate more heat.
My front hubs run about 118*F on the open highway when torqued to 35 LB-FT. I carry an IR gun with me all the time. That's quite cool.
If it was mine, yes, I'd retorque them, but km a bit OCD on this stuff.
COS80
SILVER Star
So am I... I'm just learning as I go. This is my first live front axle ever.
mudgudgeon
Resident galah
Throw the fish scale away. IMO, the only purpose it serves is to confuse the whole process
Wow, great video and very interesting result. I'll be adding that "adjustment" to my own bearing work now. However, I'll be doing it a slightly different way and I'm interested in others viewpoints on this.
When he's whacking the tire with a hammer, he is putting sudden load on the bearing and achieving slightly deeper seating on the race, and/or causing the stackup of the washer, bearing,lock nut stackup to let go its tension and allow a bit of tightening. However, as has been a classic worry about using a hammer on a wheel such as when it's stuck onto the hub from years of corrosion and you're banging it off (I use my feet on the rubber) etc, there is a worry (however slight) with his technique of banging an imprint of a couple roller bearings into the race. Again, however slight, this has to be a concern.
What if we modified it in the following way. Using a block of wood for padding, hit the end of the hub straight on - still achieving a dead blow into the bearing stack up, and also shoving on the race to ensure it's entirely seated - but spreading the load across ALL the roller bearings and reducing the chance of imprinting bearings into the race by perhaps a factor of 5 (the increase in the number of bearings transmitting the same load to the race from only a few to all). Care would have to be taken of course. Other ideas might be a solid piece of metal that spans the hub between the studs and is obviously thicker than the studs length as a more direct force than a piece of wood atop the studs. As I'm writing this, the chunk of metal would be my preference.
It's worth noting that when he hits the tire with the hammer a foot from the axle, he has a strong lever a foot long that multiplies force on (less than one half of) the bearing, so getting the same force will require a heavier blow at the axle center. But I think it's safer and more forgiving to error. On the other hand, with a chunk of metal, there is a direct application of force, so you cannot just blindly hammer away. A couple judicious hits and a bearing check makes sense to me.
Any input or comments?
When he's whacking the tire with a hammer, he is putting sudden load on the bearing and achieving slightly deeper seating on the race, and/or causing the stackup of the washer, bearing,lock nut stackup to let go its tension and allow a bit of tightening. However, as has been a classic worry about using a hammer on a wheel such as when it's stuck onto the hub from years of corrosion and you're banging it off (I use my feet on the rubber) etc, there is a worry (however slight) with his technique of banging an imprint of a couple roller bearings into the race. Again, however slight, this has to be a concern.
What if we modified it in the following way. Using a block of wood for padding, hit the end of the hub straight on - still achieving a dead blow into the bearing stack up, and also shoving on the race to ensure it's entirely seated - but spreading the load across ALL the roller bearings and reducing the chance of imprinting bearings into the race by perhaps a factor of 5 (the increase in the number of bearings transmitting the same load to the race from only a few to all). Care would have to be taken of course. Other ideas might be a solid piece of metal that spans the hub between the studs and is obviously thicker than the studs length as a more direct force than a piece of wood atop the studs. As I'm writing this, the chunk of metal would be my preference.
It's worth noting that when he hits the tire with the hammer a foot from the axle, he has a strong lever a foot long that multiplies force on (less than one half of) the bearing, so getting the same force will require a heavier blow at the axle center. But I think it's safer and more forgiving to error. On the other hand, with a chunk of metal, there is a direct application of force, so you cannot just blindly hammer away. A couple judicious hits and a bearing check makes sense to me.
Any input or comments?
mudgudgeon
Resident galah
How far do you want to take MUD-OCD ^^^
My thoughts when smacking the tire were more along the lines of 'am I damaging the sidewall?'.
The tire cushions the blow to some extent I don't think this is any more of an impact force than you'd see on rough roads.
I think it is exactly the leverage that he's looking for.
I have also used a deadblow hammer to smack the hub without mounting a wheel, but I think having the wheel mounted is useful so you can rotate the hub as well as tapping the tire.
I don't think old mate rotated the hub to seat the bearings, just used a hammer blow. I think rotating the hub is of more benefit than the hammer. Although, I do both.
In my mind, all you're trying to do is get the rollers pressed through any grease cushion so you have basically metal on metal with the thinnest grease film possible
My thoughts when smacking the tire were more along the lines of 'am I damaging the sidewall?'.
The tire cushions the blow to some extent I don't think this is any more of an impact force than you'd see on rough roads.
I think it is exactly the leverage that he's looking for.
I have also used a deadblow hammer to smack the hub without mounting a wheel, but I think having the wheel mounted is useful so you can rotate the hub as well as tapping the tire.
I don't think old mate rotated the hub to seat the bearings, just used a hammer blow. I think rotating the hub is of more benefit than the hammer. Although, I do both.
In my mind, all you're trying to do is get the rollers pressed through any grease cushion so you have basically metal on metal with the thinnest grease film possible
