Photograph by J.G. Pasterjak
We have a lot of discussions about anti-seize on lug nuts around here. There are folks in both camps (i.e., folks who are right and those who are wrong), and you’ll find just as much disagreement out in the real world or on the internet as you will at any of our project car work days.
It’s a subject I’ve wanted to write about for a while, but I was never sure how to address it. I may as well write about a less controversial subject, like who is the one true god or what is the best way to get to the airport.
Anyway, I decided to do it this way: as sort of a column that simply details my personal feelings and practices–along with a few justifications for them. You can make your own decisions from here because you’re a grown-up. And if you’re a kid reading this, ask an adult what to do first, then do the opposite. We’re much dumber than we look.
Anyway, none of my track cars have anti-seize on the lugs. This is because, at its heart, anti-seize is a lubricant. Most anti-seize compounds are going to use a base of some sort of grease or thick oil that suspends tiny particles of high-lubricity solids like zinc, copper, graphite or aluminum within the paste.
The paste part provides corrosion resistance, while the soft metals provide much of the anti-seize properties. The tiny, soft metallic particles will deform before the harder metal of the threads you’re using them on, providing easier release.
So you may already see the issue here: Putting a lubricant on threaded fasteners is going to change the torque values required to get the same clamping force. How much? Well, maybe a lot. Like 30-40% a lot. So that means your wheel nuts that need to be torqued to 85 lb.-ft. now need to be torqued to nearly 120 lb.-ft. to provide the same clamping force.
Or maybe they don’t.
Knowing how much lubrication is being provided by the specific type of anti-seize you’re using would require knowing the exact compound in use, and good luck getting the company who mixed it up to release that info.
Pretty much every torque spec you see for lug nuts will be a dry torque spec. Actually, pretty much any torque spec you see where a lubricant isn’t specifically noted will be a dry torque spec. And when lubricated specs are given, they will usually specify the type and process of lubrication.
So, at the very least, anti-seize on lug nuts is going to mean your lugs will be providing more clamping force than they should (if torqued to the quoted dry spec) or be stressing the hardware more than they should (needing to increase the torque to compensate for the lubrication.)
The lugs on my track cars go on dry AND CLEAN. That second part is important because dirt is what leads to galling and galling is what leads to swearing. Every couple times they come off, the lugs get blasted with brake cleaner and hit with a wire brush and everything is fine.
Kind of a different story, but I will also never use a thread-cutting die or a tap on my wheel hardware. I will use a thread chaser if a thread gets slightly bumped somewhere–it happens–to fold that thread back into position, but I’ll never use a tap or die. And, yes, taps, dies and thread chasers are very different tools, and you should have all of them in your box.
Now, notice I’ve been saying “track car” a lot here. That’s because these specs are absolutely mission critical in high-stress environments like a track car.
On my truck, that only has the wheels removed maybe once a year to service brake pads and otherwise just sits outside in the Florida weather? Oh yeah. Anti-seize all over those babies. Like mustard on a Dodger Dog. Just smeared up one side and down the other.
Look, I’m only human.
I use some sort of lubricant on wheel studs all the time. They have a lot of use, think about how many times a wheel comes off our cars in a year, ten years, twenty years and the wear on the threads. Track car? Not into it any more but in the day the daily tech was to torque all the lug nuts daily. So if the lube introduced and loosening it would be noticed.
Anti seize also tastes bad, so there's that
When I was still in Miata world, we used anti-seize on lugs for track cars, because it was common to have steel ARP studs with aluminum lugnuts, and rain never stopped a track day for us. If they let us on track, we were going.
I also would put a few dabs on the hub face of the disc of street cars to prevent the same type of corrosion between iron disc and aluminum wheel.
Basically, I agree with JG. However, anti seize on the hub center ring (the machined surface that centers the wheel on the hub) is appropriate. Also, the surface of a lug nut where it contacts the wheel is appropriate. But NO to anti seize on the threads of studs or lugs.
Formulabob said:Basically, I agree with JG. However, anti seize on the hub center ring (the machined surface that centers the wheel on the hub) is appropriate. Also, the surface of a lug nut where it contacts the wheel is appropriate. But NO to anti seize on the threads of studs or lugs.
This is the exact opposite of what I was told over the years, you absolutely do not want it on the face of the lug nut.
Side note, all the track sessions with anti-seize, never had one back off and I follow the "God kills a kitten everytime you miss a curb" philosophy.
I've had two coffees and still can't get my head around the idea that lubricating will *reduce* clamping force. Isn't that backward? Reduced drag means more twists per unit torque? Lower torque for a given clamp load?
I mean, I'm totally on board especially with the observations that all the specs will be assuming dry. But reducing the drag means you'll run on more threads for the same torque, which equates to more clamping force, no? The twin dangers being torquing to (beyond?) yield, and/or the same ease of going on leads to ease of loosening?
Always dodgy suggesting these things after admitting to coffee consumption. If I'm wrong with caffeine, then it's the fundamental goodness or otherwise of my brainmeats...
JG and I pass cars back and forth a fair bit--just part of the job. I enjoy slathering antiseize on them like CRC sends it to me by the case, while he enjoys cleaning it off. Great example of the healthy push and pull in any editorial department. 
Your torque calculation for lubricated fasteners is backwards. They actually require less torque to achieve the same clamping force. A machinery handbook will cover this. Good rule of thumb is 25% less torque. Think about it, you want to achieve the same bolt stretch wet or dry. Lubrication makes it easier to turn the nut, but you still want it to rest at the same spot on bolt/stud to achieve the same stretch and clamping force, so less torque is needed. Worrying about them backing off due to less breakaway torque is a different matter, but unlikely.
In reply to jb_11 :
Ahhh... you beat me to it!! Bolt stretch develops clamping force. Torque on the nut is an indirect measurement of that. Good call.
Here's a link to an old GRM thread where I extol the virtues of my favorite brand.
It's also in this thread that GRMer, LogDog graces us with this nugget of GRM board wisdom:
"The Mason/Dixon line is where people switch from Loc-Tite to Anti-Sieze."
Displaying 1-10 of 72 commentsView all comments on the GRM forums
You'll need to log in to post.
