I use anti-seize on every nut and bolt on my Jeep except the lug nuts.

I do use it on the hubs.

This thread explains why it's a bad idea. It's not because the bolts loosen themselves, it's because you can over-tighten them and damage the bolt. Use care when tightening the bolts and you won't have a problem.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=304121

 

I'm not being petty, just concerned that the OP needs proper direction concerning torque application when using anti-seize. I haven't seen that from any of the responders to his inquiry except lowrange2's link he included in his response.

I suggest the OP read through the hits on this Google search and judge for himself what he should do.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=fastener+torque+reduction+when+using+anti-seize&btnG=Google+Search

 

anti-seize on everything for many years. including lug nuts torqued to 100.

i even slather it on and around my hub to knuckle flange so when i need to pull a hub, it falls off by itself.

proper torque on everything.

 

So proper torque for axle nut with anti seize would be half? I'd be scared to drive it if I saw it click at 88. Or by proper torque do you mean the full 175.

 

I think the issue is much more than just opinion. The physics of torque and bolts/threads occupy a lot of an engineer's time. If not specified, anti-seize probably should not be used in torque critcal situations, i.e., axle nut, head bolts, main bearings. http://www.mechanicsupport.com/articleTorqueWrench.html has some interesting info. Google/Bing will produce a lot of info.

 

everything to factory torque spec's. so axle nut to 175, lug nuts to 100 etc.

i have argued this with others in the past.
on the bottle of permatex anti-seize, it does not state to reduce torque spec's, so i go with factory recommended spec's.

anti-seize isn't a lube, it's only a paste to stop rusting/seizing.

 

There is no question that anti-seize is a lubricant as stated right upfront on most containers.

The amount to reduce measured torque when using anti-seize or any other lubricant is not voodoo engineering but without technical knowledge and expensive equipment, coming up with a figure for a given screw when working on our Jeeps has to involve some guesswork and generalities. A figure of 0 to 20% or perhaps a bit more seems to work for most cases.

A classic case of "to each his own"!

 

Read 5-90s research into this exact subject here: https://www.cherokeeforum.com/f67/to...2/#post2281736

 

Correct - reduce it by half.

You are reducing your installation torque because you are reducing friction between the mating threads, so you need less applied torque (turning force) to achieve the same preload (tensile stress) in the stub and on the bearings (which is actually a compressive load, caused by the tensile stress in the stub shaft.)

Since the axle shaft stub nut is retained by that sheetmetal cap and cotter pin, it should not loosen. If you can find the proper size (I don't know what it is, offhand,) you can also replace it with a heavy-duty (SAE8) castellated nut and eliminate the sheetmetal holder, then run the Cotter pin (or, as I more commonly use, hairpins or mechanic's safety pins) through the castellations on the nut.

If you have to move the nut to line up the castellations and the pin bore, always tighten. Never loosen.

The first D30 stub shafts I've done with never-seez was at least 12 years ago, and I haven't had a spot of trouble since (not even with premature bearing failure due to improper preloading.)

I verified the old "thumb rules" experimentally with thread lubrication vice applied torque vice tensile preload, and I'm sure this is one of the boards that I've discussed that fairly extensively on - you may find it interesting reading.

(It should be noted that applying lubricant and using full installation torque can result in fastening failure, as threads get pulled off. This is more common when running a fastener into a casting, due to the microstructure of the cast material - vice wrought or forged material...)

 

Salad posted a link to my experimental data - but the reduction in "clean, dry" torque has nothing to do with fastener material or use - it depends almost entirely upon lubricant used (other effects are negligible.)

Oh - and never-seez is useful on more than just difficult threads! Whenever I've put a front end together, I coat the tapered studs on TREs and ball joints (you only need to alter the torque value of the fastener if you get it on the threads,) and when a part fits relatively closely into a counterbore (like the backside of the hub unit bearing - coat the counterbore ID, then insert the part. Makes it come apart SO much easier next time! Similar use on the splines of the Pitman arm on the steering box - instead of slamming the puller on, you can usually just tighten it up, put a little strain on it, then tap the wall of the Pitman arm with a mallet and it frees right up. Tie rod ends? Run the nut until it's just past the last thread on the stud, then tap with a hammer - shouldn't need a pickle fork.

 

Same XJ for 5 years here. On my second large bottle of the permatex anti-sieze. Pretty much everything that is a replacement part gets some. Even the axle stubs. Yes, I wire-wheeled my hub-bearing "holes" in the knuckles and hosed them with anti-sieze when I replaced the bearings 4 years ago. They should leap out next time I need to replace them.

 

and watch your junk fall apart right under your azz

 

If you do everything right, no.

Recall that the primary retention for threaded fasteners is the elastic deformation between mating threads caused by tensile preload in the material, which is set by both the installed torque (turning force) and the friction between the threads (resistance to turning.)

Critical fasteners have extra retention - deformed threads, castellations and pins, and such - but you'll note that a number of threads do not - and they'll stay together for years just fine on their own!

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...,d.b2I&cad=rja

taken right from the permatex web site.

read step 6

 

Interesting
I just emailed them asking for a complete explanation.
I also emailed a friend, who is an engineer here at USC.
We shall, get a explanation one way or the other.

i've used a 50% reduction since i started working on cars in the 80s, and my grandfather taught me that, who was a Tech 5 Tank mechanic in WWII. I've never had a failure due to improper torque; ever.

5-90's research and physics are spot on; I'm now intrigued.