GMC Motorhome 1-Ton Upgrade - Engineering Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2024
- The 1-Ton Chevy Truck Front End replacement is something that GMC Motorhome owners have been doing for many years. There are solid reasons for it, and it is definitely an upgrade,. but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Let's take a close look at the nuances of the engineering to see if we can make it any better.
GMC Motorhome 75-76 Maintenance Manual: www.gmcmi.com/wp-content/uplo...
Hub Piloted vs Lug Piloted Wheel Attachment Engineering Paper: link.springer.com/article/10....
Engineering Explained Wheel Spacers: • Wheel Spacers & Adapte...
Engineeing Explained Scrub Radius: • Scrub Radius - Suspens...
Stan Edwards GMC MH 1 Ton Conversion: www.bdub.net/One%20Ton%20Truck...
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.77[2/2] "รับทราบ" แก๊งเพื่อนรัก 10 ปี ที่ไปไหนก็มีตำนาน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ifc0ofD51B0/mqdefault.jpg)
Bump steer is a directional change due to suspension movement, however it is caused by a difference in the steering arm swing or pivot vs the upright. Lowering or raising ride height is usually the main cause because the steering hasn't been relocated to compensate. When we lowered a 911, we usually put a spacer under the steering rack to correct the geometry and minimize the bump steer.
Caster and camber and steering axis inclination all play a part in how effective auto centering is.
I believe you got bump steer mixed up with the self centering of the wheel. Bump steer happens when the steering linkage is out of plane(extreme angle) with the centerline the front axle. In this situation when you hit a bump it causes the the front wheels to change direction during the suspension cycling thru the bump. Bump steer happens in improperly lifted 4 wheel drives. Other than that great presentation.
@@mwilliamshs I've had trouble trying to explain steering geometry, but definitely know the results of bump steer. I learned the hard way during my younger days lifting 4x4s. Definitely don't like bump steer.
This has been enormously helpful, thank you.
Sadly, I was thinking about upgrading but I am now convinced to simply rebuild.
I’ll buy the tool to do the bearings.
My family has put over 50,000 miles on our ramshackle 77 Palm Beach and we are still on the original front bearings, though we have done all four rear sets. Our motor home rocks, no matter how threadbare, it’s an awesome machine.
Enjoy yours!!
You are confusing bump steer with caster angle that causes self-centering. "Bump steer" refers to a change in steering angle caused by a change in suspension height. Either by lean in a corner or hitting a bump.
Awesome episode 😎
Great explanation
Thanks for sharing! Learned a ton!
Narrower front end can help correct understeer in slippery conditions. I remember reading that offsetting the rear end wider than the right front of a dirt car, made the weight transfer faster on the front improving the front end bite. Since the rv is a tandem understeer is a problem. I think that gm engineers knew that, and also knew that tracking the wheels the same as the back offers no benefit other than appearance. Since they made axles and control arms specifically for the gmc rv they could have easily made the front end track the same as the back by changing the mounting points on the frame. Some think they used the configuration of the toronado front clip as a cost saving measure only, however, the gmc has its own spindles and control arms and axles. The reality is , they had to re-engineer the front end to work on the gmc.
10:43 Bump steer is NOT the "fancy term" for the force that wants to straighten your wheel out. The force that wants to straighten your wheel out is a function of "caster". This also affects the vehicle's straight-line stability. Bump steer or roll steer is the term for the tendency of the wheel of a car to steer itself as it moves through the suspension stroke. All vehicle suspension systems have some bump or roll steer, but the designer of the suspension system will have spent a great deal of time and effort to minimise bump steer. Generally, bump steer cannot be adjusted out of a suspension system without physically relocating suspension components.
Here is a very good description of bump steer and "instant center" from Hot Rod Garage: th-cam.com/video/tHbWkR-AZXo/w-d-xo.html
Lack of bump steer is why the 1974-1981 Pinto front suspension is so popular with hot rods, custom cars, and racers. North American Fiberglass made Shelby Cobra replicas and raced them with stock Pinto Mustang II front suspension parts. No fancy tube arms, adjustable coil springs etc.
