Hi everyone,

I would like to start a discussion on the use of anti seize on vehicle
lug nuts. Searching the net, there are people that claim to have used
anti seize on lug nuts for many years with no problems, and some
people that advise against it.

I have two main questions I would like to address separately. The two
questions directly below are related to the two main sources of
controversy on the subject.

1. Will the use of anti seize on properly torqued vehicle lug nuts
likely cause them to loosen over time, to the point where it could be
dangerous ?

2. Will the use of anti seize on vehicle lug nuts cause a significant
increase in the axial loads and/or stresses on the lug studs, that
would likely cause a significant problem or danger ? If so, I would
think you could simply reduce the specified torque by a certain
percentage to compensate for the use of the anti seize.

I have a bottle of NAPA anti seize (item # 765-1674) and interestingly
enough, it says right on the bottle to use anti seize on lug nuts.

I would expect most engineers and auto manufacturers to recommend not
to use anti seize on lug nuts, even if they're not sure either way
whether or not it would cause any problems, just because of safety
liability.

On the other hand, one would think that a large company like NAPA also
considered safety liability, and would not state right on the product
bottle to use anti seize on lug nuts, unless it was a safe practice.

On the bottle of the NAPA anti seize product mentioned above, under
directions, it states to apply the product, and then torque all bolts
to manufacturers specifications.
The directions make no torque reduction allowance for the lubrication
effects of the anti seize, and the effects it may have on increasing
axial loads beyond those anticipated at OEM specified torques.

Also on the NAPA anti seize bottle, it recommends the use of the
product on engine head bolts, but again, does not provide any
recommendation for an OEM torque spec reduction with the use of the
anti seize, which leads one to believe that it may not be a
significant issue.

Most repair shops are not going to torque your wheels anyway, they
will use impact wrenches which always over torque and many times warp
rotors. Some shops use torque sticks on the end of the impact wrenches
which is a good idea, but you would be hard pressed to find any shop
using torque wrenches on lug nuts. It's just not fast enough for them.
Even if you request that they use a torque wrench, they may likely
forget, so you would have to watch them. I know because years ago I
worked in an auto repair shop.

I have used anti seize on the lug nuts of one vehicle I have and I
have not had any problems. I used it very sparingly, and I tried my
best to make sure that there was no anti seize between the end of the
lug nut (part that seats in the rim) and the rim. These were aluminum
rims with closed end acorn style lug nuts. I re-torqued after driving
50 miles or so which is standard practice on aluminum rims anyway.

The reason I used the anti seize is because I had to remove a tire
once and the lugs were so rusted I could not remove the nuts without a
long breaker bar. I thought they might break. Had I have broken down
somewhere without that breaker bar, I would have been stranded. After
that, I removed the lugs on all the wheels, replaced them with new lug
nuts, and applied a small amount of anti seize to each lug stud at the
time of replacement. That was years ago and I have not had any
problems.

Many times cars will come into a repair shop with rusted lugs. Some
lugs will come off with an impact wrench and others will break off
because they are too rusted. However, just because the lug nut came
off with an impact does not mean that the stud was not damaged,
fractured, or over-stressed when removing the lug nut, due to the
corrosion present. Due to corrosion, after removing a lug nut, you
could have a fractured or structurally compromised lug stud(s) and not
even know it. This is another reason I can think of to apply
*something* to lug nuts and studs to keep them from rusting.

Is there anyone out there that has had some real world experience with
this, perhaps with fleet vehicles ?

I would appreciate any feedback or thoughts on the subject.

Thanks
John

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:17:08 -0700 (PDT), John2005
<johnjmechanical@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>I would like to start a discussion on the use of anti seize on vehicle
>lug nuts. Searching the net, there are people that claim to have used
>anti seize on lug nuts for many years with no problems, and some
>people that advise against it.


Rule of thumb I stole from a friend of mine: If you're not going
to Loctite it, anti-seize it.

