lower ball joint bolts why so many

I see. I grasp what he is saying and it is very helpful for someone who orders ball joints. But I already have the bolts and the ball joints. However after doing some searching later for a friend who is doing the same I realized there are so many bolts as per the discussion prior and started to wonder why so many, in fact the bolts that were originally on my vehicle differ from the ones I ordered with my vin number.

 

The difference is because the earlier Tacomas did not have a boot that covers the LBJ so they used a flanged bolt. In the later years they introduced the black bolts with a washer because they added the LBJ boot. If you tried to use the early flanged bolt with the boot, it will start to tear the boot as you torque it down. From my understanding, the boot isn't really necessary anyways.

There are two difference torque values listed by Toyota. If you have the earlier flanged bolts, they are supposed to be torqued to 59ft/lb and if you have the black bolts with the washer, they are supposed to be torqued to 37ft/lb. I replaced mine with the flanged bolts and used 59ft/lb. Some disagree and say to use 59ft/lbs for both bolts.

https://www.mighty90s.com/forums/di...j-bolts-and-why-its-important-prado-90-series

I tried to replicate the findings in this article and didn't get nearly the same stretching that they found. Some of the black bolts didn't stretch at all and some was very minor...about 1 tooth stretch. The flanged bolts didn't stretch period. Make sure you use grade 10.9 bolts. The choice is yours.

 

That is exactly what I was trying to understand. Thank you very much. The mystery of the bolts explained.

 

I wasted too much time researching this last month when I did mine.

You can get the flanged bolt cheap from Mcmaster and they come in a 10 pack. Myself as well as other members used these without issues if you don't plan to use the LBJ boot.


https://www.mcmaster.com/95735A635/

 

that is good to know!

 

I have the flange bolts with the LBJ boots on my 2004.

No issues and torqued to 59 ft/lbs without issue either.

 

Same. My driver's side went on with minimal tearing but my passenger side wasn't so lucky. The only difference is that I cleaned the passenger side boot so I suggest not to clean the bolt hole surface and see how it works out. But the general consensus is that they will rip.

 

And the Taco weirdness continues.

I cleaned everything up when I replaced the LBJs. And it works perfectly.

I'm due to check torque specs here this weekend so I'll follow up and take some pics.

 

A few things:

If the toyota FSMs really did neglect to specify a ~50% difference in torque specs, that seams like it's had lawsuit written all over it. Toyota has been sued before, but not over this (to my knowledge, anyway).

This website is also says they're straight up guessing why there are different bolts (and admits it could be for NO reason). As with most things in the manufacturing world, it was more than likely a supply chain thing, or some other random administrative reason.

I don't know why they're surprised that when you over-torque a bolt by 50% and don't support it properly, (like the top one that looks like it was only supported by the last 4 threads based on where the stretching starts) that it stretched so much.

Basically, what this guy is saying is that the Toyota engineers are idiots, and can't tell the difference between an "outdated" T100 (his only source for the lower torque setting) and a new(er) Tacoma (or in this case, a Prado).

Did a little searching in the interwebs archives and found a manual for the 1995.5-97 and it shows a 59lb ft spec.

 

Yeah no idea. I asked someone who torqued their's to the lower value and have no issues for years. Personally, I torqued to the higher value because I replicated this test but on the truck instead and didn't get nearly the results that he did. If you pull up general torque values for bolts of this size and grade, you will find that 59ft/lb is definite outside of the maximum recommended spec though. Very conflicting information.

 

This.

For my 2004, I have the boot, and it came with the flange bolts. I am nearly 100% positive that's how it came form the factory. While I didn't buy it off the lot, I bought it when it was a year old, and I highly doubt the owner did anything to the BJ's...

When I did my BJ's for the first time (moogs - I know, I know...) they didn't come with bolts so I re-used the old ones. Then the 2nd time I replace them with 555's and new bolts. I matched the factory ones with 10.9 metrics I got at Ace. Basically the same as the McMaster ones.

No issues.

 

Yeah, I'd say that even the 59 seams deceptively low. I'm usually the type that gives a few ugga duggas and call it good. I can't imagine only using 37, that's like hand tight, lol.

Lot's of people drive around with stuff that's barely hanging together and they're "just fine". You should check out all the tictoks that car mechanics post with the "it drove here" hashtag, lol.

I agree with that website's main premise though, that many BJ failures are not the BJ's themselves failing, but the bolts. Either from over, or under torquing.

 

I actually 3 variations of the bolts. Flanged are shorter for sure

 

The first model year that the LBJ Protectors were factory installed on the Tacoma was 2001. The FSM for the 2001 Tacoma does list 2 different torque values for the LBJ bolts depending on whether or not you have the LBJ Protectors installed. The torque values are listed as 37ft-lbs (w/ LBJ Protector) & 59 ft-lbs (w/o LBJ Protector) on P244 of the FSM, table SS-78 TORQUE SPECIFICATION. The parts.toyota.com website also lists 2 different LBJ bolts for the 2001 Tacoma. It looks like they may have used (2) of the 90105-10505 flanged bolts and (2) of the 90119-10933 longer black bolts w washer to attach the LBJ protector. Anyone have a 2001 or later 1st Gen with the original factory attachment setup on the LBJ Protector to verify?

