Wheel torque lb/inch specs for 2018 M3 CS

[dezzracer]

Hello. I’m getting four new tires replaced by local Tire Rack and I’m going to request lug nuts are hand torqued to factory spec. Can someone please provide those numbers to me? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[N1rve]

Originally Posted by dezzracer

Hello. I’m getting four new tires replaced by local Tire Rack and I’m going to request lug nuts are hand torqued to factory spec. Can someone please provide those numbers to me? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

All F Chassis cars is 140Nm or ~103 ft/lbs but 105 ft/lbs is the easiest to set the wrench to.

Edit: Just realized your title is asking for inch lbs. 1,236 inch/lbs.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by N1rve

All F Chassis cars is 140Nm or ~103 ft/lbs but 105 ft/lbs is the easiest to set the wrench to.

Edit: Just realized your title is asking for inch lbs. 1,236 inch/lbs.

Haven't seen wheel specs requested in inch/lbs... ever?

[N1rve]

Originally Posted by wishbone

Haven't seen wheel specs requested in inch/lbs... ever?

Wheels are usually in foot lbs but OP was asking for inch pounds LOL.

[GuyLedouche]

Originally Posted by N1rve

Wheels are usually in foot lbs but OP was asking for inch pounds LOL.

1200 foot pounds it is! haha

[N1rve]

Originally Posted by GuyLedouche

1200 foot pounds it is! haha

Looks like these wheels are never coming off.

Going to need one of these to come close.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/NEIKO-PR...715B/333962006

[M3SQRD]

Why do so many people not know the correct unit of torque? Torque is a force acting through a distance so the unit is force-distance; e.g., lbf-ft, lbf-in, N-m, kg-m^2/sec^2, N-mm, etc. The torque unit is not force/distance which has no physical meaning.

[dezzracer]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

Why do so many people not know the correct unit of torque? Torque is a force acting through a distance so the unit is force-distance; e.g., lbf-ft, lbf-in, N-m, kg-m^2/sec^2, N-mm, etc. The torque unit is not force/distance which has no physical meaning.

I don’t know. Not that important to me I guess. I was going off memory and thought that’s what was engraved on my torque wrench lol . I’m impressed with your Automotive mathematics tho 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[dezzracer]

Originally Posted by N1rve

All F Chassis cars is 140Nm or ~103 ft/lbs but 105 ft/lbs is the easiest to set the wrench to.

Edit: Just realized your title is asking for inch lbs. 1,236 inch/lbs.

Lol thanks. Yea I misspoke... Ill just say it was late but it was noon lol. . Originally, was gonna order off tire rack and have local tire shop mount and balance and just needed torque rating to provide to them. But got the buy three get one free deal at local dealership with free mount and balance so I’m not concerned anymore.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by dezzracer

I don’t know. Not that important to me I guess. I was going off memory and thought that’s what was engraved on my torque wrench lol . I’m impressed with your Automotive mathematics tho ������������

I was not singling you out. I apologize if it did come across that way. I’d say in approximately 3 out of every 5 posts (~60%), the unit of torque is listed as force/distance and I guess this is the thread that pushed me off the proverbial cliff Even Ground Comtrol has it etched incorrectly on their camber plates as “lb/ft”! It drives me crazy because I’m an astronautical engineer were documenting units correctly are paramount. Now if I could only get people to start using lbf when referring to a force and lbm (or the correct unit of mass, slug = lbf-s^2/ft) when referring to weight (mass) in the English/Imperial units…I know this would be a losing battle

[jackgreer]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

I was singling you out. I apologize if it did come across that way. I’d say in approximately 3 out of every 5 posts (~60%), the unit of torque is listed as force/distance and I guess this is the thread that pushed me off the proverbial cliff Even Ground Comtrol has it etched incorrectly on their camber plates as “lb/ft”! It drives me crazy because I’m an astronautical engineer were documenting units correctly are paramount. Now if I could only get people to start using lbf when referring to a force and lbm (or the correct unit of mass, slug = lbf-s^2/ft) when referring to weight (mass) in the English/Imperial units…I know this would be a losing battle

I weigh 172lbs if I force myself to eat properly

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by jackgreer

I weigh 172lbs if I force myself to eat properly

Mass is an intrinsic property where as weight is an extrinsic property. You weigh 172 lbm or 5.3 slugs

[dezzracer]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

I was singling you out. I apologize if it did come across that way. I’d say in approximately 3 out of every 5 posts (~60%), the unit of torque is listed as force/distance and I guess this is the thread that pushed me off the proverbial cliff Even Ground Comtrol has it etched incorrectly on their camber plates as “lb/ft”! It drives me crazy because I’m an astronautical engineer were documenting units correctly are paramount. Now if I could only get people to start using lbf when referring to a force and lbm (or the correct unit of mass, slug = lbf-s^2/ft) when referring to weight (mass) in the English/Imperial units…I know this would be a losing battle

No problem lol. If you’re an astronautical engineer, I totally get your attention to detail. 👍

[jbwolfe]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

Why do so many people not know the correct unit of torque? Torque is a force acting through a distance so the unit is force-distance; e.g., lbf-ft, lbf-in, N-m, kg-m^2/sec^2, N-mm, etc. The torque unit is not force/distance which has no physical meaning.

Mathematically the order is irrelevant: Ten pounds force exerted on a 1 foot lever is the same a 10 foot lever and 1 pound of force. My perspective: graduated BSME in 1987. Throughout my entire curriculum torque was expressed as ft-lbs in imperial units and when metric units were used, N-m- so much for consistency. What was relevant was what metric was discussed- work, energy or torque and was usually obvious in context. I never practiced as an engineer (military pilot then airlines) so I may have missed some transition over the years in standard nomenclature.
If I ask for a torque spec, I would not be bothered in the least what came first: force or distance because the question asked was not about energy or work.
As for slugs, that would be the perfect term to use when referring to my body mass.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by jbwolfe

Mathematically the order is irrelevant: Ten pounds force exerted on a 1 foot lever is the same a 10 foot lever and 1 pound of force. My perspective: graduated BSME in 1987. Throughout my entire curriculum torque was expressed as ft-lbs in imperial units and when metric units were used, N-m- so much for consistency. What was relevant was what metric was discussed- work, energy or torque and was usually obvious in context. I never practiced as an engineer (military pilot then airlines) so I may have missed some transition over the years in standard nomenclature.
If I ask for a torque spec, I would not be bothered in the least what came first: force or distance because the question asked was not about energy or work.
As for slugs, that would be the perfect term to use when referring to my body mass.

So lbf/ft = lbf-ft? Ok.

The mass unit in the English system is derived from F=ma. You do know gravitational acceleration is not constant on the surface of Earth, right? lbm is not a consistent unit.