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

Exactly. We're saying the exact same thing in our two replies.

Like I tried to explain, prior to noticing 48 popped up three times vs. 59 (I originally only spotted the one discrepancy), I thought 59 was the number specifically for the bolt part number I posted. And even if it wasn't, torquing up that extra 20% isn't going to lead to failure, it's not enough torque for this shank of bolt.

That said, the point remains: There is a typo to be aware of, regardless. It appears the typo is 59ftlb. Still, many of us are using 59ftlb with no ill effect, no added strain, no bolt stretch, no problems. I'd rather go 20% over than 20% under, and frankly, this isn't precision space shuttle stuff or a fighter jet we're talking about, so I'm often over-torquing everything by 5%-10% a lot of the time anyway.

Either way, whether you subscribe for 48 or 59 for that specific fastener, mark your bolt position after with a paint marker. That way when you're under there changing the oil(s), rotating tires, got the truck on a lift, whatever it may be, you can quickly glance over and confirm your bolts haven't backed out or moved in any way.

The reality is, the proper torque number is the one you find in the "specifications" section 99.9% of the time and that number is 48. But I'll be damned, now I've torqued that specific bolt to 59 without issue, I'll continue using 59 from here on out. Especially seeing the testing Spiker has done in here confirming that fastener is good to 80ftlb without any stretch/exhaustion issues (Edit: Per Nick, at least). But by all means ... YOU DO YOU! We all aim for what we're comfortable with based on research we do. I'm not the definitive source.

 

Do we know where the 59 came from? Was that a torque spec for the earlier model trucks (pre 2005 and 2006 models) that may have been carried forward. Just curious.

 

It was definitely a spec on the 4Runner of similar year, it seems? Maybe someone copy/pasted a page?

 

Ok. Got it. I will probably still inquire with the service tech to see how they respond. Hopefully, I can get one to talk to me about this because this has my curiosity antenna up.

 

Update: According to the Toyota Master Technician, the correct torque spec for the 2005-2006 Tundra 4 set bolts on the LBJ is 48ft lbs. I did not inquire about the earlier years.

 

I consulted my 2004 FSM and every mention of the torque values is consistent. Since it was the crossover year, there are two values provided each time it's listed.

• 14mm bolts = 37ftlbs
• 17mm bolts = 48ftlbs

 

Negative. It’s either 37 or 59 depending which bolts you have.

 

Right?!

 

Shifty, if the torque specs mention in the previous posts are correct, that may be where the 59ft lb came from that's in the 2005-2006 FSM.

 

FSM for 2006 has both 48 and 59, but 48 appears more. When we started this thread, everyone I knew was using 59. Many have been using 59 since, without issue. Spiked supposedly says no risk of fail until 80, if I recall but verify before you exceed 60 specifically for 05-06!

 

I'm sticking with 48.

 

Referring back to this post, I'd stick with the 59ft-lb spec for the later model 12mm thread (17mm hex) bolts.

 

I'm with @assassin10000 on this one, @Methodical

I'm sure Toyota originally had a reason for the '48' number, but 59ftlb doesn't cross the 75%+ mark of what the fastener will take, it's a safe bet. Furthermore, you have a lot of statistical evidence from forum members here, several of whom are out there really beating the shit out of their suspension, also without failures. I get wanting to 'keep it by the book', believe me. I'm often that way. But you also need to understand, OEM is likely to go with 'bare minimum', which could leave you in a position where something could back out. If you snug to 59, you're in that sweet spot where you both (a) shouldn't back out and (b) you're really not that much closer to the fatigue point which is above 80ftlb.

 

+1 for 59 on my 06 DC. We’ll see how well it fairs lol but I’m not backing them out and re torquing they are loctited in and staying there.

 

Just gotta make sure and test our torque wrenches. When they aren't calibrated I don't know which way the reading goes incorrectly....maybe Toyota secretly owns the patent technology on ALL torque wrenches and this is a ploy to sell more?

 

Isn't the torque spec for dry bolts?

 

@tvpierce The OEM bolts for my '06 already had a lil red loctite on them...

 

I hear you and respect your position. Are there documented cases where 48lb torque specs failed?

I don't believe more is always better. I've learned this the hard way with lawn care (i.e. fertilizer, herbicides, fungicides etc.) and car detailing (i.e. compounds, polishes etc) as 2 examples where the manufacturer instructions is to use, say 1 oz of herbicide per 1k or 1 lb of fertilizer per 1k, or the manufacturer instructions calls for a small amount of compound, but I use more and just waste product and get no better results or even worse results because I think more is better. They know their product better than I do. They've done all the testing of their product.

Also, I suggest to Toyota owners I know to go with OEM parts, so I can't on the other hand tell them to to disregard OEM torque requirements. I've use manufacturers torque specs for years with no failure so I see no reason to disregard them.

 

At the end of the day, "you do you". If your position requires challenging this number of times, which is understandable given the sensitivity around the subject area, I think you know the answer of what's best for you.

Personally, "me do me", if I know a fastener is good for 80ftlb, and OEM calls for around 60% of that number, but I ended up running about 15% more than that, which is still 25% less than the tested failure point, that's a risk I'm willing to go with if it means I don't need to use red threadlocker, which is going to be a bigger pain in the ass later.

The options I see here are use OEM torque spec and red thread locker, or use a slightly higher torque spec with a blue thread locker. Red should require heat later to remove, blue doesn't. I don't like using red for anything where I know I may be popping the part out again later.

As for whether I've seen anyone who had failures with 48, we just don't know. I don't think anyone has been eyeballing it. But you've got a dozen or more 05-06 owners on here that went with 59 thanks to that typo, and a test showing up to 80 is alright, so that's what we've got to go with.

 

Here's a thought... 59x .2 =11.8. 59-11.8= 47.2.

Maybe they just rounded up to 48, forgot to put a fpn indicating that the 48 is for bolts with loctite on them from factory or added. And this is the start of all of the confusion, they printed it forgot something or were not seeing something notated in the manual as to which is for which situation. For the '05-'06 anyways.

(*Mistakenly posted this in another ball joint thread thinking it was this. Can't hurt to be here also.)

 

Great read and Info Shifty. Just my 2 cents, has anyone thought about calling Toyota Tech line? Dealer techs have a direct line to them and can confirm the correct torque value and why the FSM has different numbers.

 

What should these ARP 663-1004 bolts get torqued to? And the supplied washers should be installed correct?

 

OK, so I had gotten the 90080-10066 using my Vin and Toyota parts personel 'help'...too small! Brands new lbj's just got put on 3 days ago and mechanic reused bolts I already had, said they looked good. But after reading all this and trying to decipher what the hell I'm supposed to be using, without really understanding all of it...I feel I definitely need to get the right ones and have them switched out asap! Can someone please help me with what to use? 06' tundra sr5 DC 2wd 4.7l...I'm really overwhelmed with how different owning a Tundra is...not to mention trying to go thru all the dang diagrams and coming up with the money for oem. I would be super grateful! And wow, thank you for sharing these test results!

 

Here's the part number for the bolts I used that should also match your '06 (17mm).
Flange Bolt - Part Number: 90105-A0187, Qty:8

 

Awesome sauce! Thank you so much!

 

It's been a while since I checked on this thread, and I see a lot of back and forth on some of the torque values thrown out, hopefully all the questions have now been answered. If not, please let me know.

I saw a couple of references that the "red" bolts come with red loctite - that is not the case. The red is just an identification color, it is not in any way a threadlocker. So please don't count on it to keep the bolt from loosening.

Also, a small update - we found that the ARP bolts do not hold up well in use - they corrode pretty quickly, because they are only black oxide coated. It may not be a big deal in CA, but for anyone in the rust belt, they will rust quickly (see below, less than one year of use in St. Louis). We're about to test a stainless steel version of the same bolts, I'll report back once we have that data.

 

I was starting to notice some of the same rust issue, though nowhere near as bad, so I hadn't posted about it. Sounds like I may go the stainless route in the future if it tests well.

 

Thanks for checking in on us. Appreciate the work you're doing for this community.

 

Thank you, my pleasure!