Mkos1980

iTrader: (8)

I purchased a new K member, a arms and All new bolts for everything. I got to the spindle to strut bolts and both snapped under the 195lbs tq per the book. TQ wrench is a new snap-on. I got the top one tight and then click the wrench went off. I went to install the bottom one and it got tight then soft then softer and snapped it in half. I said WTF. GM bolts never did this. I go get another one from the bag (which would have been for the other side) same senario. Snapped. WTF I get the last one and it got tight and clicked off the wrench perfectly. I am going to email and see if they would replace these for me. Thats BS that these broke. Then should be able to withstand more TQ then that. Heres a pic of the broen bolts and then the new ones installed.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

are they grade 10.9? they shouldnt be breaking like that.

89_RS

I think that you're over doing it on torque. I have my Haynes manual for 82-92 Thidgens here and the highest value I find for anything suspension is right around 65ft/lbs. If you're doing 195ft/lbs torque, that would explain why they are breaking.

I found a chart that gives a very decent range of US threaded bolts and the recommended torque based on grade. A 1/2-13 Grade 8 bolt, which is very similar to your 12mm bolt, is only supposed to be torqued to 98ft/lbs. That number goes down if you use a lube on the threads. To convert between inch and foot pounds, multiply the inch pounds by .83 to get foot pounds. If the bolts were labeled to be torqued to 195inch/pounds that would mean that they would require 162ft/lbs of torque, which is still enough to break the bolt.

http://www.offroaders.com/tech/Bolt-Identification.htm

Grade 10.9 doesn't have a much higher yield than a Grade 8 bolt. Either way, I think hes way over torquing the bolts.

Mkos1980

iTrader: (8)

Yup 10.9's my Hayes says right in the specs "Strut assembly" Strut-to-Knuckle bolts...........195lbs I 'm looking at page 11-2

Mkos1980

iTrader: (8)

I emailed spohn. I hope they send me 4 more out. 2 extra JIC


89, the bolts are 5/8's putting that over 200lbs

lonesomeloser

65 ft/lbs!? My Haynes calls for 195, but mine are probably around 175. I had no problems with my Spohn bolts.

c5racing

202 ft lbs. according to the 88 factory service manual.

UnderCover89TBI

iTrader: (25)

[QUOTE=89_RS;4622466] 195inch/pounds that would mean that they would require 162ft/lbs of torqueQUOTE]

195 inch lbs divided by 12=16.25 ft lbs so that is wrong

anyway no way those bolts are 195 ft lbs. no freaking way. major misprint. i dont believe it.

1986Z28OWNER

iTrader: (1)

[quote=UnderCover89TBI;4622538]How many time do you need to be proven wrong? 203 ft lbs according to 1991 camaro service manual?

Scorpner

iTrader: (4)

It's probably better that they're snapping off now rather than when you're driving it. Can you get them from GM anymore? I'd imagine you're going to get the same thing again unless you switch suppliers.



(And yes, the strut mount bolts are around 200ft-lbs)

UnderCover89TBI

iTrader: (25)

[QUOTE=1986Z28OWNER;4622670]well i dont believe it. and maybe 1 time being that i havnt been proved wrong yet? that was my 1st post on this thread topic. just go to orchard and buy the bolts you need in grade 8 and tighten them up and go.

Mkos1980

iTrader: (8)

Spohn said I should have only tq them to 170LBS cause thats what they do. Kinda BS in my book. They wont replace them.

BluFBdy

iTrader: (1)

That sounds like a bunch of crap, theyre supposed to be around 195, Haynes says that and so does Mitchell the way i look at it, If you put them to 170 and they fell apart while driving im pretty sure sphon would have a lawsuit.... id go to a different source if theyre not gonna adhere to factory standards....that just seems dangerous

87350IROC

iTrader: (2)

I torqued my Spohn bolts to 202 ft lb with no problems. Thats what the '87 Camaro service manual call out.

lonesomeloser

That's crap. They should include a warning sticker on them, then.

gregsz-28

iTrader: (1)

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

All my service books said something close to 200 ft lbs. I torqued my stock GM bolts to that several times and never had a problem.