"scrape" <scrapeNOTHANKS@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q3ajg45mbn883g8u2vl1kjign5tcniklhq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:17:08 -0700 (PDT), John2005
> <johnjmechanical@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>I would like to start a discussion on the use of anti seize on vehicle
>>lug nuts. Searching the net, there are people that claim to have used
>>anti seize on lug nuts for many years with no problems, and some
>>people that advise against it.
>
>
> Rule of thumb I stole from a friend of mine: If you're not going
> to Loctite it, anti-seize it.

NEVER use oil, grease or anything else on wheel lugs. Threads should be
clean and DRY!

We got into this on the early Bronco list. I did a test on a D150 Dodge and
a dual axle trailer. Oiled one set of lugs on each vehicle. Drove about a
thousand miles and re-torqued the lugs at every fill up. The oiled ones were
always a little loose. The reason I did the truck and trailer is the truck
had lug nuts, the trailer had lug bolts.

I was one of the few voting for no oil. ( Have to keep politics in the front
of our minds Used to teach auto mechanics in the 60's and GM preached this
at every training session.

One other nugget of information I got from driving a tow truck in my youth.
Aluminum wheels that have a hole in the center larger than the center hub on
the axle, are an accident waiting to happen. They get loose and bust the
lugs and off comes the wheel. Some clowns even put spacers between the wheel
and the hub. They should be up on their prayers. Another disaster is those
cheap steel spoked white wheels. Most have a lump where the lugs tighten.
The real cheap ones do not. The center is just stamped out of sheet steel.
More "fly off" wheels. Look at this picture for decent wheels. Look hard at
the center and you'll see the raised area.
http://www.sturdybuiltonline.com/15-...l_p_2-131.html

Al

> Oiled one set of lugs on each vehicle. Drove about a thousand miles and
> re-torqued the lugs at every fill up. The oiled ones were always a little
> loose. The reason I did the truck and trailer is the truck had lug nuts,
> the trailer had lug bolts.
>
> I was one of the few voting for no oil. ( Have to keep politics in the
> front of our minds Used to teach auto mechanics in the 60's and GM
> preached this at every training session.
>
> One other nugget of information I got from driving a tow truck in my
> youth. Aluminum wheels that have a hole in the center larger than the
> center hub on the axle, are an accident waiting to happen. They get loose
> and bust the lugs and off comes the wheel. Some clowns even put spacers
> between the wheel and the hub. They should be up on their prayers. Another
> disaster is those cheap steel spoked white wheels. Most have a lump where
> the lugs tighten. The real cheap ones do not. The center is just stamped
> out of sheet steel. More "fly off" wheels. Look at this picture for decent
> wheels. Look hard at the center and you'll see the raised area.
> http://www.sturdybuiltonline.com/15-...l_p_2-131.html

There's a slight difference between oiling lug nuts versus using an light
coating of anti-sieze conmpound on the same nuts. Anti-sieze is not a lube.

"Augustus" <no_one@no_where.net> wrote in message
news:lYtOk.5087$%%2.49@edtnps82...
>> Oiled one set of lugs on each vehicle. Drove about a thousand miles and
>> re-torqued the lugs at every fill up. The oiled ones were always a little
>> loose. The reason I did the truck and trailer is the truck had lug nuts,
>> the trailer had lug bolts.
>>
>> I was one of the few voting for no oil. ( Have to keep politics in the
>> front of our minds Used to teach auto mechanics in the 60's and GM
>> preached this at every training session.
>>
>> One other nugget of information I got from driving a tow truck in my
>> youth. Aluminum wheels that have a hole in the center larger than the
>> center hub on the axle, are an accident waiting to happen. They get loose
>> and bust the lugs and off comes the wheel. Some clowns even put spacers
>> between the wheel and the hub. They should be up on their prayers.
>> Another disaster is those cheap steel spoked white wheels. Most have a
>> lump where the lugs tighten. The real cheap ones do not. The center is
>> just stamped out of sheet steel. More "fly off" wheels. Look at this
>> picture for decent wheels. Look hard at the center and you'll see the
>> raised area.
>> http://www.sturdybuiltonline.com/15-...l_p_2-131.html
>
> There's a slight difference between oiling lug nuts versus using an light
> coating of anti-sieze conmpound on the same nuts. Anti-sieze is not a
> lube.
>I use anti seize too. Carry over from working on aircraft days. Have been
>for a couple of decades with no problems. One or two years here and
>exposed luguts break off from rust when trying to remove the nuts. I also
>put it on the back of brake rotors where they rust on the hub and cant be
>pulled off. And on the inside of the wheels where they rust on the discs.
>I've seen cars with exhaust studs and pipes antiseized here in the muffler
>shops. Because they need to be able to make warranty repairs without
>replacing the whole thing . Also ball joint nuts, tie rod adjusters, and
>brake lines, on alternator bolts , oil pan bolts, Any belt adjuster or
>accessory adjustment bolts. Even brake bleeders. and hose clamps.
However saying that. I live in the rustbelt. I believe the salt that's
used here 5 months a year on the road make anti seize necessary. But down
south or in hot areas such as Arizona or Cali . The lugnuts and brake disc
dont rust on. I 've seen this topic elsewhere. I think it depends on the
rust you get where you live. Here rust welds the parts together. And brake
drums get too thin from rust here from the outside. Before they get worn
out from the shoes on the inside. Cars here get recalled for floor rust
from the inside. From peoples shoes. Waterproof rubber mats are required or
your floors will rot from the inside. Not from the bottom. Brand new
cars here have rust on them in the dealer lots.