Yes caster is a directional control on a turn the inside wheel pushes down thus raising vehicle up. SAI "Steering Axis Inclination" is also a directional control on a turn inside and outside wheels pushes down thus both sides raises vehicle up thus has twice the effect of caster.
The air bag mod over the steer axle is regulated by a leveling valve as load and road conditions change.
I'm in Battle ,Ground. Hope to meet you.
I've a73 GMCMH so you have good info.
I was reading 30 years ago how the challenge to make race cars handle better was to get the ball joints as close to the center of the contact patch to get zero scrub. Zero scrub works very well for heavy vehicles, because the effort to steer the vehicle is less, the resistance will be caster as to turn the vehicle is lifted as it turns. Since we're mostly on the highway I set my caster on the gmc at 3 degrees, you can really feel it at slow speeds on asphalt. On the highway it's great.
I looked at the 1 ton setup and concluded very quickly that the geometry was not thought out past the idea of a bigger bearing. And having a hub spacer that big probably defeated that. Changing the length of the control arms and retaining stock mounts isn't ideal, and it's not an engineered solution. My stock bearings made it 97,000 miles
I thought everyone knows that the 250 ft-lb figure was an error. Torquing a 9/16" grade 8 stud that high will stretch them and they will eventually fatigue break. This has been discussed many times on-line over the last 30+ years. The consensus is that 140 ft-lbs is more than sufficient.
So, there was a typo for every single year it was made? Because I checked each Owner's manual, and they all say 250 ft. lbs. I seriously doubt a typo would go unnoticed for six years, and over 12k coaches built.
@@seeburg220 nope, not a typo, an error. Copy/paste predates computers. You tighten to 250 and you WILL break studs, especially 43 to 49 year old ones. Not something you should risk happening at 65 on a freeway.
@@Nyth63 first time I torqued these, I instinctively went 150 lbs and I was surprised at 250.. especially on this stud size. And I can't imagine them backing off at 150 lbs , they haven't. I can however easily imagine stripping or pulling the threads at 250
@@Nyth63 Makes me wonder if his "loose lug nut" issue was caused by stretched lugs.
I had always known of the vehicle's tendency to return the steering wheel to center attributed to the caster settings of the suspension. The more positive the caster, the more you have to fight the steering wheel in a turn. As an extreme example, that's why a top fuel dragster's positive caster setting is so rediculously extreme. You don't want it going anywhere but straight. And for torque steer, though it can be a traction issue, isn't it usually an issue of unequal length drive axles? Front wheel drive cars almost always have an axle 1.5 to 2 times the length of the other. The longer of the two acts like a torsion bar. At least, that's what I had learned in college.
Yes caster is a directional control on a turn the inside wheel pushes down thus raising vehicle up. SAI "Steering Axis Inclination" is also a directional control on a turn inside and outside wheels pushes down thus both sides raises vehicle up thus has twice the effect of caster.
Hey, DPT, check your LX wheels. It seems LX/Land Cruiser original alloys also are hub-centric.
Important thing on Scrub Radius is that both sides are identical, if not then when braking will make it pull to one side or the other.
Lets start with one thing. The issue with "wheel offs" isn't because of Hub Centric or Lug Centric wheels. 99% of "Lug Centric" wheels are also supported by a hub centric flange. Often that tolerance is so tight that even the tiniest corrosion will stick them on so tight that a 8# mallet is needed to remove them. The issue is the varied rate of expansion of and Alloy wheel with a Steel Hub Assy(and those pesky steel studs). The tire industry figured this out in the 90's. If you have Alloy rims you must come back to the place who installed your wheels 100 miles from install for a retorque. This is not required for steel wheels. Now some shops will tell everyone to come back after 100 miles but that's just a CYA. Going even deeper go look at a 1950's and 60's light duty truck wheel, they have conical seats for what you call a "lug centric wheel nut". The Issue whit this GMC wheel here is they are dually wheels and supposed to be interchangeable for the inner and outer. That's why they have the flat base flange nuts they need to work both ways. Steel dually wheels to this day have the same setup we have on our 1970's GMC MH. Lastly that "250# torque" doesn't clamp the wheel at 250ft lbs it just takes 250 ft pounds of twisting force to achieve maybe a 150 lbs stud torque due the friction of that large surface area flange nut. Besides a twisting torque of 250 ft lbs doesn't give you a clamping force of 250lb it's closer to like 30,000 pounds(just a ball park) for clamping force. Over 20 years in Automotive and Truck, 8 of those years in the tire and wheel industry. Worked for corporate Goodyear back in the 90's. I have a stupid amount of training tin tire and wheels failures.
