Update on anti-seize - wheel bolts issue
Tonite I pulled my summer wheel bolts from storage to measure them. These are bolts supplied with mt SSR Integrals by TireRack. I also use McGard bolts so I happen to have 4 bolts that are unused. The remainder have probably been removed and reinstalled 10+ times in the past 18 months...probably a little higher than average, even among Audi nuts.
I used a caliper to measure the length of all the bolts. Assuming close manufacturing tolerances, if there is an issue with 90lbft and anti-seize improperly deforming the bolts, the ones that have been used should be longer. What I found was there is no meaningful difference between the bolts, new or used - they were all the same length +/- .001" and the used ones did not as a group measure longer. I did have one bolt that was .004" shorter than the rest - it is a used one. This suggests to me that at 90 lbft we are not stressing the bolts whether they have some form of lube or not.
In my previous update - at the end of the previous thread - I indicated that as far as I can determine so far the bolts we use should have oiled/dry maximum torque ratings of about 110/150. I am waiting to hear back from TireRack and McGard regarding bolt grade. Audi responded with "ask your dealer" - which I guess I expected (disapointed but not surprised).<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/a4/msgs/987318.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/a4/msgs/987318.phtml</a</li></ul>
The wheel face of course. I've seen some peeoples cars with wheels where it was obvious the bolt was on to tight.
Further, I have read a couple corporate sites and .org (particularly BMW sites) that anti-seize paste can reduce friction up to 50% (a lot of variance depending on the paste used) where as the "lightly lubricated" assumes a light oil and a reduction of about 20%.
If we assume the best case friction reduction with anti-seize we should probably not be torquing over 75 lbft (50% reduction) and 90 lbft would be an appropriate max for a 40% or less reduction in friction. I would be surprised if any of us were getting 50% reduction.
One more point I saw online but didnt look into. One fastener manufacturer referred to differenced in max torque according to the primary forces applied to the joint. A primarily sheer load called for a lower max torque than a stretch load by about 20%.
Oh, here is an interesting bit. If you look up the anti-seize paste at griotsgarage, the photo is of someone applying it to a wheel bolt...
I dont know about you all but for me, the more tech data I get, the less clear this whole thing becomes.
For me...
I havent seen anything (experience or tech data) to make me stop using anti-seize (we cant all live in California and the snow belt is hell on corrosion with these fasteners) or change the torque (90lbft - well 89lbft is the conversion from NM) I apply.
I think I need something important to come up and suck up my free time...standing around in a cold garage measuring bolts with a precision caliper must be one of the signs of someone with way too much time on their hands.




