I've got a little winter project going on with my C5Z. Upgrading brakes, longer wheel studs, a Sam Strano sway bar, Kooks long tubes and mid pipes, and a complete fluid change on everything should wrap up this phase. That and repairing some minor accident damage that happened when some idiot (me) hit it with their pickup truck.
So I'm putting the right front back together and thought I had the torque settings memorized. A had the wrench set for 96# for the bearing unit and had it in my head that the lower ball joint nut was 125#. I didn't readjust the wrench. I figured I'd take it to 96# first and then readjust. By the time I got to 96 I realized it was taking a lot more effort than the other side. So I check my numbers and saw my mistake. 60# for this one. Good thing I didn't go 125!
Almost any other bolt I'd just adjust it and send it. But this one is a ball joint nut and I prefer to not be a loathsome danger to myself and everyone I share the road with. Should I replace it? It's a huge PITA but the winter is long and cold.
IMO 96 is OK given the diameter of the thread.
I've never overtorqued my ball joints, but I imagine it hurts.
The winter is long so you have the time.
New ball joints are typically pretty inexpensive, broken ones can be very expensive.
Opti
SuperDork
12/20/22 12:38 p.m.
Ive never looked up a torque spec for a ball joint, and havent had a failure. Not to say you wont, and as mentioned a failure is expensive. Truthfully my anxiety an OCD would get the best of me, if I had gone far enough to post about it, i would just keep thinking about it and Id have to replace it.
You be fine. It is an amazingly robust connection.
The thread title reminded me of Sam Behr's commercial for Allied Discount Tire back in 1988...
L5wolvesf said:
I've never overtorqued my ball joints, but I imagine it hurts
I'm expecting a lot of jokes.....
I wouldn't worry about it, might take a little more gusto to separate next time but I wouldn't worry about it. I suspect most of them have been reassembled without a torque wrench, I don't use a torque wrench on mine so they're probably somewhere between tight enough and a little bit more.
In reply to dclafleur :
The old method for ball joints with castellated nuts was to make it freakin' tight, then tighten it more until the nut lined up to put the cotter pin in. If you went too far, do not loosen it, tighten it another 60 degrees or so to the next one. Many have been tightened far in excess of "spec" 
The key is to not loosen them once tightened. If you think you over torqued it, leave it alone. The real stress is in the taper, that is what holds it together. I suspect the knuckle is the real weak point in the equation.
Metal is surprisingly stretchy and springy, I would not give it a second thought. I suspect the "spec" is just a general idea of what it should be, not a hard and fast rule, so people don't leave them finger tight or reef them until the threads give way.
I drove for a month with an RX-7 that someone did up all the nuts in the steering linkage like wheel bearings: finger tight, back off enough to put a cotter pin in. All of the tapers were LOOSE. Fortunately none of the receiving tapers were egged out, or at least not enough to matter. (Ref.: metal is stretchy and springy)
I'll disagree with every post on here. That joint is hosed. You stopped tightening when it didn't feel right, and that means it stopped getting tighter. By then, you were feeling the stud yield. It yielded right at the base of the thread, between where the thread stops and the taper starts. Sure, the taper is seated like it was welded now, and ball joints are designed with some margin there, but there's no way I wouldn't be thinking about that compromised taper at 130 on a back straight, WFO past the 5 marker and heading for the brakes. Pay your penalty and replace it.
If you thought the chances of it, causing a problem were zero, you wouldn't have posted. Listen to your gut. "Probably be OK" isn't what you're looking for.
Change it you will sleep better.
Just to be clear neither of those torque specs are correct. The Torque spec is 15 lb ft 1st pass, 210 degrees 2nd pass, and 52 lb ft 3rd pass. That's per the 2001 Factory manual. I wouldn't worry about the stud either the bigger concern is the knuckle. For my track C5Z the ball joint is a point I check multiple times during the season because the heating and cooling it experiences. Before you tear it all apart make sure you can get a good ball joint.
