So why is the "lbf ft" wrong and the "lbf in" right ? Lee (and the last
person to work on your pinion) may well have the same manual. It's even
not unheard of for one manual to perpetuate a misprint found in another
manual !
Randall
On Wednesday, May 05, 1999 7:48 PM, Pete & Aprille Chadwell
[SMTP:dynamic@transport.com] wrote:
>
> I dared to doubt the advice of a fellow lister, Lee Janssen. As
punishment
> to myself, I will now explain and expose my faux pas for all to see, and
> maybe learn from. I asked about why my TR6 pinion flange nut was only on
> finger-tight when the manual specs the torque for 90-120 "lb. ft."
>
> Lee Janssen wrote:
> >Read your manual once more and notice that it states 90 to 120 "lbf in".
> >"lbf in" stands for 'pounds of force inch' or in 'merican 'inch pounds'.
> >That equates to 7.5 to 10 foot pounds. That is consistent with your
opinion
> >that it was torqued to about 5 foot pounds.
>
> So, I opened up the Bentley manual to "Torque Wrench Settings", page 54,
> and under "Rear Axle" I found "Prop shaft flange to pinion" Across from
> that are the numbers 90 to 120. Follow the column up to the heading and
it
> reads "Specified Torque (lbf.ft)"
>
> So I started writing a reply to Lee to correct him, and then I thought,
> "But, hey! What if it's a misprint? This guy couldn't have just made it
> up!" So, I opened the book again and turned to page 346, (51.25.19 Sheet
> 5, item 29) and it states in pertinent part, "...when the castellated nut
> is tight to a torque loading of 90 to 120 lbf in (12.4 to 16.6 kgf m).
>
> I hate it when I have to admit I'm wrong TWICE IN A ROW!!
>
> Well, at least I didn't read it wrong. At least I can blame it on the
manual!!
>
> Lesson learned: Don't trust the "quick reference" listings for torque
> specs in the front of the manual!!
>
> Humbly,
>
> Pete Chadwell
> 1973 TR6
>
>
|