Mark II Lifetime
- Jul 18, 2006
Thank you so much for this, it definitely eliminates some of the concerns I have about the internal machining of the Ti lug nut. While I have thought thread taper near the cap of the lug nut could have been causing a “pinch” on the stud, this cut away dispels that notion. Is it possible that the stud has a taper on the bottom end causing the lug nut to bind enough for a false torque reading? Perhaps Ti wouldn’t stretch enough whereas steel would? I keep going back to the contact pattern on my Ti lug nuts being lower down the cone compared to steel. Why would that be? Dissimilar metals could be an issue for the galling and noise, but wouldn't seem to explain the contact pattern placement on the cone. Again, all thoughts are welcome no matter how unlikely they may seem.cone seat surface finish 8.6 Ra (very smooth), thread pitch .5178", thread minor .4957", major .5604", thread length 1.2259", hardness Rc 41.8
Thanks, I’ll check them out!Kevin, First I've seen this and sorry to hear of your troubles. My car is one care behind yours with just over 2,000 miles with no noises. But I have CF wheels with Titanium lug nuts that I removed with 28 miles on them. I've went out and inspected them and there is no lube on the nuts or the wheel to nut contact surface. I sent you some pictures of my lug nuts and wheel contact surface.
I agree Ed, but us Ti owners are now being told something different.You never want to use lube or anti-seize on any lug nuts/studs ever. I have Ti nuts (bolts) on another car & they squeak big time when tightening.
I did hear from a tech that there was an early 2-piece design that was pulled early on. No one could really recall why they were eliminated, but what you said about not rotating during torquing makes sense. It does sound like enough thought was originally given to this issue on that design for good reason. I wonder if they recreated a previously solved problem by switching back to the 1-piece design. Also, I think the problem is exacerbated on alloy wheels due to the softer metal compared to the steel inserts on the carbon wheel.Kevin, sorry to hear about your long-drawn-out sad sequence of events. For the record the original titanium lug nuts that came on the early cars were 2 pieces where the chronicle base would seat and not require rotation as you tighten the nut. I'm sure this design was to prevent the galling effect.
I had never seen this before and it was obviously done for a reason. They did have their inherent problems and We're switched out for a solid titanium lug nut design..
As an owner who has taken his wheels off many times I did notice a lot of binding as the base of the solid lug nuts contacted the wheel. I started using " never seez " on the conicle base. without any notification or recommendation it just seemed natural To eliminate the binding.
I didn't read everyone's post if this was brought up before .. feel free to call me if you need to discuss anything.. B
StormCat, are you going to show us your nuts with and without "never seez" at the conical base? Might be a good comparison with Derry's
Did they do that to yours? And if so, did it stop the creaking?Here is what I have received from Concierge regarding Ti lug nut installation:
So, after Kevin identifying a problem, losing use of his car for a long period, he gets a note from Ford as to how to service his nutsHere is what I have received from Concierge regarding Ti lug nut installation:View attachment 66913