Nockenwelle said:
I'll disagree with every post on here. That joint is hosed. You stopped tightening when it didn't feel right, and that means it stopped getting tighter. By then, you were feeling the stud yield. It yielded right at the base of the thread, between where the thread stops and the taper starts. Sure, the taper is seated like it was welded now, and ball joints are designed with some margin there, but there's no way I wouldn't be thinking about that compromised taper at 130 on a back straight, WFO past the 5 marker and heading for the brakes. Pay your penalty and replace it.
Maybe I misspoke. I stopped tightening when the torque wrench popped indicating I was at the set (albeit incorrect) torque. 96#. I got no other indication that anything was yielding- I just noticed I was having to grunt harder than on the other side. I then backed it off to 60# which I have learned here, might not have been the thing to do.
dclafleur said:
Just to be clear neither of those torque specs are correct. The Torque spec is 15 lb ft 1st pass, 210 degrees 2nd pass, and 52 lb ft 3rd pass. That's per the 2001 Factory manual. I wouldn't worry about the stud either the bigger concern is the knuckle. For my track C5Z the ball joint is a point I check multiple times during the season because the heating and cooling it experiences. Before you tear it all apart make sure you can get a good ball joint.
I'm aware of those multiple pass angular settings. I don't know how to accurately measure 210 degrees in my shop with my socket over the nut. I might get 200 plus or minus 20. Reading the C5 forums I've found that practically nobody follows those specs. They ballpark it. But what I did isn't really even in the same ballpark.
It'll be fine. You can back it off and torque to the right setting if you really want to.
A 401 CJ said:
Nockenwelle said:
I'll disagree with every post on here. That joint is hosed. You stopped tightening when it didn't feel right, and that means it stopped getting tighter. By then, you were feeling the stud yield. It yielded right at the base of the thread, between where the thread stops and the taper starts. Sure, the taper is seated like it was welded now, and ball joints are designed with some margin there, but there's no way I wouldn't be thinking about that compromised taper at 130 on a back straight, WFO past the 5 marker and heading for the brakes. Pay your penalty and replace it.
Maybe I misspoke. I stopped tightening when the torque wrench popped indicating I was at the set (albeit incorrect) torque. 96#. I got no other indication that anything was yielding- I just noticed I was having to grunt harder than on the other side. I then backed it off to 60# which I have learned here, might not have been the thing to do.
60 ft lbs on that size of a bolt is not stretched and my guess is that 96 isn't either. The torque of a ball joint is not to stretch the bolt for proper clamping (like a head bolt or lug nut) it's to properly seat the taper in the bore. If you were torquing for clamping (tension), you probably wouldn't need the cotter pin. The cotter pin is there because the bolt ISN'T torqued to clamp, it's torqued to seat the taper. I don't think you damaged a single thing. Some ball joints you're supposed to torque it to X and then back off to line up the pin. The threaded part on a ball joint isn't what is taking the load, it's simply holding the press-fit taper in it's hole. The taper does the work, not the nut.
Torque on a bolt isn't what a lot of people think it is. It's an approximation within a range of acceptable fastener stretch. I promise you're not stretching the tapered part of the ball joint at 96#. Probably not even 125#. The issue is whether or not you stretched the threaded part beyond it's yield... which I doubt you did. It's what... 1/2" thread?
Would I change it? Probably. It would make me feel better in a hard corner.
Opti said:
Ive never looked up a torque spec for a ball joint, and havent had a failure. Not to say you wont, and as mentioned a failure is expensive. Truthfully my anxiety an OCD would get the best of me, if I had gone far enough to post about it, i would just keep thinking about it and Id have to replace it.
This is me. I'd be too worried about to not replace a cheap part.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Probably M14 or M16, which routinely get torqued to the 200 ft-lb range for lug nuts.
The side loads are far, far higher than 96 ft-lb is stressing the fastener. Or the knuckle. For braincheck, the lug nuts are M12-1.5 and those have a torque spec of 100 ft-lb. GM uses M12-1.75 for suspension fasteners when 12mm is used, which requires more torque for a given fastener load.