 

This is interesting. For my 2003, it is equipped with the LBJ protectors, but the 2003 FSM only lists the 59 ft-lbs spec, making no such distinction. Perhaps it's worth noting that the factory LBJs were replaced in 2006 under recall (dealer confirmed). The dealer also confirmed I should use the captive washer bolts, but couldn't tell me a torque spec. I have the rubber protectors, and the dealer parts guy spec'd the washer bolts, but the FSM for my year (2003) states a spec of 59 ft-lbs. What would you do?

 

Andy,
The 2001 FSM I have does list (2) different torque specs: 59 ft.-lbs. for the flanged bolts used with no LBJ Protector and 37 ft.-lbs for the longer black bolts used with the LBJ Protector. The general consensus is that the LBJ installation itself is stronger when NOT using the LBJ Protectors with the longer black bolts. If the torque spec on the longer black bolts was the same, I would retrofit the LBJ Protectors to my '97 Taco 4x4 for the added protection offered to the LBJ boots. .02

2001 TACOMA FSM table SS-78 from here: The different LBJ bolts and why it's important, Prado 90 Series — Mighty 90s Forum. I verified that this is a copy of p244 in my 2001 TACOMA FSM.

 

Andy,
The FSM for your 2003 TACOMA 4WD only lists 59 ft.-lbs on the torque spec just as you stated. I would use what is in print in the FSM for your 2003 TACOMA 4WD. Given that data, I may eventually retrofit the LBJ Protectors to my '97 TACO and torque the longer black bolts 90119-10933 to 59 ft.-lbs.

EDIT: Question for you on the bolts used on your current LBJ with Protector: Are all the bolts the same longer black captured washer bolts seen below as 90119-10933?

Different LBJ Bolts: The different LBJ bolts and why it's important, Prado 90 Series — Mighty 90s Forum



FSM 2003 TACOMA 4WD p246 table SS-78:

 

At least some of the bolts on my truck appear to be the captive washer type, but until I remove them all (waiting for parts), it will be hard to tell if they all are...looks pretty crusty right now. In the meantime, I have ordered both types of bolts and am contemplating whether or not I should reuse the LBJ protectors and which bolts to use. This will depend on whether the LBJ protectors are serviceable (they're at least 15 years old) and what type of bolts I end up removing. Part of me thinks the simplest approach is to omit the LBJ protectors and use the flange bolts torqued to 59 ft-lbs.

The remaining inconsistencies are that the 2003 FSM specifies 59 ft-lbs and doesn't show the LBJ protectors, yet the dealership parts guy specified the captive washer bolts, which apparently should only be torqued to 37 ft-lbs (unless we favor the 2003 FSM over the 2001 edition). I'm getting the sense from users in other threads, as well as the inconsistencies between the 2001 and 2003 FSMs that there are likely to be a few combinations of bolts, protectors and torque values that will suffice. Many users just used the flange bolts torqued to 59 ft-lbs, with or without the protectors, while some used the captive washer bolts, torqued either to 37 or 59 ft-lbs. Maybe I'll just cut the bolt hole "ears" off of the LBJ protectors and glue the protector to the bottom of the knuckle with RTV, and use the flange bolts torqued to 59 ft-lbs. Seems like this way I would get the protection and avoid the bolt length and torque issues.

 

I had one guy tell me that he thought the 2001 and up Taco 4WD with the LBJ Protectors came from the factory with (2) different type bolts on them. Have not been able to find one with the original LBJ w Protector to look at yet. One of the guys I hunt with has a 2003 so will take a look at his next time I see it. But as you previously stated, the 2001 and up Tacos went thru recall/replacement of the LBJs. Those LBJ recall kits 04005-03235 are the most economical way to order the LBJs but they don't come with any bolts. And the only LBJ bolt I saw on parts.toyota.com that was applicable to your 2003 was the longer black captured washer bolt 90119-10933. Application of the (2) shorter flanged bolts looks to have stopped in 2001, probably when the LBJ protectors were added to the factory Tacos in Sept/2001. I have seen/read enough now to feel comfortable retrofitting the LBJ Protectors 43346-60011 to my '97 TACO and torqueing the currently available longer black bolts 90119-10933 to the 59 ft.-lbs. as shown in the 2003 TACOMA FSM. Will probably do it next time I inspect the LBJs. Good luck with your installation.

 

Hey guys,
My 4 wheeling/hunting season will kick off in just days now and will be non-stop until June of next year. I had some free time today. So while the TACO is all cleaned up, I retrofit the LBJ Protectors to my '97 TACO. While doing so, I took measurements with a dial caliper of just how much these bolts stretch. You only need to use (2) of the longer black bolts 90119-10933 per LBJ Protector at the (2) attachment points. It appeared that you can use either a shorter flanged bolt or a longer black bolt with washer for the other 2 attachment points. The blind threads in the knuckle appeared plenty deep enough when I probed them. And I noted no interference with the LBJ Protector from the flanged bolts that do not attach the LBP Protector. Here is what I measured as far as bolt stretch:

1. The OEM shorter flanged bolt 90105-10406 was measured as installed in the knuckle @ 59 ft.-lbs. It was 0.004" shorter when removed so it stretched at least that amount on installation, most probably several 0.001"s more.
2. The OEM longer black bolt 90119-10933 used to attach the LBJ Protector stretched 0.0065" when torqued to 37 ft/lbs.
3. The same OEM longer black bolt 90119-10933 stretched to 0.0075" when further torqued to 59 ft/lbs. So the increase in torque from 37ft/lbs to 59 ft/lbs only resulted in an additional 0.001" of stretch in that bolt.