Ring gear torque?

J

Jim B

Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
69
Location
Kingman, AZ, USA
The 2004 Jeep service manual calls for 100 foot pounds torque on the D 44 ring gear. The bolts are 3/8-24 and 50 ft. pounds is the max. for that size.
I don't want to snap them. What torque is everyone using?
 
IIRC the ring gear bolts on my RG&A setup was 50-60 ft/lbs. The important thing that is often overlooked is the use of red loctite.
 
The '04 FSM definitely says 100 ft-lbs. but the install instructions in my RGA gear set said 55 ft-lbs. for the ring gear bolts so that's what I used. As above don't forget to apply red Loctite to the threads of all of the ring gear bolts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Cooper
Be sure to check your ring gear bolts for tightness every time you change diff fluid.

I recently had a bunch back out around 10 years after installing my new gears, and I'm pretty sure I followed the gear mfr spec as opposed to the FSM and used loctite.

When I bought new new OEM bolts to replace, I did a bunch of research and found some oddities. Granted, this is for 7/16-20, which I think applies to all 2004 D44s (mine is Rubi) but I am not confident in that.

Basically I found one Dana/Spicer spec that said Grade 8 and another that said Grade FW-9. The actual bolts have seven line markings on the head whereas Gr8 has six. I googled Gr9 and there are more than 7.

The recommended torque for Gr8 7/16-20 is 80-90 ft-lbs dry and around 60-68 ft-lbs lubricated. Even if the OEM bolts are Gr8, and not some custom spec more towards Gr9, I am thinking the 100 ft-lb in the FSM is accurate (dry and WITHOUT Loctite) because they are trying to achieve a higher clamping force more towards the proof load, and that is why they say never to reuse the ring gear bolts.

Based on this, I ended up torquing mine to 77 ft-lbs with hi-temp red loctite when I replaced them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry Bransford
RubiconRic said:
Be sure to check your ring gear bolts for tightness every time you change diff fluid.

I recently had a bunch back out around 10 years after installing my new gears, and I'm pretty sure I followed the gear mfr spec as opposed to the FSM and used loctite.

When I bought new new OEM bolts to replace, I did a bunch of research and found some oddities. Granted, this is for 7/16-20, which I think applies to all 2004 D44s (mine is Rubi) but I am not confident in that.

Basically I found one Dana/Spicer spec that said Grade 8 and another that said Grade FW-9. The actual bolts have seven line markings on the head whereas Gr8 has six. I googled Gr9 and there are more than 7.

The recommended torque for Gr8 7/16-20 is 80-90 ft-lbs dry and around 60-68 ft-lbs lubricated. Even if the OEM bolts are Gr8, and not some custom spec more towards Gr9, I am thinking the 100 ft-lb in the FSM is accurate (dry and WITHOUT Loctite) because they are trying to achieve a higher clamping force more towards the proof load, and that is why they say never to reuse the ring gear bolts.

Based on this, I ended up torquing mine to 77 ft-lbs with hi-temp red loctite when I replaced them.
Click to expand...

Something is drastically wrong if you used high-strength Loctite and 77 ft-lbs and had bolts backing out!

What I think happened was that when the change was made to 7/16" bolts (I think ~2002), they used the dry-nut factor for the FSM calculations in the later year books. In the 2002/3 FSM, they show 80 ft-lbs in the spec table:
Capture.JPG


But interestingly, use "70-90" in the instructions:
Capture2.JPG


On a Grade 8 bolt, I would have to check the numbers, but I think that's pushing the elastic limit for a 7/16" fine thread bolt at 90 ft-lbs (for a wet-nut). The FSM does not mention the use of Loctite, so perhaps they intended to have these bolts be torqued dry, pushing the boundaries of plasticity as a way to eliminate threadlocker use... just a guess there of course 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: hear and Jerry Bransford
pc1p said:
Something is drastically wrong if you used high-strength Loctite and 77 ft-lbs and had bolts backing out!
Click to expand...

Yes I do not recall what I torqued to as that was 10 years ago but imagine it was to the gear mfr's spec and not the FSM.

pc1p said:
What I think happened was that when the change was made to 7/16" bolts (I think ~2002), they used the dry-nut factor for the FSM calculations in the later year books. In the 2002/3 FSM, they show 80 ft-lbs in the spec table:
Capture.JPG


But interestingly, use "70-90" in the instructions:
Capture2.JPG
Click to expand...

Interesting - I think you're right. In my 04 FSM both the instructions and chart specify 100 ft-lbs so they must have caught their mistake by then.

pc1p said:
The FSM does not mention the use of Loctite, so perhaps they intended to have these bolts be torqued dry, pushing the boundaries of plasticity as a way to eliminate threadlocker use... just a guess there of course 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Agreed. Great example of why it's important for people to understand adding loctite (or antiseize in other cases) to an application where the torque was specified "dry" (which is most cases) necessitates the torque being adjusted accordingly.
 
RubiconRic said:
Interesting - I think you're right. In my 04 FSM both the instructions and chart specify 100 ft-lbs so they must have caught their mistake by then.
Click to expand...
On a FNL Grade 9, 7/16" bolt with plain/dry conditions, the one chart I saw showed max torque as 82 ft-lbs. The FSM spec of 100 ft-lbs is almost certainly past the yield point, guaranteeing at least some plastic deformation. When used with thread locking compound, it's likely past the point of failure, which is why we see so many instances of this happening.

On Grade 8, lubricated, max torque is 62 ft-lbs.

The factory may have been using some specific fasteners, but any aftermarket bolt should adhere to a much lower torque setting.
 
Top Bottom
Back