Spiker Engineering Lower Ball Joint Bolt Test (1st Gen)

Will do. I ordered the same ones I got last time. 9011910933. Black with washer.

 

Thank you for taking the time to post info for us older Tundra guys. Looking forward to seeing info. I have a email into ARP fasteners. I will post their response once received if useful.

 

Here are the money shots. I really had these bolts work hard for the perfect angle.

 

New shiny bolts in place. Torqued correctly this time.

 

37ft lbs? I assume you paint marked them to make sure they did back out? Do those ones come with loctite on them like these.

 

Yes to 37 and yes that's why I used paint. And you reminded me I forgot to use Loctite.

 

How many ugga duggas is that?

 

It’s according to how many beers one has had

 

Those look like they already have red loctite on them

 

That's not my picture. The black bolts don't come with Loctite.

 

Sorry, I meant to quote @Hi06silver's picture, the bag full of bolts.

 

Class 11 stamped on head(11T) and black in color is somewhat the criteria for torque spec.

Saved this article from last year which has some way over my head info....friction coefficient etc

Choosing Lower Ball Joint (LBJ) Bolts – ADVENTURETACO

 

And from the test in the original post it's one of the best bolts.

"Based on these results, our top recommendation for LBJ bolts would be the Toyota Black Bolt w/Washer (90119-10933) or the ARP Bolt (673-1004). The Black bolt excels in its incredibly low friction coefficient, which leads to a silk-smooth installation, and allows the bolt to reach 10,000 lb of preload at only 37 ft-lbs, significantly higher than many other bolts could achieve at 59 ft-lbs. It also provides the highest confidence in the preload generated at the applied torque, and does not have much degradation with reuse. The ARP bolt is the strongest of the group, giving it very high margin between installed torque and yield torque. It also does not degrade much with reuse."

 

Reviving an old-ish thread now that I've read through it. This morning had my truck undercoated as part of my now yearly ritual, and on the drive back from the shop there were single clunks at slow speeds turning. Weren't there this morning on the way in. I let the shop owner know, and I suspected maybe the extra spray on the coils may be causing it to stick and slip in the cup, but he assured me that the lanolin base is more lubricative and shouldn't cause any clunks or suspension to stick.

So down the rabbit hole I go into front end clunks from LBJs to CVs, to LCA bushings to coils and found this thread, and now I'm paranoid.

Had the LBJs replaced about 2 years ago with OEM but didn't replace the bolts. Mine are I assume the larger M12 bolts, they are flanged and stamped "11". Can these ones be reused? If not, what p/n should I be looking for specifically for our later model 04-06's? And from my reading, it should be 48ftlbs torqued when done?

 

Still on my original bolts at 270k miles







let’s not even discuss my Moog lbjs

 

Only the black bolts with a washer that spins is edit: 37.

 

My bolts are done to 444ish in.lbs., but i have the smaller bolts. Black w/ spinny washers for the 'protector'.

 

I thought those were the 37ftlb ones? Sorry there are 6 pages of confusion over what is correct, teh FSM, the Spiker test, and then if it applies to the smaller bolts on the 00-03 or the larger bolts for the 04-06.

 

So how confident are we that this is the correct torque specs?

 

I’m relatively sure I didn’t use a torque wrench on mine

 

Damn, your right lol. I was posting while commuting and forgot the spec.

48 was a typo though iirc.

 

That is correct, 48 is a typo in the FSM for the '05/'06 at least. https://www.tundras.com/threads/wha...-gen-tundra-today.2558/page-1830#post-3469341

I wish we could search through the forum and fix all the occurrences of 48, but it ain’t happening.

 

Thanks Shifty

 

Do you know if the larger m12 bolts are single use too, or am I alright to have re-used them? Cheap insurance to just add new ones in though and simple to do when I do my next tire rotation.

 

there’s a IG video proving the OEM bolts degrade rapidly with multiple uses. I think more than half of its torque ability was lost.

If you’re using the OEM bolts. Replace them.

 

Did Toyota say there's a typo in the FSM? If not, who is making this claim?

 

I am, and I posted evidence of it. In the exact same FSM, within pages of one another, the FSM clearly shows 59ftlb for the four LBJ bolts, and 48 in other places.

When we dug into this a little deeper recently, we found at least 3 places where Toyota includes the torque specs in the 2005-2006 FSM. In two places it was 48, and in one place it was 59. That may suggest the 48ftlb is correct, in actually. Still, I and many others on here with 2005-2006 running Toyota p/n 90105-12316 bolts torqued to 59, not realizing there were two different torque values.

If you have the popular copy of the 2005-2006 FSM that's floating around in front of you, see for yourself:

• SA-19 on page 2433: 48 ft lb
• SA-79 on page 2493: 59 ft lb
• SA-84 on page 2498: 49 ft lb
• SS-81 on page 253: 48 ft lb

When I installed my lift, I was using SA-79 to install my stuff at the time and went 59, so I thought it was weird people were saying 48. Like, "Guys, you're telling people to undertorque, that's not cool..."

In hindsight, after noticing two spots in Suspension & Axle (SA-xx) showed 48, I was leaning toward 48 potentially being correct. Then, when I noticed it was also 48 in the service specifications, that was the, "Huh ... I bet it was 48...."

But given the number of people on here who've been torquing to 59 thanks to that spec being pushed around, using specifically p/n 90105-12316, I'm not sure what to tell you. It doesn't appear going ~19% over-spec on torque is creating a problem.

 

I here you, but there's only 1 place with 59 compared to 3 places with 48 and I agree the extra should be harmless. Hell, for years, I used the it's tight enough torque on everything and my vehicles never fell apart, even the crankshaft bolt on my 1980 Toyota Supra.

I reviewed the 2005-2006 FSM and SA19 is 48, SA79 is 59, SA81 is for upper ball joints (see no torque specs for LBJ), SA 84 (actual LBJ page) is 48. However, according to your analysis above, there are 3 locations with 48 and only 1 location with 59 (i.e. 3 to 1). To me that would mean 59 is the odd ball number and may be the typo.

I will be taking my truck in for the air bag recall next week and I will try to get a mechanic and see if he/she has the definitive answer. Btw, I used 48 (SA84) because that is the actual FSM section for replacing the LBJs.

I will report my findings if one of their mechanics will check for me.

 

Listen to Shifty. He’s right.