And if you antiseize your lugnuts you need to tighten them more. To
compensate for the amount of torque needed to overcome the antiseizes
properties.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:21:05 +0000, Augustus wrote:

>> Oiled one set of lugs on each vehicle. Drove about a thousand miles and
>> re-torqued the lugs at every fill up. The oiled ones were always a
>> little loose. The reason I did the truck and trailer is the truck had
>> lug nuts, the trailer had lug bolts.
>>
>> I was one of the few voting for no oil. ( Have to keep politics in the
>> front of our minds Used to teach auto mechanics in the 60's and GM
>> preached this at every training session.
>>
>> One other nugget of information I got from driving a tow truck in my
>> youth. Aluminum wheels that have a hole in the center larger than the
>> center hub on the axle, are an accident waiting to happen. They get
>> loose and bust the lugs and off comes the wheel. Some clowns even put
>> spacers between the wheel and the hub. They should be up on their
>> prayers. Another disaster is those cheap steel spoked white wheels.
>> Most have a lump where the lugs tighten. The real cheap ones do not.
>> The center is just stamped out of sheet steel. More "fly off" wheels.
>> Look at this picture for decent wheels. Look hard at the center and
>> you'll see the raised area.
>> http://www.sturdybuiltonline.com/15-...Spoke-Trailer-
Wheel_p_2-131.html
>
> There's a slight difference between oiling lug nuts versus using an
> light coating of anti-sieze conmpound on the same nuts. Anti-sieze is
> not a lube.

Anti-sieze is a grease pure and simple. Grease is a misture of oil and a
binder such as soap or molybednium disulphate or (in this case) metal
powder.

Grease is a lubricant.

I tried the anti-sieze experiment some years back and the lug nuts always
came loose no matter how little I tried to use. Too much rides on my
wheels.

I have also posted this question at some engineering forums and other
newsgroups. The general consensus seems to be that the use of anti
seize on vehicle lug nuts that are properly torqued, is not going to
contribute to the lug nuts loosening. It seems wherever I posted, more
people reported using anti seize on lug nuts for years without any
problems, than people advised against it.

It also seems to be considered that the application of lubricants in
general to properly torqued fasteners will not contribute to their
loosening. It is generally considered that traverse movement is what
causes fasteners to loosen www.boltscience.com.

However, it probably makes good sense that the anti seize be very
sparingly applied to *only* the lug stud thread and *not* the contact
or interface point between the end of the lug nut and the rim. The
question of whether or not to decrease the manufacturers torque
specifications to account for the application of anti seize is
debatable, but if you can keep the anti seize off of the contact point
between the end of the lug nut where it seats in the rim, you are
probably better off staying with the manufacturers specified torque.
The following information will explain why.

