I've been rebuilding an 02 Sport Edition for the last few months, and I use a lot of the videos from Timmy the Toolman, and various write ups / how-to's in the forums. I was doing the work for the steering rack bushings when I came upon an interesting issue that I thought I'd share.

I decided to go with the bushing kit from Whiteline (PN W12978), and could not get the fastener that's furthest outboard on the driver's side of the rack to the FSM specified 141 ft/lb of torque. I kept going and going, but decided to stop, rip everything out, and diagnose the issue. Once I had the rack back off the frame I was able to pull out the bushing for that fastener and discovered that the inner sleeve and washer had completely failed. The washer was collapsing out over the small "nipple" that protrudes from the frame, and the sleeve had begun to collapse and form a ridge similar to a hardline on a fuel or vacuum line. I did contact Whiteline, and they're going to send me replacement parts, but I'm certain the new part will probably be unable to withstand that torque spec as well.

To me the real interesting thing I've found, and wanted to share, is that the FSM has conflicting information on the torque spec for that fastener. It lists 141 ft/lb in a table describing that particular fastener (SS-40 page 169) along with that spec showing in the reassembly procedure for the front lower suspension arm (SA-63 page 1233). This is also the spec I've seen in all videos and write ups, and I've used it myself, without incident, on my previous 01 4runner. However, because I had this issue I decided to look further into the FSM, and sure enough I found a conflict. Specifically if you turn to the section where it has the reassembly instructions for the steering rack, it says the torque spec on that fastener is 96 ft / lb (SR-42 page 1400 and SR-60 page 1418).

Has anyone encountered this conflict in the past? I'd be curious to know if anyone has followed up to determine the correct spec.

I'm thinking I may defer to the 96 ft/lb with the replacement Whiteline bushing to see if it'll be able to withstand that amount of force.

Sorry guys, I don't have anything set up yet to share pics, but the only pic I was hoping to share were the failed parts...

I just did this job last week too. I used the Whiteline bushings on a new steering rack. My FSM specified 96 ft-lb, like you mentioned.

I didn't have any problems torquing those fasteners. Due to the tight clearance for the wrench, I did under-torque the one vertical bolt specified for 123 ft-lb. Only took that one up to 100 ft-lbs I think.

Attached Images

 

Thanks for the feedback turbodudey2! When I see these discrepancies in the specs I know that some are just straight up typos, but I wonder if there were changes made over the model years (especially with all the changes that were inner generation), and the FSM has them all mixed together.

This is what happened when I tried torquing it to 141ft/lbs. Bent the washer and crimped the inner sleeve. I knew something was wrong because it definitely did not require that much force to take it off. I ended up having to buy another bushing kit from Whiteline. I think I ended up torquing it to 120ft/lb. I didn't really feel that much of an improvement, so I don't think it was worth it. The original bushings were still fine at 240,000 miles....I only did the bushings because I was replacing the steering rack hydraulic lines.

Attached Images

   

another picture of the bent washer.

Attached Images

 

Thanks for sharing this. This is not the first time a discrepancy like this have been found in the FSM. In my 2000 FSM, the same part diagram you showed has the torque value as 151 ft-lbs. Then, in the step by step pages of putting the steering rack on the vehicle, it specifies the spec as 141 ft-lbs and that's the spec we share in the video for that nut. With the other bolts at 123 ft-lbs, it's not a stretch to believe that big nut has a spec of 141 ft-lbs. Actually, 96 ft-lbs seems a little light for that size of a fastener.

With that said, I did experience what you mentioned with the torque value not being achieved when I was helping a friend with this job. I had done the job on two other rigs and was able to hit the 141 ft-lb spec no problem. But, on this occasion it kept going and I started wondering if my torque wrench was off so I stopped cranking on it.