No idea why they need that much torque but thats what the manual says and thats what they got. I got the haynes, the chiltons, the 89 service manual thats over 6" thick, etc.

DIRTY JERZY

Just go with UMI parts from now on

Mkos1980

iTrader: (8)

I have a full UMI Rear suspension, but its sad that I spend over 1100 bucks on Spohn front parts and they cant send me 4 new bolts. Thats like 15 bucks. I was going to buy new swaybars to compliment everything but I dont think so now....

DIRTY JERZY

hit' em were it hurts

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

If Spohn won't even build their stuff up to factory specs, that is a reason not to buy from Spohn. We buy aftermarket parts because of superior strength, not because we want weaker stuff on our cars! Apparently Spohn builds weaker stuff.....

I'd go buy all new nuts & bolts, to replace everything Spohn supplied. Just because 2 bolts snapped, doesn't mean the rest weren't just 1 ft lb away from snapping too. Don't wanna find out the hard way, driving down the road! The extra force from the car being supported by them, could cause failure for just 1 more or all the rest.

Mkos1980

iTrader: (8)

Yea I'm not very happy with that. I called my buddy at the dealer to see if he could get me new bolts. My old bolts are good but super rusty. Just wanted everything all brand new looking.

howy03

iTrader: (2)

I was thinking about this when I put my suspension back together but felt 2 dumb to ask but here it goes.Does it make a difference if u torque the nut vs the bolt??? I put all my torque on the bolt holding the nut with a wrench.I wonder if the forces are greater if you apply all that pressure to the nut??(all umi and spohn parts w bolt kits)

BluFBdy

iTrader: (1)

It shouldn't, depending on if you put the bolt all the way in it shoudlnt make a difference, either way putting torque on either end would stretch the bolt til it snapped if its weak. I always ran the bolt in as far as possible and then tightened down the nut, held it with a box end wrench and torque down the bolt, pretty much the easiest accessible side

89_RS

I stand corrected. Looked it up again, and I did miss the 0 behind the decimal. So 1 inch pound is equal to .083 ft/pounds which means 195inch/pounds equals 16.2ft/lbs.

I also looked up the strut to spindle bolts in my Haynes, and the OP is correct. The torque spec is 195ft/lbs. I read through it and most everything tops out around 20-40ft/lbs of torque and theres a group around 65-70ft/lbs then there are few which are higher. I've scanned and attached the pages from my Haynes that deal with torque specs.

I feel like an idiot. Something must not have been working to well last night. A 5/8-11 bolt, which would be very close to the strut spindle bolt, for grade 8 hardware is rated at 210ft/lbs.

But if he did use a lube on the bolts, the link I cited had this to say:

" A Bolt must be torqued properly before it's optimum strength can be realized. Torqueing also maximizes the elasticity of the bolt to keep the fastener from loosening up on it's own. Over torqueing can ruin this elastic effect. When using lubricated threads, reduce torque values by the following amounts...45% when using anti-seize compound, 40% when using grease or heavy oil, 30% with graphite and 25% with white lead. Increase torque values by 5% for unplated bolts. Always use manufacturers torque specifications if they do not agree with this chart."

UnderCover89TBI

iTrader: (25)

everything ive bought from spohn they had specs saying what to torque the bolts too. and just because your torqueing a bolt to 170 ft lbs over 202 ft lbs. doesnt mean the bolt is weaker. a bolt tightens when the threads actually get stretched. so if 170 is all that is needed, that is fine.

c5racing

also makes a big difference if you torqued it straight to 195-202 ft lbs Without doing it with increments to get to the final spec.