I found some info regarding wheel stud failure here...

http://www.boltscience.com/pages/failure4.htm
*
The link directly below goes to a page with some interesting
information regarding the difference in axial loads (preload) obtained
when coating *only* the threads with anti seize, and when coating both
the threads *and* under the bolt head or nut. Apparently, if the
information is reliable, there is a huge change in axial load when you
coat both the threads and under the bolt head or nut, as compared with
hardly any change in axial load when you apply anti seize to *only*
the threads and not under the bolt head or nut.

http://www.mechanicsupport.com/articleTorqueWrench.html

If you look at the table / charts provided near the bottom of the page
at the link directly above, using anti seize on the *thread only*
shows slightly less axial load than using no lubricant at all. This is
probably due to the wide variation in friction of identical bolts with
dry un-lubricated threads, which can be as much as +/- 25% to +/-
50%.. See the following links for more information…

http://www.surebolt.com/

http://www.rstechltd.com/TITERITE.PDF

http://www.rstechltd.com/Advanced%20...Oct%202001.pdf

http://www.rstechltd.com/Technical_articles.htm (some more articles
here)

http://www.hexagon.de/dose/dose-1e.pdf

http://euler9.tripod.com/fasteners/preload.html

They say that about 90% of the input torque of the torque wrench is
consumed by friction, with 50% of the friction being between the bolt
head and mounting surface, 40% of the friction being in the threads, &
only 10% being the stretch of the bolt which produces the axial force
or preload.

The article at mechanicsupport.com references another article titled
"Failure of bolts in helicopter main rotor drive plate assembly due to
improper application of lubricant" by N. Eliaz, G. Gheorghiu, H.
Sheinkopf, O. Levi, G. Shemesh, A. Mordecai, H. Artzi, Published in
Engineering Failure Analysis #10, pages 443-451

Here is a link to the article published in engineering failure
analysis…

http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~neliaz/Papers_Files/C27.pdf

Regarding the article at the link directly above, it seems it was not
the use of anti seize that was causing failure of the helicopter rotor
bolts, but rather the improper application of anti seize that was
causing failure, namely applying anti seize under the bolt head or nut
instead of only applying it to the fastener threads. Applying anti
seize under the bolt heads and/or nuts increased axial loads
substantially. It also appears Tightening by turning the bolt instead
of, as specified, the nut, resulted in more torque going into bolt
tension rather than being absorbed by bolt head friction.

Would it be unreasonable to require engineers to design all *critical*
threaded joints & related components (wheel lugs, helicopter rotors,
etc. anything where a life may be at stake) to be able to withstand
the maximum axial loads produced by torquing lubricated threads to
specs with a torque wrench ? The lubricants vary, so they should
design for the lube that produces the lowest friction.

It seems anti seize and/or lube on threaded joints is a good idea in
most cases, plus applying the lube produces more consistent and
accurate transmission of torque, so it would appear to make sense to
always design for a lubricated joint.

I have also read that research has shown that not lubricating the
thread and nut face will result in the friction value increasing on re-
tightening which subsequently reduces the preload for a given torque
value. This would be especially important regarding lug nuts, which
are being removed & re-tightened frequently for tire rotations.**

It seems all torque specifications should specify both dry and
lubricated threads for reference, & if lubrication or anti seize is
required or recommended, it's exact application method should be
specified. Although ideally the joint would be designed to withstand a
worse case scenario application of lube on both the threads and under
the bolt head.

At the http://www.boltscience.com website, they say that it is
actually transverse joint movement that causes loosening of threaded
fasteners. In the case of a wheel, friction between the wheel and the
hub prevent traverse movement. The friction is generated by the axial
force generated by the torqued lug nuts.

Because of traverse movement causing joint loosening, it's probably
best to not use anti seize or any lube on the back side of the rim
where it contacts the rotors, hub, or brake drums.

My feeling is the benefit of using anti seize on lug nut studs
outweigh any concerns of problems it may cause. I do think it is a
good idea to apply the anti seize very sparingly to the lug studs, and
to try to not get any anti seize on the contact point between the end
of the lug & where it seats in the rim lug recesses.

