More than you could ever dream to know about the LBJ bolts thing

[repo]

Not sure if the 37 vs 59 ft/lbs, re-use or replace was ever resolved, but as I'm getting ready to do that job again I thought I'd finally figure it out for my own piece of mind. The 2000 FSM says 37 ft/lb. The 2002 FSM says 59 ft/lb but there is an extra boot protector in the diagram. People say it's a typo (and there are others in the FSM) but I always suspected both of these are correct and the 37 ft/lb is for the boot protector version. My 99 doesn't have the protector and none of the parts diagrams for the VIN have it so I go with 59 ft/lb. The truth is somewhere in the middle, it's correct but Toyota didn't bother explaining it in the manual.

I just came across this gem from an Australian Prado 90 owner explaining it finally. Dimensions, tensile estimates, bench tests, pictures, part numbers, you name it: The different LBJ bolts and why it's important, Prado 90 Series — Mighty 90s Forum

 

[HiLife]

1996-2000 flanged bolt, part #90080-10066. Torqued to 59 ft lb

2001-2002 with a washer part #90119-10933. Torqued to 37 ft lb

Thanks to [MENTION=120071]mtbtim[/MENTION], he did an awesome write up here.

 

[repo]

1996-2000 flanged bolt, part #90080-10066. Torqued to 59 ft lb

2001-2002 with a washer part #90119-10933. Torqued to 37 ft lb

Thanks to [MENTION=120071]mtbtim[/MENTION], he did an awesome write up here.

Ah I missed that thread in the SNR from a decade of posts about LBJs. It's been bugging me for ages. Having a read through to make sure I'm not out of the loop on anything else.

 

[diverscale]

Great info again from the great [MENTION=120071]mtbtim[/MENTION]. Thank you and for the OP for pointing this out.

If there are a few torques I would not want to miss, these are head bolts, oil pan bolts, and this kind of lower ball joint's bolt!

 

[Vansnxtweek]

Thank you for posting. About to be needing this torque spec in the next week.

 

[3bears]

so at some point my 2001 got new LBJ's and the boot protector things had been eliminated I guess cause it looked just like my 2000 without those boots. So ordered LBj's ( same for all years) and the flanged bolts of earlier years. Should be ok. I remeber reading someplace here on the forum that someone got rid of thiers also....might have been sleepydad.

Not installed yet, but I will go with the higher torque since its the flanged bolt.

 

[phattyduck]

Not sure why this is so hard to understand... The bolts require different torque to get to the same clamping force. The extra friction of the flange, located farther from the center of rotation of the flanged bolt means you have to torque it more for the correct clamping force compared to the bolt with separate washer and its smaller diameter friction surface.

Those bolts are some of the few I actually use the torque wrench for on the 'outside' of the truck (engine internals are another story).

-Charlie

 

[shadow247]

Friendly Reminder to just go ahead and replace your ball joints if you don't know when they were last changed.

I just paid out 2800 bucks on an Insurance claim on a 1998 2wd Runner that the LBJ failed while turning and folded up under the running board...Probably going to be a total loss once the body shop and mechanics actually get a hold of it.

Stay safe out there.

 

[Bad Luck]

so at some point my 2001 got new LBJ's and the boot protector things had been eliminated I guess cause it looked just like my 2000 without those boots. So ordered LBj's ( same for all years) and the flanged bolts of earlier years. Should be ok. I remeber reading someplace here on the forum that someone got rid of thiers also....might have been sleepydad.

Not installed yet, but I will go with the higher torque since its the flanged bolt.

I did the same when I replaced my LBJ's. I only had one plastic cover so I used the flanged bolts and didn't bother putting the one cover back on.

 

[JZiggy]

Not sure why this is so hard to understand... The bolts require different torque to get to the same clamping force. The extra friction of the flange, located farther from the center of rotation of the flanged bolt means you have to torque it more for the correct clamping force compared to the bolt with separate washer and its smaller diameter friction surface.

Those bolts are some of the few I actually use the torque wrench for on the 'outside' of the truck (engine internals are another story).

-Charlie

Hey Charlie,

You think the torque difference is just accounting for a different k value of the fastener? Aren’t the later style bolts a lower grade? I always thought it was to reduce clamp load to prevent the bolt crushing the compression limiters on the dust boot.

Still think we oughta look into replacing with studs!!

 

[WeakSauz]

Still think we oughta look into replacing with studs!!

I went with ARP hardware. Been holding strong for about 9k miles. I torque-marked them and they havent moved at all

ARP 763-1003

 

[Bad Luck]

I went with ARP hardware. Been holding strong for about 9k miles. I torque-marked them and they havent moved at all

ARP 763-1003

What did you torque them to?

 

[WeakSauz]

What did you torque them to?

60ft/lbs and blue loctite

 

[phattyduck]

Hey Charlie,

You think the torque difference is just accounting for a different k value of the fastener? Aren’t the later style bolts a lower grade? I always thought it was to reduce clamp load to prevent the bolt crushing the compression limiters on the dust boot.

Still think we oughta look into replacing with studs!!

The head markings are the same, so I would be surprised if the bolts are actually a different strength. My argument is that with the larger head, the average diameter of at which the friction is acting increases, requiring a higher torque to achieve the same clamping force.

Another possible difference is the coating (different lubrication properties).

Toyota also may have decided the lower torque value still has sufficient clamping capability with a lower risk of over-torque weakening the bolt.

Now the ARPs... that does sound interesting as a possible replacement. Likely another 30-50% stronger than the Toyota bolts. Though they seem to be out of stock everywhere. McMaster has a 170ksi socket-head bolts in the correct length (black oxide), which might also work.

-Charlie

 

[cas5259]

Wait, are peoples bolts breaking too? I thought it was just the ball joint shaft snapping in half?

 

[JohnMc]

I think we've seen every variation of possible failure on these over the years
- ball rips out of socket - from wear (possibly premature wear on some iffier aftermarket parts)
- ball joint shaft snaps in half - possibly from over torqueing
- nut loosens on ball joint shaft - possibly under torqued, missing cotter pin
- bolts loosen and fall out - under torqued
- bolts break - possibly from over torqueing
- any of the above breaking due to impact damage

 

[phattyduck]

Wait, are peoples bolts breaking too? I thought it was just the ball joint shaft snapping in half?

The normal issue is the ball pulling out of the socket, but the shaft can also break or the 4 bolts can fail. All have been reported.

-Charlie

 

[Bad Luck]

Wait, are peoples bolts breaking too? I thought it was just the ball joint shaft snapping in half?

The 4 bolts can fail. Usually they fail because they were the original bolts and have stretched/weakened over time which is why new bolts are recommended.

 

[diverscale]

did mine in 2015, at what interval was it prescribed to do approximately? I'd like to know. Now I can't believe people do them every 2-3 years.

 

[shadow247]

did mine in 2015, at what interval was it prescribed to do approximately? I'd like to know. Now I can't believe people do them every 2-3 years.

I will probably do mine with every timing belt. So 6 years or 90k miles by the book. I am on the originals at 202k, but this truck was garage kept and barely driven in the rain before I got it. There's barely a drop of grease to be found around the ball joints. I am going to change them when I do the Whiteline LCA bushings..