G Body Parts Body Bolt Kit

[jiho]

As a fastenal employee and pusher of all things threaded

Fastenal's Technical Reference PDF is one of my many sources, which all agree that with lubed threads, 52 lb-ft is too much for a 10.9 bolt. And 52 lb-ft is what the factory manual specifies.

My car came from the factory with 12.9 bolts.

GbodyParts states that their cheaper kit has 10.9, which they say is "correct." (Where does that "correct" come from, anyway? As I said, I found 12.9 installed in my car.) They don't say what their pricier kit has.

I might add that I was not able to find these bolts in 12.9 anywhere but volume wholesale, like a few hundred in a carton. And those were black phosphorus coated, like those in the pricier GbodyParts kit.

 

[79malibu350]

12.9 are very, very rare. BUT, i can get you fastenal part number for them to be sold individually i bet :lol:

 

[pontiacgp]

As a fastenal employee and pusher of all things threaded

Fastenal's Technical Reference PDF is one of my many sources, which all agree that with lubed threads, 52 lb-ft is too much for a 10.9 bolt. And 52 lb-ft is what the factory manual specifies.

My car came from the factory with 12.9 bolts.

GbodyParts states that their cheaper kit has 10.9, which they say is "correct." (Where does that "correct" come from, anyway? As I said, I found 12.9 installed in my car.) They don't say what their pricier kit has.

I might add that I was not able to find these bolts in 12.9 anywhere but volume wholesale, like a few hundred in a carton. And those were black phosphorus coated, like those in the pricier GbodyParts kit.

You are making an error saying the 10.9 m10 1.5 bolt cannot be torqued to 52 ft lbs. The Fastenal reference states the 10.9 m10 1.5 can be torqued to 53.2 ft lbs. That is the dry specs. If you add lubrication the torque specs that are given achieve the 53.2 ft lbs at the lower torque. GM specs do not say anything about lubrication for the torque so the torque spec of 52 ft lbs is for dry conditions.

go to page 43 for the reference table...

http://www.fastenal.com/content/documen ... eGuide.pdf

 

[G-Body_Vet]

I was in the same boat you were in when I bought my bolts. I was penny pinching, searching every available source for the bolts and eventually went with G Body Parts. I bought the cheaper set with the zinc coating. I just prefer them over black oxide. On another note, I try to support g-body vendors when possible even if it does cost a few more bucks than some other sources....but that's another rant!

 

[joesregalproject]

I was in the same boat you were in when I bought my bolts. I was penny pinching, searching every available source for the bolts and eventually went with G Body Parts. I bought the cheaper set with the zinc coating. I just prefer them over black oxide. On another note, I try to support g-body vendors when possible even if it does cost a few more bucks than some other sources....but that's another rant!

Haha, well I'm always penny-pinching What torque spec did you use?

 

[joesregalproject]

You are making an error saying the 10.9 m10 1.5 bolt cannot be torqued to 52 ft lbs. The Fastenal reference states the 10.9 m10 1.5 can be torqued to 53.2 ft lbs. That is the dry specs. If you add lubrication the torque specs that are given achieve the 53.2 ft lbs at the lower torque. GM specs do not say anything about lubrication for the torque so the torque spec of 52 ft lbs is for dry conditions.

go to page 43 for the reference table...

http://www.fastenal.com/content/documen ... eGuide.pdf

This is good info, I'm gonna print this out. Thanks gp!

 

[G-Body_Vet]

I was in the same boat you were in when I bought my bolts. I was penny pinching, searching every available source for the bolts and eventually went with G Body Parts. I bought the cheaper set with the zinc coating. I just prefer them over black oxide. On another note, I try to support g-body vendors when possible even if it does cost a few more bucks than some other sources....but that's another rant!

Haha, well I'm always penny-pinching What torque spec did you use?

They aren't installed yet but they will be soon!

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

The more expensive bolts with the tapered ends line up with the caged nut better and easier with less risk of crossthreading. Common flat end bolts are harder to screw in correctly blind as opposed to tapered bolts which self-align themselves. Most body bolts are tapered for this reason.

 

[jiho]

As a fastenal employee and pusher of all things threaded

Fastenal's Technical Reference PDF is one of my many sources, which all agree that with lubed threads, 52 lb-ft is too much for a 10.9 bolt. And 52 lb-ft is what the factory manual specifies.

My car came from the factory with 12.9 bolts.

GbodyParts states that their cheaper kit has 10.9, which they say is "correct." (Where does that "correct" come from, anyway? As I said, I found 12.9 installed in my car.) They don't say what their pricier kit has.

I might add that I was not able to find these bolts in 12.9 anywhere but volume wholesale, like a few hundred in a carton. And those were black phosphorus coated, like those in the pricier GbodyParts kit.

You are making an error saying the 10.9 m10 1.5 bolt cannot be torqued to 52 ft lbs. The Fastenal reference states the 10.9 m10 1.5 can be torqued to 53.2 ft lbs. That is the dry specs. If you add lubrication the torque specs that are given achieve the 53.2 ft lbs at the lower torque. GM specs do not say anything about lubrication for the torque so the torque spec of 52 ft lbs is for dry conditions.

go to page 43 for the reference table...

http://www.fastenal.com/content/documen ... eGuide.pdf

"all agree that with lubed threads, 52 lb-ft is too much for a 10.9 bolt"

With lubed threads .... with LUBED threads! Not making any error.

You are confusing torque with clamping force. The higher torque dry achieves the same clamping force as the lower torque lubed. Neither achieves the clamping force of the higher torque lubed. Clamping force is the difference between 10.9 and 12.9. 12.9 can achieve 52 lb-ft lubed, 10.9 cannot. L U B E D ! ! !

That is all I am saying. That and the FACT that my car had 12.9.

 

[pontiacgp]

"all agree that with lubed threads, 52 lb-ft is too much for a 10.9 bolt"

With lubed threads .... with LUBED threads! Not making any error.

You are confusing torque with clamping force. The higher torque dry achieves the same clamping force as the lower torque lubed. Neither achieves the clamping force of the higher torque lubed. Clamping force is the difference between 10.9 and 12.9. 12.9 can achieve 52 lb-ft lubed, 10.9 cannot. L U B E D ! ! !

That is all I am saying. That and the FACT that my car had 12.9.

when torquing with a dry bolt they take into consideration the friction of the shaft of the bolt and therefore when using lube to achieve the desired clamping force the amount of torque required is lower. That is why they give you different torque numbers dependent on the coating on the bolt. If you torque a lubed 10.9 m10 1.5 bolt to 52 ft lbs you have over torqued the bolt if the specs is 52 ft lbs. Do you really think that the lower numbers they put on the charts for a lubed torque compare to a dry torque mean that once you lube a bolt it becomes weaker? Also the maximum toque of a 10.9 bolt is different for each thread pitch so you should properly identify what bolt your are talking about.