If it was loosened after tightening, THAT worries me. I'd pop the taper apart and reassemble. Right now, the nut is effectively loose.
If you are really worried that you overtorqued it, replace the knuckle not the ball joint. But honestly going a little over "spec" is very, very low on the list of things that stress the suspension.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:
A 401 CJ said:
Nockenwelle said:
I'll disagree with every post on here. That joint is hosed. You stopped tightening when it didn't feel right, and that means it stopped getting tighter. By then, you were feeling the stud yield. It yielded right at the base of the thread, between where the thread stops and the taper starts. Sure, the taper is seated like it was welded now, and ball joints are designed with some margin there, but there's no way I wouldn't be thinking about that compromised taper at 130 on a back straight, WFO past the 5 marker and heading for the brakes. Pay your penalty and replace it.
Maybe I misspoke. I stopped tightening when the torque wrench popped indicating I was at the set (albeit incorrect) torque. 96#. I got no other indication that anything was yielding- I just noticed I was having to grunt harder than on the other side. I then backed it off to 60# which I have learned here, might not have been the thing to do.
60 ft lbs on that size of a bolt is not stretched and my guess is that 96 isn't either. The torque of a ball joint is not to stretch the bolt for proper clamping (like a head bolt or lug nut) it's to properly seat the taper in the bore. If you were torquing for clamping (tension), you probably wouldn't need the cotter pin. The cotter pin is there because the bolt ISN'T torqued to clamp, it's torqued to seat the taper. I don't think you damaged a single thing. Some ball joints you're supposed to torque it to X and then back off to line up the pin. The threaded part on a ball joint isn't what is taking the load, it's simply holding the press-fit taper in it's hole. The taper does the work, not the nut.
Torque on a bolt isn't what a lot of people think it is. It's an approximation within a range of acceptable fastener stretch. I promise you're not stretching the tapered part of the ball joint at 96#. Probably not even 125#. The issue is whether or not you stretched the threaded part beyond it's yield... which I doubt you did. It's what... 1/2" thread?
Would I change it? Probably. It would make me feel better in a hard corner.
Interestingly this car has no cotter pins on any of the tapered joints - balls or tie rod ends. I wondered about that.
dclafleur said:
Just to be clear neither of those torque specs are correct. The Torque spec is 15 lb ft 1st pass, 210 degrees 2nd pass, and 52 lb ft 3rd pass. That's per the 2001 Factory manual. I wouldn't worry about the stud either the bigger concern is the knuckle. For my track C5Z the ball joint is a point I check multiple times during the season because the heating and cooling it experiences. Before you tear it all apart make sure you can get a good ball joint.
This brought back a memory from when I replaced ball joints on my C5. I did the 15 ft*lb pass, set the torque wrench to 52 ft*lb, went to do the 210 degree pass...and the torque wrench clicked before I got to 180 degrees. So I just gave it a little extra tug and left it, and it's been just fine. I am with the group that this is not critical.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to A 401 CJ :
Nylocs.
I've been using Nylocs in a tube. 242 Blue. The C5 hive seems to be all over the place on what the right thread-lock is with a good number not using any at all.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Probably M14 or M16, which routinely get torqued to the 200 ft-lb range for lug nuts.
The side loads are far, far higher than 96 ft-lb is stressing the fastener. Or the knuckle. For braincheck, the lug nuts are M12-1.5 and those have a torque spec of 100 ft-lb. GM uses M12-1.75 for suspension fasteners when 12mm is used, which requires more torque for a given fastener load.
If it was loosened after tightening, THAT worries me. I'd pop the taper apart and reassemble. Right now, the nut is effectively loose.
If you are really worried that you overtorqued it, replace the knuckle not the ball joint. But honestly going a little over "spec" is very, very low on the list of things that stress the suspension.
200 ft lbs ??? For a truck I could see that. I have never had a car over 120ft lbs. I am sure there are some but that seems high for a car lug nut.
I also am also the guy that for many years did many things to the "gutentight" spec. I only use that on my German cars. So there is that.