Well I hate to tell you now, I have talked with the Alex Sirum GMC Motorhomes in Okeechobee FL, they say thay can get all the parts without the 1 ton front end. Im a trailer guy, DO NOT USE A LIGHTER tire, stay with a 10 ply load range E tire, if you do it will be like driving a wet noodle down the road.
>DO NOT USE A LIGHTER tire,...it will be like driving a wet noodle down the road.
Can you give me more information? What leads you to say this? With a sidewall that is 1" shorter (lower profile=stiffer) and the same weight rating as what the original manual from GMC specified, I don't see how the 235/65R18 110 tires will be unreasonably flexible. Radial tire technology has come a long way in recent years. "A tire’s load range letter is an attempt to equate radial tires’ carrying strength in old bias-ply terms. Air pressure is the functional indicator: Higher-load tires accept higher maximum pressures." (www.motortrend.com/how-to/1407-understanding-tire-load-ratings/) So if it feels like a noodle I should just be able to increase the pressure up to the max of 50psi. Do you know of someone who has tried 18" rims with 30" 110 load rated tires? I feel like I should trust the engineers who are telling me that this tire is equivalent to the bias ply tire that GMC specified in the manual. Is the manual wrong? I know that handling standards of the day were lower and bias ply tires are supposed to have stiffer sidewalls, so you could be correct, but isn't that the whole point of the load rating? Shouldn't a 110 tire today offer the same or better performance of an 8 ply Load range D tire from 1978?
You need to run load rating E on these units unless you plan on running lite...so no water, no black water, generator or batteries etc. If you do a little more research you will find GMC upped the tire requirements in 77-78. The proper way to do a tire choice would be to fit out your RV then scale each axle....then you could choice the proper rating based on the load. Note: you also dont want to be running your tires at max inflation pressures so you have to look at that as well.
@@richardmondor1360 Richard Agrees with me, I bought a f150 with 18" tires, they were 110 rated, just pulling a 16' Flat trailer was bad, it don't matter the pressure, its the sidewall stiffness of a 10 ply e rated tire, Iv'e got a couple million miles with Various trailers n trucks light medium duty some heavy duty, You can try it but you will come to me with what many people tell me "You was right"
:)
your description of bump steer is inaccurate. your describing 1 effect of caster. bump steer is caused by the arc of travel of the steering tie rods. if you have a high angle tie rod, on the lower side of the arc, and you hit a bump, causing the suspension to compress, raising the tie rod in it's arc of travel, this causes the tie rod to force the wheel to turn. as the tie rod raises in it's arc of travel it becomes longer, there by turning the wheel around the spindle axis. depending if the steering is fwd of the spindle or aft of the spindle will determine the direction of the turn.
Modern cars and light trucks are all hub-centric wheels from the factory. The only wheels that are lug-centric are aftermarket wheels.
Sometimes I read comments that make me doubt reality for a minute. This was one of those. If the lug nuts have a conical profile, the wheels are lug-centric (lug piloted). Do an ebay search for "lug nut" and see how long you have to scroll before you find a flat flanged lug nut (the type used on hub-centric wheels). The difficulty locating Hub-centric lug nuts is a good indicator of that attachment system's prevalence.
@@IndustriousPursuits You are making a bad assumption that conical nuts are only used on lug centric wheels. It is true that square shoulder nuts can only be used on hub centric wheels. But conical nuts are used on both hub centric and lug centric wheels. If the hub has a protrusion that fits within the wheel with very little clearance it is hub centric whether it uses conical or square shoulder nuts. Go pull the OEM wheel off any recent car or light truck and look at the clearance between the hub and wheel, the clearance between the wheel and hub will be less than the clearance between the wheel and the lug nuts. A build up of rust or corrosion on the hub or wheel center will cause the wheel to stick, even with all the lug nuts removed. That is because the wheel is hub centric.
