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 …
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."
I agree with the above comments that the article is backwards. Google AI also agrees.
FWIW I always use anti-sieze on the studs for my daily and track cars. IMO a stud with anti-sieze is more similar to a fresh & clean (but dry) factory stud than an untreated stud that's been getting rusty and crusty in the real world (dirt/rain/salt/etc.).
I subscribe to the Mason-Dixon theory of antiseize.
While I wouldn't put Loctite on lugnuts, generalee, anything north of the line gets anti seize, and anything to the south gets loctite.
So, yeah, I put antiseize on my nuts.
In reply to Woody (Forum Supportum) :
Rust belt answer for the win. Honestly the only lug nuts that fall off are the ones that didn't get tightened, and I've only done that once...that I know of.
I don't lube the lugs mostly because it is messy as heck and I'm going to be dealing with antisieze on my hands every time i touch the wheels from then on.
Tom Suddard said: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.
And just to complete the GRM trifecta...
I used to be on Team JG when it comes to anti-seize. I've written about it here. Clean and chase threads. Install clean and dry, etc. All the same reasons he mentions. But...I'd still gall lugnuts mostly, which might then also jam and take a stud with it. Ruined some tire tests that way -- we don't print the Mulligans.
Tom implored me to try his way -- and I heard it from others, too. So...I gave it a go. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, right?
I've started adding just a little touch of anti-seize on the studs after a good clean and chase. Guess what? Haven't broken anything since. But what about the TORQUES!?!? I reduced my torque values by 5 ft/lbs as compensation.
And it has worked. Nothing has come loose, or broken since.
I change a LOT of tires, often when hot...which is another torque/stretch modifier. But a little touch of anti-seize has gone a long way to eliminating my issues.
I'm also careful to start everything by hand, and use the gun on the lowest setting to snug it up, ever ready to stop at even the slightest hint of anything catching. Takes longer but saves time in the long run.
PS: You know that gold coating on ARP studs? Acts like a lubricant. Once it wears off, nuts don't thread on the same.
jb_11 said: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.
You know I worded this all very poorly. It happens. I'll clean up the language and clarify.
But, yeah, if you apply lube to your lugs then torque to the recommended setting they're going to be overtorqued.
The first three paragraphs are why I keep reading GRM 
Has anyone looked at the factory service manual procedures for boring things like wheel torque? Some just give you a number, but some do give a procedure. Ford in particular is very specific that the threads must be clean and lightly oiled. And if it is a truck with flat faced lugs with captivated washers, the washer-nut interface must be lightly oiled, and if the washer doesn't move freely and smoothly then the lug nut must be replaced.
"Lightly oiled" is a drop or two of motor oil, incidentally.
I'm in the no antisieze camp. You can very very easily overtorque the lugs, at which point you pinch the taper and throw all torque readings completely out the window.
Car Craft magazine, years back, actually had an article about this with a chart detailing how much various lubricants change the torque reading vs. thread clamp load. I only remember one figure: moly grease was 90%. That is, the bolt tension for a moly-lubricated fastener at 10 ft-lb was the same as 100 ft-lb with clean dry threads.
I think of this when I install new head bolts with fancy coatings that seem to thread in and torque up like butter. VWs in particular don't seem to go up in torque with the angle stage... with new bolts.
Andy Hollis said:I'm also careful to start everything by hand, and use the gun on the lowest setting to snug it up, ever ready to stop at even the slightest hint of anything catching. Takes longer but saves time in the long run.
This is probably the #1 best practice to take away from this discussion. Starting and finishing lugs with the zip gun will kill hardware way faster than whether you do or don't use anti-seize. Probably the best of all possible practices here is to just use a regular hand drill to run your lugs down, then torque by hand with the wheel unloaded.
I will also readily admit to being overly dependent on the impact at times, and that's a bad habit I need to work on.
I torque things for a living, many to very high torques.
In order to achieve the proper torque for a fastener it requires some form of lube. Additionally, you need to lube the bearing face of nuts. The reason for this is that there could be galling that is giving you a false torque value instead of the desired one. This is very very true for mismatched materials (or many non-ferrous materials), often without lube they will "marry" each other and become as one.
We use multiple types of lubrication as required by a technical manual. This is common machinist practice to lube everything.
That said, the only fasteners I do not lube is lug nuts/bolts. I think that may be from years and years of believing the "we've always done it this way, so that's the way it's done" thinking/preaching.
Good article, and always relevant.
I think this is the first question that I ever asked on the forum.
I swap wheels as often three to four times a month. I don't grease the lugs.
Rust belt of Canada.
Anti-seize is like Frank's Red Hot.
Torque Test Channel looked at this a while ago, 101 ft/lbs input torque resulted in the equivalent of torquing to around 200 ft/lbs clamping force had the threads been dry and clean. I go with clean and dry on the track car which are constantly being removed/reinstalled and re-torqued to avoid stretching fasteners. (video is time stamped to the relevant part).
Along those lines, when Torque Test Channel tested various thread lockers the Loctite products did not effect the lubrication of the threads or the resulting clamping force from a specific torque value. If they can do that with a thread locker you'd think they could develop something to prevent galling/oxidation and not have it lubricate the threads either.
In reply to adam525i :
That... is very interesting about the Loctite!
I'll admit to having been recommended that video when it came out, but I passed it because Pete doesn't do clickbaity titles.
You'll need to log in to post.