BluFBdy

iTrader: (1)

this is true, but if its gonna snap its gonna snap, i normally go half the torque at first and get em all in then do the rest

Gumby

Just to back things up my cheap haynes say 195ftlbs

Though id probably step it, so the internal heat can disapate from the stress.

That much torque at once could be scorching hot in thwe core of the bolt.

a cold bolt and a hot one will break different.

89_RS

He either got a bad batch of hardware from Spohn, which is either Spohns fault or Spohns suppliers fault, or he held the nut in place while turning the bolt.

I wouldn't have a problem with a bad batch of bolts. Buy enough hardware and you'll see that there is a pretty consistent failure rate in hardware (ie something in the below 1% range). If Spohn makes its own hardware it should replace it, or even if they don't they should still replace it IMO. Is it kinda tacky that Spohn isn't replacing the bolts, yes. But that hardly constitutes the need for a boycott in my book.

However, if improper torquing technique was used, that would be a very good reason why they failed. Looking at the pics, it seems as if the nut seized on the bolt prior to failure. I can't tell if he was holding the nut and turning the bolt or not with 100% surety, but it looks very reminiscent of the bolts I broke like that when I started using a torque wrench.

Every bolt on the car that is torqued on is torqued to the just under the bolt's yield limit. Problem with a bolt is that its elastic limit and yield limit happen to be just under the ultimate strength of the bolt. Every bolt be it factory applied, aftermarket DIY install, or professionally installed is literally a pound/foot or two away from complete failure once torqued to finally spec. The final torque spec is enough to keep the bolt taught, but not deform it. In the engine, the bolts are a one time use item. They are torqued to yield almost all the time.

Mkos1980

iTrader: (8)

As a follow up, I cleaned up my old "rusted" bolts but used spohns nuts and washers and it clicked the wrench right off perfectly at 195.

Jr. Mechanic

iTrader: (3)

Uh, NO!

There is more to torque specs than the bolts. Different components require different torque specs. These are pinch bolts that secure the strut to the knuckle, and if GM engineers decided that 195 ft/lbs (what my book calls for), then that's what you need to torque them to.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

I just had a thought about the specs.....

The GM torque specs are for factory parts (stamped steel & rubber bushings). Couldn't the use of aftermarket parts (tubular steel & urethane bushings or rod ends) change the torque spec needed?

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

its quite possible.

another thing to consider with the bolts from spohn. I have hte same bolts, and the locking nuts were a LOT tighter on the threads than the old ones were. That could also add to the problems.

I didnt torque mine, never have torqued the spindle bolts on any of my 3rd gens. Just hammer the crap out of them with the impact and call it a day. Not "correct" but it works just fine.

burnrubber

iTrader: (4)

Just looking at the bolts, that seems like a really high torque spec. Those bolts are pretty important, however, and the values reported by other members seem to be in line with the maximum torque for grade 10.9 bolts that size according to this chart:

http://www.dansmc.com/torque_chart.htm

Thomas Aquinas

iTrader: (14)

I have this hardware on my car and no problems. I kept the instructions that spohn included with the hardware and it reads "Tighten the strut-to-knuckle nuts to 125 ft lbs, followed by a 120 degree turn. Final torque must not exceed 148 ft lbs. " I did this and nothing broke.
Just sharing my info.

Drew

iTrader: (58)

Just for fun I checked both the 1991 Camaro Service Manual, and the 1991 Firebird Service Manual, both show the torque spec for the strut bolts as...

After that I checked the Chiltons Total Car Care manuals for both the 82-92 Camaro and 82-92 Firebird. Both have the same procedure as the Helm/GM manual, except with the note that final torque must not exceed 200 NM (148lb ft).

The Chiltons Firebird manual goes on to show different specifications for different years in the torque specifications chart.
1982-86 195ft lbs.
1987-90 203ft lbs.
1991-92 Step 1 125ft lbs.
1991-92 Step 2 + 120 deg. turn or minimum 148 ft lbs.