@@tallpaulsynd Yup! and the lug nuts for alloy and steel wheels are commonly the same. Many OEM cars come with alloy wheels and a steel spare wheel but the same lug nuts (almost always conical) are used for both wheels.
Y'all the 250ft pound torque on a Large Diameter Dry, flange nut is likely correct, in part. On a regular Nut (low surface contact area) you loose 50% of the applied torque to friction between the Nutface and the wheel face. There are further loses in the thread friction. That GMC flange nut on the original mild steel wheel has probably 3X+ the surface area of a standard nut so even at 250ft lbs of torque that solid base flange nut is applying at most 100 ftlbs of torque to the stud. If you are using a 2 piece nut yeah probably 140 ftlbs is fine. If you are using a lubricant with the old factory nut 140ftlbs is likely fine. From why I have seen most wheel studs have been lubed at some point in their life by some well intentioned,
When watching Jim bounds video on the wheels, it sounds like the Alcoa are still hub centric, did I hear wrong?
The classic dually alcoas are hub centric.
Ion makes it a 17" version of the alcola rim. Try pairing with climatica mitchlin 235 65
Has anyone come up with a way to put a more modern 4 speed w/OD transaxle in one of these?
Great Video,
Have you studied the Ackerman Steering Priciples?
Air Bag Options
1.Fill with nitrogen for stable temperature and atmospheric changes.
2. Have a cab mounted air regulator for adjustment while driving, (my favorite option)
This might be a bit naive of me to ask, but why would pure nitrogen be better than regular air? The ideal gas law (p*V=n*R*T) applies to all gases within the expected operating conditions; not just air.
Nitrogen molecules (N2) are larger than oxygen molecules (O2) so therefore, pure nitrogen will permeate the walls of your tires less than oxygen molecules. ...
In cars I haven't noticed near the difference as I thought I would from changing sidewall aspect ratios. The only place I really notice is better handling.
You're also putting way too much into the tire/wheel width, 225 and 235's will be fine on the exact same size wheels. That's not an issue at all.
Going up a +one or +two fitment with a car is usually not a bad thing but when your dealing with 20000lbs of vehicle and limited wheel offset/spacing it a whole different ball game.
BRAKE BIAS issues.. i don't know if the increase in front braking ability changed the brake bias toward the front.. making the front wheels slid before the back wheels.. i can't find the size of the rear wheel cylinder bore... could be 7/8 or 25/32 0.9375 or 0.906.
the Centric Parts 134.62001 wheel cylinder seem to be a 15/16" bore of the same family.. i see an EW71119 that is a 1" bore that might be in the same family.. or it could be wrong.
please calculate the piston bores of the original calipers and the replacement calipers.. if you have the same square inches when you calculate it out.. then you are probably good.. if you have increased.. you may want to go to a larger rear wheel cylinder.
why.. in Circle track cars... G bodies.. monte carlos.. cutlass supremes.. the racers went to a full size impala/caprice front spindles, rotors and calipers which threw off the brake bias.. they tried installing adjustable rear prop valves with a knob.. nothing they could do to stop the fronts from locking up before the rears.. there happened to be one application that instead of 3/4" wheel cylinders was 7/8.. and mounted the exact same way.. that cured the issues and returned brake bias to proper ratios.. after the swap all 4 wheels skidded.. instead of just the fronts..
Those 2 piece lug nuts are standard on ford f250 and f350 trucks. Maybe they will fit
I'm a bit confused. There aren't any front wheel drive corvettes. Please revisit
Thanks
Upon further research I found the first GM front wheel drive car was the 1966 Toronado.
Love your page. Looking for my own GM now.
Peace
OMG! That's so true. That was the first year for IFS, not front wheel drive IFS!!! That makes it likely that this is the first production GM IFS Fwd.
This is the same engine and suspension as the Toronado.
U can buy mine 5 k
@@IndustriousPursuits '63 Corvette was not the first IFS GM car by any stretch. I believe it was the second independent "rear" suspension after the '60 Corvair, which had a swing axle rear suspension. I'm enjoying your videos though.