The last time I used anti seize on lug nuts, I think the way I did it
was to smear a small dab of anti seize on the end of the lug stud,
then run a lug nut on the stud by hand back and forth until a thin
film of anti seize covers most all the stud (almost up to the rim). I
ran the nut back and forth on the stud enough times so that it did not
push a glob of anti seize between the end of the lug and where the lug
seats in the rim when I was ready to finally tighten the lugs down. I
wiped off any anti seize at the lug end as required.

If anti seize is used however, it seems wise to be extra careful to
make sure that any shop you take your vehicle too only uses a hand
torque wrench to tighten the lugs to the correct torque.

The main question that remains is whether to torque the lugs to
manufacturers specs or reduce the torque by a percentage to compensate
for any increase in axial loads due to the anti seize. Based on the
information given above, & my experience, my guess is to just torque
the lugs to manufacturers specs, especially if you use the anti seize
very sparingly and can keep it off the end of the lug nuts where they
seat with the rims.

This has worked for me and I think the fact that it did not warp my
rotors is a clue that the axial loads are not too outrageous. Shops
warp rotors all the time with power impact wrenches, and they might
turn or replace your rotors, but they don't replace the lug studs as a
precaution for the possibility of them being overstressed by the
impact which warped the rotors.

This reasoning may not apply to all vehicles, especially larger tucks,
but for most pickups and cars, I would think that if you have not
warped the rotors and you do not feel any break pulsations, then you
probably have not overstressed the lug nuts & studs to a point of any
real concern. Impact wrenches break lug studs off all the time, I
doubt anyone has broken a lug stud off with a hand torque wrench,
whether coated with anti seize or not. I doubt any rotors have been
warped with a hand torque wrench, anti seize on lug studs or not.

John

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:27:22 -0700, John2005 wrote:

> John

Well, you have your mind made up so do what you want but I'll not change
because my experience tells me not to.

John2005 wrote:
> I have also posted this question at some engineering forums and other
> newsgroups. The general consensus seems to be that the use of anti
> seize on vehicle lug nuts

<Snip> all the horseshit.

Dammit, man - this is a long assed thread for such a stupid subject.
Millions of cars and trucks get produced and I've never seen ONE come from
the factory with anti-sieze on the lugnuts. I worked in a tire shop for
awhile and I've seen just about every form of abuse that could be applied to
lug nuts. However, if you just put it together the way the factory did, all
will be well. The manufacturer has engineers and metalurgists and a whole
bunch of other smart guys working there so they probably looked at the
feasibility of anti-sieze more than once. If you want to use it, go ahead.
Why in the world would you try to convince everyone else that its a good
idea? It won't hurt anything, so use it if you want to.

George wrote:
>However, if you just put it together the way the factory did, all
> will be well.

Until you get a flat miles from nowhere and your lugs are so rusted
you can't get them off without a breaker bar, and you don't have a
breaker bar, then your in trouble. Another problem is that if the lug
is rusted to the stud, and someone takes it off with an impact, it
could over stress or fracture the stud without anyone knowing it. The
concerns are valid.

George wrote:
> Why in the world would you try to convince everyone else that its a good
> idea?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, why in the world would
you think I'm trying to convince anyone of anything ? This is a
discussion, and one would expect opposing views. Obtaining opposing
viewpoints & getting the pros and cons was the point of the post. I
just let people know my feelings after I got some feedback on the
subject, and let them know the general results of feedback from other
venues. I don't care if other people use it or not, a year from now, I
may change my mind and not use it. I was simply letting people know my
experiences what I decided based on the feedback I got, that's all.

George wrote:
>The manufacturer has engineers and metalurgists and a whole
> bunch of other smart guys working there so they probably looked at the
> feasibility of anti-sieze more than once.

The auto manufacturers are not going to spend time and money applying
anti seize to studs if the don't have to, but that does not mean that
application could not provide advantages. However, I have heard that
newer vehicles have better rust prevention coatings on the studs and
lugs, so perhaps it's either not an issue, or not as much of an issue
with them.

> Dammit, man - this is a long assed thread for such a stupid subject.

The thread is what it is, just like your opinion of it.

John