I also checked both the Haynes Camaro and Firebird manuals, which both showed only 195 ft lbs.

The specs vary from year to year and from source to source. Your best bet for getting ACCURATE specs for YOUR car is to use the GM service manual for your car. The only manual that can be trusted is a GM/Helm service manual.

The Haynes manuals are by far the worst manuals ever offered for these cars. The Chiltons Total Car Care manuals have an assortment of diagrams and details right out of the GM manual. If you can't swing the GM manual, the Chiltons is a nice, cheap alternative.

UnderCover89TBI

iTrader: (25)

so i bought some ARP bolts and they say to torque them to 85 ft lbs but gm says those bolts should only be 65 ft lbs so who do i listen to then?

alan91z28

you can get pretty much all this hardware from your GM dealer. i only ran into a couple of bolts that they didn't have the ability to get anymore when i did my LS376/480 swap last year with new tubular k-member, etc...

in general plated high strength bolts are just asking for trouble... plating process causes the potential for a lot of problems in high grade bolts such as hydrogen embrittlement

you will find the gm bolts use various coatings, none of them being plate for this reason

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

arp made the bolts, torque them to arp specs.

Mkos1980

iTrader: (8)

I never got any sheets. I got 7 bags of bolts for various things and not one sheet of paper. Just a part number description.

UnderCover89TBI

iTrader: (25)

so if the people who made the bolts he used said to torque them to 170 would i torque them to 170 or to 195?

Jr. Mechanic

iTrader: (3)

Something like rod bolts or intake bolts are one thing, but pinch bolts are totally different. Besides, almost all ARP bolts call for HIGHER torque specs than the factory rating, not lower.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

The bolts on the car, originally from the factory, and GM replacement bolts, should be torqued to factory specs, IF the are reusable bolts, not all bolts are reusable.

Aftermarket bolts should be torqued to the specs provided with them from the manufacturer for the application.

but in reality, the bolts should have not broken at 190ft/lbs. My opinion, they are probably Chinese bolts, and not the proper hardness for the 10.9 grade.

UnderCover89TBI

iTrader: (25)

so what i have said is true. a bolt is tight when the thread stretches so if the bolts threads stretch at 170 then thier ya go

87350IROC

iTrader: (2)

Not really. The threads will stretch at 20ft lbs. The point is to obtain the proper stretch.

Confuzed1

iTrader: (4)

I've had dealings with Spohn in the past when I believe they were more Thirdgen oriented, and have been satisfied. That being said, I think I would be upset if they refused to send me a few lousy replacement bolts after spending that kind of money at their establishment.

And I don't really care if the bolts were inadvertently over torqued or not. You did say there were no instructions telling you to torque the Spohn bolts to 170ftlbs. correct? Most of us use Chilton's or Haynes manuals and that shouldn't be a secret to anyone.

Seems to me they should step up and accept some responsibility for that oversight. If what I'm hearing is correct, Spohn is not doing the right thing at all here.

To tell you the truth, after being treated like that I'd be tempted to remove all the Spohn parts I just purchased and return them in the original packaging and demand a FULL REFUND.

EDIT: I HOPE he responds to your complaint on this review and it'll be handled in a professional manner. I'll follow this thread close myself since I was ready to purchase a few expensive suspension components from Spohn again in the near future, but this has me thinking I should reconsider and go with another vendor.

DIRTY JERZY

Can not go wrong with umi

Birdstheword

did you guys hear about the guy who broke a spohn adjustable torque arm ? looks like spohn is having problems keeping their QC department tight , btw the torque arm broke due to a bad weld .

b4ccamaro

All I bought from them was their wonderbar. It fit like crap and the service I got when asking some fitment questions was poor at best. I didn't get skrewed or anything but the whole experience just left a bad taste in my mouth. I really doubt I will do any business with them again. They are happy to sell and not happy to help.