Guys,

When I bought my first torque wrench (a Proto) sometime in the 1970's, the
literature supplied with the wrench clearly stated that all values were plus
or minus 20%. So please don't get too nutty about 123 lb/ft vs. 125 lb/ft,
or even 133 lb/ft - - Jeez, at 20% tolerance, anywhere in the middle ought
to be just fine. And remember the old beam-style wrench, did anyone ever be
careful to position their head exactly over the scale so as to eliminate a
parallax error? Especially at 123 lb/ft? So really, I think of torque values
as a guide, not some exacting specification. I look them up in the book, and
follow them to the best of my ability, but I am aware that they are not
exact. Also, notice that in the case of specs given in metric, they are
usually given to the nearest 5 or 10 Nm, then when it is converted for you,
it gets down to three significant figures - - go figure!

Gary

> and isn't this funny ..
> on my Bentley it says 123 ft lbs for wheel nut torque on pg 46.6
> and 133 ft lbs on page 42.4
> so ...........see, even Bentley doesn't know what they are saying
> sometimes.
>
>
> > My Bentley says about wheel torque values:
> >
> > 1980 up to Nov 1984 - 170 Nm/125  ft-lbs
> > From Nov 1984 - 180 Nm/1333 ft-lbs
> >
> > If one doesn't use book values - what would one use. I know for many
> > "bolts" there are "standard" torques, but I wouldn't think that would
> > apply to lug bolts/nuts. Those values are what they are as determined by
> > the engineers. I only hope they got it right. By Guess and By Golly is a
> > bit scarey!
> >
>
> value listed there. For example my owner's manual states 123 ft lbs for =
> my '86. Use the data published by VW for your van.
>
> alistair
>
> The owners manual says 123 ft-lbs. My Bentley that tells me how to do
> the maintenance says use 133 Ft-Lb'.
>
> So which is it? That is the diliema!
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>