The Torque Spec. Guide

DF42 & DF67 are the same rear axle (e-locker rear), DF68 & DF69 says with rear e locker but it (the pic) doesn't have one.

 

Sub'd!

 

Yup, that what I gathered from it as well. I think Toyota just screwed up with the Page/Chapter names. Same as with the U-Bolt Torque Spec. = 73ft. lbs NOT 37

 

Great info, thank you for sharing!!!

 

I was just going to mention this too. I wouldn't feel safe torquing them down to 37 ft lbs. On a 2007 Tundra, it took like 90 something ft lbs of force to move the nut on the u-bolt so 73 sounds better.

 

Looks like I have a lot of crap to re-torque

 

Great thread OP .....


Just curious as to any updates or changes in specs. The Ubolt torque is what I'm getting at, does the FSM still say 37 ft lbs ??

 

Sub

 

Sub

 

nope


that is the correct Torque....37 for u-bolts

there is no printing error in Toyota u bolt specifications
if it was, they also got newtons and kg incorrect for the same amount of force


also been researching techinfo.toyota.com and the U-bolt spec is
exactly what is stated.

If you get TSB 0008-14 done it goes up to 44ft/lbs

 

As I've stated before, I don't give 2 shits about what "the experts" at Toyota say or print about it , anyone who thinks 37 ftlbs. (or 44) is enough torque to hold a 400lb+ axle assembly to the rest of the truck is a fool...

 

I understand that.

it is a setting that
a) safely holds the vehicle together and
b) provides the ride quality toyota wants for a specific setup

sure it is pretty low setting. I cranked mine to 80 before getting a vibe tsb
done and it reduced the vibe a bit...

but jus sayin...37 or 44 not a typo or error. intentionally done by toyota

 

& consider this... up to 2004 (end of 1st gen production) The FSM states clearly that the torque for Ubolts is 90ftlbs.

In 2005 the 2nd gens began....

Now you tell me what technological break through in Ubolt technology occurred that would REDUCE the recommended amount from 90ftlbs. all the way down to 37ftlbs. ?? Does this make any sense to anyone ??

Also keep in mind that 1st & 2nd gen. Ubolts/hardware are the same....

& lastly , this vid shows that they aren't tight AT ALL....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Sg8dCtXnI&feature=player_detailpage#t=14

 

this thread is torque specs, right ?

the actual toyota engineering specs say one thing, 37 or 44 depending on the
2005-2014 u bolt and flange nuts installed

everyone is free to throw in your own deviations from the specs however you want....the ubolt diameter is beef enough to crank to 80 without issue, so go ahead. it makes the ride a bit stiffer by acting as a spring compressor


--------
Now if everyone followed the -->actual Toyota maintenance manual<--, it states that when going off-road you tighten the chassis nuts and bolts DAILY. If you did this then the ubolt 37 or 44 spec is a non-issue. Otherwise you check every 5000 miles. Skip this at your own peril. There is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous with the spec or the maintenance schedule when done correctly. You want them to stay tight forever so you never have to check then whang them down to 80 or 90...but specs are specs and this is what it is. 90 to 37 is safe.

I just got done with discussing all this rear leaf spring and related bits with Toyota engineering in California to get a full understanding of everything related to driveline and rear suspension and how and why toyota does things. There is no error in the docs. that is all I am saying...not a typo so please stop calling it a typo or ridiculous. it is a setting carefully thought out by people who build and then crash these vehicles, and they know a lot about it. I cannot answer from a vehicle engineering standpoint on every last bit of this...but bottom line a soft setting is not harmful or dangerous and it improves ride quality. crank them down all you want, it stiffens the leafs a bit.

 

Great info. and thanks for doing the research and citing sources. As well all know, the U Bolt torque specs (according to the FSM) have been a topic of debate for years across every forum (pirate4x4, ttora, customtacos, toyotanation, IH8MUD etc.) and the general consensus is that 37 (even 44) is way too low as compared to 99% of leaf spring u-bolts.

While the FSM and TSB show that to be the correct torque, it is at the discretion of the owner/mechanic to use those specs. As I stated previously, and linked to the OME/Dakar install guide from (reputable Toyota enthusiasts) Slee Offroad they advise to torque to 89ft/lbs, which is what I did since I do have Dakar leafs and aftermarket U Bolts.

I didn't print the FSM and I am not an ASE certified Toyota mechanic, nor do I claim to be. I may have been too hasty to "assume" that it was indeed a misprint or error, but I will continue to torque my U Bolts to 80+ ft/lbs, as will about 99% of 2nd Gen owners who have serviced their own leaf packs.

 

No offense but theres so much fail in your statements dont know where to start..
Hahaha, ok dude, you go with you're "Toyota engineers" & I'll stay on the side of commonsense & logic... This isn't my first rodeo with Toyota Ubolts, I've R&R'd probably 150 truck axles in the last 2 years alone, most are 2nd gens. & how can you say tightened/torqued Ubolts are going to make the ride stiffer?? Your springs are afixed to the perch on axle, your springs aren't cycling on the perch, how is this compressing the spring ??

So what was the answer you got from Toyotas people other than you saying "specs are spec. , they're right just do it." ??

No, I think you should go with the info you get from the same people that bring you the same TSB's year after production year, at your own peril of course..

 

& sorry Benson , I wont turn it into a pissing match...

 

Lol, no apologies needed Doug.

I just wanted to clear my name, since I was the one who stated it as "fact" that it was a typo

Still, my question remains about the Rear Diff. Diagrams (E-locker vs LSD) why they show different diagrams and exploded parts views. To me, that seems like a definite misprint/typo/error on Toyota's part.

 

Maybe because they're different ??... just throwing it out there..haha, i haven't looked at the diagrams you speak of but pretty sure a major difference is the Elocker is mechanical locking & the LSD is a torque/pressure within the diff. type of app IIRC So I'd expect to see some differences if I'm understanding you right..

 

Oh they're different?!?! J/k j/k.

My concern is that in the FSM, the diagram they show for the E-Locker is actually for the LSD diff and vice-versa...no biggie. Just wanted to point out the error to avoid confusion.