The specs for a single rear wheel 1-ton Chev/GM one ton truck show a positive offset of 28mm. The dually wheeled truck wheels have a positive offset of 125mm. So the difference between the two types of wheels is 97mm (3.8"). So that spacer at 3.5" is actually 0.3" short. I'm not sure what the OEM spacer is, but maybe its 3.5" as well and GM had a reason for it. As I said in my comment to your previous video. the spacer just puts the tire track of dually type wheels back in the same position as single wheels would be. I'm not sure where you got the difference in offsets as being 1.5".
GMC never used a spacer on this vehicle setup....there was one made by a person and sold in order to space out the front wheels the distance needed to match the rear track (rear wheels on these coaches track wider than front). The bigger spacer for the 1 ton is to offset the bigger brake setup and as a bonus it actually makes the track the same front and back.
@@richardmondor1360 The one-ton knuckle was designed to work with single rear wheel trucks with a 28mm offset wheel. The spacer is used to place the 125mm offset dually wheels as used on the Motorhome to put the tire back in the same track as the single wheel. If you put a single wheel without a spacer on a one-ton front end, the tire will be in the same track location as a dually wheel with the spacer. Look at any GM/Chev one-ton dually wheel pickup and you will see a spacer there from factory.
@@brucehislop8860 yes and you willalso hit the caliper as the brake rotor and caliper are much larger than stock hence one of the other benefits or issues depending on how you look at it, when going to the 1 ton conversion.
@@richardmondor1360 I went to the one-ton 10 years ago and have no intention of going back!
@@brucehislop8860 if i had to do the front end on mine i'd be going one ton as well, dont get me wrong.
Just watch your tire heights, front isnt the problem, its the rear as you get to close to the boggy boxes etc....lots of info available on the this issue if you dig around.
The one ton upgrade is a not perfect either but not much choice verse whats available for suspension components these days.
I say leave it stock, increased heavier parts a arm hubs ect. I like.
Ya know what...thiz is really good. I'm thinking 17.5 would be the magic rim. Hmmmm...really got me thinking. 17.5 has commercial rated tires...load range f etc...is this possible?
4:02 I am going to say it one more time. The hub centric ring has only one purpose and that is to align the wheel and axle/hub of the vehicle. The hub centric ring provides NO "safety catch". Many factory hub centric rings are plastic or aluminum. For example my Audi A6 has alloy wheels and hub centric rings made out of plastic (this is "as provided by the OEM manufacture"). Do you think Audi is stupid enough to put a plastic hub centric ring in service if it provided ANY mechanical function to the system???
The article by James D. Varin is an excellent article but you should have noted that he only talks about clamping force, I did not see any reference to your "secondary function of the hub centric ring as a "safety catch"". I should also note that the article is about "light duty vehicles" and the author seems to lump everything that does not have duel rear wheels into this category. When the author talks about "Bolt Piloting and Hub Piloting" he specifically says:
"In bolt-piloted systems, the geometric features of the wheel nuts (usually either spherical or conical) mate with similar features formed at the bolt holes of the wheel so that when the nuts are tightened the nuts force the wheel to assume a position in which the mating surfaces are “nested” and the bolt circle of the wheel (the theoretical circle formed by the centers of the bolt holes) coincides with the bolt circle of the hub (the theoretical circle formed by the centers of the wheel bolts). In hub-piloted systems, the center hole of the wheel is piloted on the hub itself, requiring that both be machined to very exacting standards and that the diameter of the wheel center hole be only slightly greater than the diameter of the hub. The bolt hole areas of the wheel are then flat (lacking the conical or spherical surfaces present in bolt-piloted designs) and are larger than the major diameter of the wheel bolts so that the wheel slides easily over the bolts. In the recent history of light vehicles (since at least the 1930s), bolt-piloted designs have predominated. Hub-piloted systems began to emerge in the early 1980s".
