I need a FSM, but what is the wheel torque for an lx570? I can't find it anywhere...97ft-lb?
Wheel lug nut torque for an lx570? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ConcreteCruiser
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
yes 97ft/lb
yeah i just saw this figure yesterday, same as alloy wheels on the 200
Markuson
SILVER Star
Is the 97ft-lb torque the same for the 200 regardless of wheel(17” Icon) ? Local tire store set mine at 107 even though I said 97
bloc
SILVER Star
Contact icon for confirmation but usually the published torque is the ideal number for the hardware on the vehicle. Meaning the wheel stud is designed for 97.
I most certainly am not disagreeing, but would like to ask a question about this.
The chart @DPA200 posted above shows 97ft-lbs for aluminum wheels and 154ft-lbs for steel wheels.
A long time ago I was taught that the torque spec was based on the amount of torque required to produce a specified level of bolt elongation (stretch). This amount of stretch would then be sufficient to prevent a nut from loosening.
Only thing I can think of here is that the Toyota spec is based on steel wheels being more likely to lose a lug nut???? Given the millions of steel wheels over the decades, and never seeing differing torque specs back when I was a mechanic (decades ago), this doesn't seem like a good guess on my part.
Anybody know the answer and/or care to share a different idea?
I'm definitely not THE expert on wheel torque, but I use 97 ft-lb on aluminum wheels and 150 ft-lb with Tundra steel wheels with winter tiles. The difference is the lug design...steel wheels use a tapered seat, aluminum wheels use a lug with a washer, not a taper. I'm not aware of steel wheels losing lug nuts, nor why they'd be more prone to losing nuts v. aluminum, assuming you follow Toyota's numbers.
bloc
SILVER Star
Great point, and that certainly explains the stud being so damn big for only 97lb/ft.
One major factor to consider when comparing our aluminum wheels to Toyota’s version of steel is the different lug to wheel interface. I’m sure you’ve seen our lugs with a thick washer that presses on the whee and actually does the clamping. Steel wheels use an acorn lug with a non-rotating tapered face that has to slide against the tapered seat in the wheel. It’s possible the higher torque number is needed to overcome this friction and get the bolt elongation needed.
It’s also worth pointing out that rock warriors originally came with cone seats, but they have an aluminum seat in the wheel and a tapered face on the lug that can spin independently of the lug, meaning the friction is actually between this steel part and the steel lug body. So it can’t be compared to true steel wheels.. and per toyota only needs 97lb-ft
Spec is 97lb-ft as quoted above.
In practice, I use 110lb-ft. My torque wrench hasn't been calibrated in awhile and so I overshoot.
Also, under-torqueing is far more dangerous than reasonable over-torqueing to some degree. Most fasteners have significantly more margin for torque so long as it's not a 500lb-ft impact sledging on the wheel nut.
In practice, I use 110lb-ft. My torque wrench hasn't been calibrated in awhile and so I overshoot.
Also, under-torqueing is far more dangerous than reasonable over-torqueing to some degree. Most fasteners have significantly more margin for torque so long as it's not a 500lb-ft impact sledging on the wheel nut.
I think @hankinid and @bloc have the correct explanation for my brain.
The usual dry (meaning a very light amount of oil) vice lubricated (like anti-seize) is up to a 30% difference in torque.
So if the washer acts in the same manner as lubrication, the lower torque for wheels with washers would be required to achieve the same stretch. 154 to 97 = ~30% reduction.
The usual dry (meaning a very light amount of oil) vice lubricated (like anti-seize) is up to a 30% difference in torque.
So if the washer acts in the same manner as lubrication, the lower torque for wheels with washers would be required to achieve the same stretch. 154 to 97 = ~30% reduction.
Last edited:
