1. Welcome to Tundras.com!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tundra discussion topics
    • Transfer over your build thread from a different forum to this one
    • Communicate privately with other Tundra owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

Possible 05-06 FSM LBJ x knuckle torque misprint

Discussion in '1st Gen Tundras (2000-2006)' started by halfbid, Aug 14, 2020.

  1. Aug 14, 2020 at 4:37 PM
    #1
    halfbid

    halfbid [OP] New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Member:
    #49355
    Messages:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2006 DC Tundra
    So I just finished up with some front end work yesterday and I think I may have discovered a torque spec error in the 05-06 FSM. I noticed it last night when I was torquing the second LBJ to the nuckle, but forgot to mention it Hopefully someone can tell me if the document is wrong or if I’m misreading it which is always a possibility. I used 59ft. lbs. and it appears to also call for 48 ft. lbs. I searched the forum and didn't find anything except a few posts where people thought it was 48 or 59. Here are a few pics to illustrate my confusion.

    Screen Shot 2020-08-14 at 3.46.16 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-08-14 at 3.47.23 PM.jpg

    Screen Shot 2020-08-14 at 3.50.28 PM.jpg

    Screen Shot 2020-08-14 at 3.51.27 PM.jpg

    Screen Shot 2020-08-14 at 3.52.26 PM.jpg

    Screen Shot 2020-08-14 at 3.53.45 PM.jpg
     
  2. Aug 14, 2020 at 4:42 PM
    #2
    FrenchToasty

    FrenchToasty Desert rat, 6 lug enthusiast

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Member:
    #36156
    Messages:
    9,431
    First Name:
    Mo
    SoAz
    Vehicle:
    06 phantom grey purrrrl Last of the Ridgelines
    Interesting, I went with 48 I think
     
    halfbid [OP] likes this.
  3. Aug 14, 2020 at 4:58 PM
    #3
    halfbid

    halfbid [OP] New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Member:
    #49355
    Messages:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2006 DC Tundra
    Yes, I believe you were the source of one of the comments I mentioned and I think you posted that figure on another thread.
     
  4. Aug 14, 2020 at 5:04 PM
    #4
    FrenchToasty

    FrenchToasty Desert rat, 6 lug enthusiast

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Member:
    #36156
    Messages:
    9,431
    First Name:
    Mo
    SoAz
    Vehicle:
    06 phantom grey purrrrl Last of the Ridgelines
    I would assume it’s a miss print, it’s also in the upper ball joint pictorial, for the low ball joint pictorial it’s printed correctly, so I think that’s why I went off that value
     
    tvpierce likes this.
  5. Aug 14, 2020 at 5:14 PM
    #5
    halfbid

    halfbid [OP] New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Member:
    #49355
    Messages:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2006 DC Tundra
    So I just called my Toyota dealership and explained the situation to see if they could provide me with the correct spec. The guy said 59 ft. lbs. was the correct spec. Maybe a few others can call their dealership and check to make sure he is correct. I'd like to make sure it is 59 since the whole reason I replaced it is due to the occasional failure. I'd hate for it to fail because I used the wrong spec due to a FSM misprint.
     
  6. Aug 14, 2020 at 5:38 PM
    #6
    Professional Hand Model

    Professional Hand Model A.K.A ‘Golden Hands’

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Member:
    #14878
    Messages:
    15,045
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Fred
    ‘Somewhere’... a State of Mind
    Vehicle:
    2002 Tundra SR5 4WD 4.7L AC Silver Metallica
    Hand Protectors
    Makes you wonder. I found a similar misprint on the earlier gens concerning Transmission fluid drain and refill being only 2 quarts. Called Toyota Corp 800# and spoke with 2 different people and they stood by the manual spec of 2 quarts. Its actually 4+/- quarts.
     
    halfbid [OP] likes this.
  7. Aug 15, 2020 at 4:00 AM
    #7
    tvpierce

    tvpierce Formerly New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2019
    Member:
    #30129
    Messages:
    1,049
    Maine
    Vehicle:
    2000 Tundra AC SR5 4WD, 4.7 Automatic
    I wouldn't just take the dealer's word for it unless they could explain how they arrived at their conclusion. They're looking at the exact same document as you, and it gives two different specs.

    I like the rationale by @FrenchToasty . If you have to pick one, pick the one from the diagram and instructions that pertain to the actual part in question.

    The spec of 48 ft-lb is listed in four places:
    1. The torque chart at the beginning of the section
    2. The front axle hub instructions
    3. The lower balljoint diagram
    4. The lower ball joint instructions
    The only place it says 59 ft-lb is in the upper ball joint diagram.

    I'll take the odds that it's a misprint/typo in one place rather than in 4 places.
     
  8. Aug 15, 2020 at 11:47 AM
    #8
    halfbid

    halfbid [OP] New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Member:
    #49355
    Messages:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2006 DC Tundra
    Thanks for the replies. The reasoning you guys used seems logical on the surface. I’d like to think it’s that simple and one could use reasoning to determine which figure is misprinted. However, whenever you have a binary choice the odds of picking the correct option are exactly 50-50. So, whichever one you choose - no matter how solid your reasoning - the odds you’ll pick the correct value is more akin to a coin flip. The fact is one of the two figures is wrong. A human error is a mistake and unless the mistake was made using reasoning - which it wasn’t - I don’t think you can use reasoning to discover the true value.

    Also, while I share your skepticism of the dealership generally, they are in the business of replacing LBJ and they likely disconnect them even more often than they replace them. Therefore, they should know what the correct spec is off the top of their head which was the case with the tech I talked to. I tried another dealership yesterday, but they were closed. This is why I suggested some of you could call your dealership and ask too. I think if we called several and found a consensus that would more than clear it up, at least for me.

    Last night I remembered the chart in the FSM which gives general torque specs for bolts etc. When I examined the bolt for markings and it had an 11 on it, I measured the diameter and found it to be 10mm. Unless I’m mistaken the chart indicates a hex flange bolt is 72 ft. lbs. If I use reasoning here - which I believe is appropriate - I’d say 59 is a lot closer to 72 than 48 is and conclude 48 is more likely to be the error in spite of how many times the error appears in the FSM.

    Screen Shot 2020-08-15 at 9.51.32 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-08-15 at 9.51.50 AM.jpg

    I think we really ought to figure this out for sure since it is a critical safety componet of our vehicles and there have been problems in the past with these bolts sheering off. Kinda makes ya wonder if the factory had the bolts torqued to the wrong spec.

    Here are a few other sources of info I found.

    @ 5:10 in the video he says it is 61 ft. lbs. (1st gen Tundra)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YnxkhBIix8

    @ 3:00 minutes he shows an actual service manual of some sort which specs it to 59 ft. lbs. (1st gen Tundra)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6evii7Ki-4M

    @ 1:40 minutes he shows 59” lbs” ( 1st gen 4-runner)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfLvtEnX9qk

    Other post I found all indicated 59 ft. lbs. The posts are not about tundras, but other similar Toyotas and I know many of the other front suspension parts/specs are the same, although I have no idea for sure which ones are or aren't an exact match. I didn’t see the 48 figure anywhere in my searches.

    https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/torque-values-at-lower-ball-joint-steering-knuckle.18169/

    https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/need-help-with-torque-specs.441887/

    https://www.yotatech.com/how-tos/a/toyota-4runner-1996-2002-how-to-replace-lower-ball-joints-415353

    https://www.toyotaguru.us/sequoia-2004-repair/torque-specifications-rtp.html

     
  9. Aug 16, 2020 at 5:12 AM
    #9
    tvpierce

    tvpierce Formerly New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2019
    Member:
    #30129
    Messages:
    1,049
    Maine
    Vehicle:
    2000 Tundra AC SR5 4WD, 4.7 Automatic
    I agree with your conclusion that 59 ft-lb is most likely the correct spec, but I take issue with how you got there.

    For starters, true at first it's a binary choice between two numbers. But by using abductive reasoning, we can increase our chances of being correct. We both did that: How many times each figure is listed in the manual, how many times each figure is listed in other similar manuals, etc..

    And I don't distrust the dealerships or their techs -- in fact just the opposite. They're experts at maintaining these vehicles. But they're not engineers and didn't design the vehicle. So when it comes to something like torque specs, all they can do is consult the same document you and I are, so they have no more or less expertise than we do. Now if they said to you, "Yeah, we saw that too in the latest issue of the manual. But the spec in all previous issues has been 59 ft-lbs, so we know it's a misprint/typo in the version you're looking at." Then I'd say, yes, their anecdotal evidence is adding valuable perspective to the decision. But for them to just say it's 59 could mean that they haven't read the manual as carefully as you have.

    As to the videos, #1 doesn't site where he got the spec, and by all accounts he seems to be incorrect.

    Video #2 is using a Clymer manual. (I can tell by the design of it.) Clymer are great manuals, but they're simply going to get their information from the Toyota manual. So, the same source as the dealer techs, you, and I.

    Video #3 is Timmy the Toyota Toolman who is a very knowledgable, thorough, intelligent tech. At one point in his video I can see the diagram in his printed Toyota factory manual -- it's the same one you included in your original post, and it says 59. Granted, it is for a 4Runner, but I agree that the designs are so similar that it supports 59 as the correct spec.. Just to muddy the waters though, I have PDF scans of the entire printed manual for a '96 Tacoma which uses the same design (in fact, some 4Runner guys use Tacoma ball joints) That manual says 83 ft-lbs for those four bolts... go figure.

    The general torque chart you posted is the most compelling evidence IMHO. I agree with you assessment: choose the value that's closest.

    Thanks for following up on this.
     
    halfbid [OP] likes this.
  10. Aug 16, 2020 at 5:44 AM
    #10
    halfbid

    halfbid [OP] New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Member:
    #49355
    Messages:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2006 DC Tundra
    Good points @tvpierce. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
     
  11. May 8, 2022 at 8:40 AM
    #11
    viducce

    viducce New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2020
    Member:
    #51656
    Messages:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Chris
    The Toyota Maintenance guy ( very professional mechanic, imho ) states 80Nm ~ 65ft/lbs but sadly leaves out the torque values for the remaining nuts…

    https://youtu.be/nl7DQPb2160

    2148276A-284D-422E-8985-97405C94F8E7.jpg
     
  12. May 9, 2022 at 2:56 AM
    #12
    w666

    w666 D. None of the above

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2019
    Member:
    #40020
    Messages:
    491
    Gender:
    Male
    Maryland
    Vehicle:
    04 Access Cab SR5 V8 4WD
    None yet
    Depends on the year...

    2000:

    148922063_4224290927599330_5481417989121_c40296b99ff3e6314ece3e9d466619fa071d9862.jpg

    2001:

    149047203_4224291040932652_8597840453063_8333bbc97d6a914c1710352d0f3331385c6f0417.jpg

    2002:

    149067554_4224291137599309_2713164935564_fb6890f600bce96a37877c8df16fffc269a077db.jpg

    2003:

    149413205_4224290950932661_7284163202740_4eb1a866fc3523329b724175c0dc5824209f93d0.jpg

    2004:

    150053778_4224291027599320_3231465944041_e70afca5a5b95616b2a530a968e866a85c409522.jpg

    2005 - 2006:

    148996651_4224291114265978_3029808511263_ba9d9cc561f64dbccc23748bc28d430a60495ab7.jpg
     
    NetGnome and BubbaW like this.
  13. May 9, 2022 at 9:34 PM
    #13
    Diablo169

    Diablo169 ROKRAPR

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Member:
    #59576
    Messages:
    342
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Max
    Santa Cruz
    Vehicle:
    06 Double Cab 300k+
    2” Lift, Bilstein 5100’s and 885’s, Rear 5100’s Icon 3 Leaf Pack and Firestone Air Bags with Daystar Cradles. Spider Trax 1.25” Wheel Spacers, Factory Wheels wrapped with Toyo 285/70r17 AT2’s.
    Mine are probably at 80-100. I used my Dewalt impact and called it a day. That was 60k and many offroad trips ago.

    upload_2022-5-9_21-34-1.jpg
     
    bmf4069 likes this.

Products Discussed in

To Top