This is generally true when talking about Medium duty trucks (which the author makes no reference to, only making the differentiation with "duel real wheels") but is patently false when talking about "Passenger Vehicles" such as cars and light duty trucks (1/2 and 3/4 ton). Since the early 1960s North American auto manufactures have used a hub centric steel wheel with a geometric feature formed at the bolt holes of the wheels (usually a 45 degree conical seat) and a matching feature on the wheel nuts (45 deg seat). The author talks about this in reference to the "bolt-piloted" systems but then states that hub-piloted systems use a bolt hole area of the wheel that is flat and this is not true of systems used in Passenger Vehicles". So this hybrid system of 1960s North American auto manufactures has continued in use even today (2021). Note that alloy wheels are a bit of a mixed bag and I have personally seen OEM alloy wheels that are hub centric and use a 45 degree conical seat and matching wheel nut and OEM alloy wheels that are hub centric and use a flat seat and flat faced wheel nut.
Regardless, I stick with my original statement; The hub centric ring has only one purpose and that is to align the wheel and axle/hub of the vehicle. The hub centric ring provides NO "safety catch".
Kent, if that's the only purpose of the hub flange then how did my wheel stay centered, balanced and damage free during the 5 hours of driving I did in all highway conditions with only 4 of the 8 lug nuts tightened to approx. 40ft/lbs (Note: they are spec'd. at 250ft/lbs)? Remember as I was driving I heard a clunk upon starting and stopping. I even showed this on camera in the "40 year old motorhome in traffic" video. That was the sound of the rim spinning around the flange until the lug stud prevented further motion. The proof is in the putting. The flange acts as a safety catch. Or do you think it was divine intervention? Maybe I had some invisible angels holding up the front end of my motorhome. Plastic spacers are a hack that came A loooooong time after the original engineers who invented/designed hub centered wheel attachment. Heck, petroleum plastic wasn't even a thing when they invented hub centered wheel attachment.
@@IndustriousPursuits 1st: Your lug nut torque is not 250ft/lbs, that is a typo. Torquing a 9/16" grade 8 stud that high will stretch them and they will eventually fatigue break. This has been discussed many times on-line over the last 30+ years. The consensus is that 140 ft-lbs is more than sufficient.
2nd: With your loose lug nuts, the wheel did not stay centered, balanced or damage free. A close inspection will revel the metal to metal contact that was occurring when you were hearing the clunking upon starting and stopping. Your studs were banging against the insides of the stud holes in the rims. No doubt, if the lug nuts are not too loose, the flange will keep the wheel centered but that isn't it's design function, this is a happy (lucky) unplanned result.
You say plastic spacers are a hack, but how can you explain the OEM "plastic" hub centric rings that came from the factory on my A6 Audi?
Also, your wheel spacers with there hub centric ring are made of aluminum. I would bet you money that if you drove any distance with loose lug nuts on that aluminum spacer, the steel rim would shred that hub centric ring in no time and it would not be the "safety catch" you think it is.
I totally disagree, on my bmw the hub center aligns the rim. It's also taking the load . I use a 10 lb hammer on the tire to free it with no lug nuts on. The lugs are fixing the rim to the hub. The lugs are not taking the weight. My gmc wheels do not fit the hub center tight enough to take the weight.
Audi has NO OEM Factory hubcentric rings. No major OEM uses hub centric rings. If there is Hubcentric rings on your car they are aftermarket or where originally for a different Audi.
Those spacers hate your wheel bearings. And If you put the wrong rim offset on your scrub radius will be uuuuuuuuuuuugly.
Go with the air ride you don't need to worry about mountains! As for the nosedive you can get a brake proportioning valve from summit racing or jegs for $50-$60 bucks
That's not what bump steer is.
I'm not sure where you get VWs having to have an entire engine replaced evwry 40k miles. But Ive know many VW ownera and thats not a thing for them. Maybe if you've heavily modified the car and put something in it that doeant belong perhaps.
Aftermarket engine options have gotten a lot more reliable in recent years, but original VW vans are well known for needing engine replacements very frequently. Ask any old timer VW guy. He'll tell you. Alternately, go watch the old episodes of "Kombi Life" and watch him replacing engines on the side of the road in South America. th-cam.com/video/nIr7PqvbUUk/w-d-xo.html
But for some VW owners, it is a Thing.
He is referring to the old air cooled VW buses....problem with them is the air diverters used to pull cool air us to rust out and fall out....then the engine would run hot and generally live a very short life span after.
the 250 ft-lb torque spec is a typo
No, 250 ft. lbs. is correct for the original steel wheels from 1973-78. There's no way a typo goes unnoticed for six years and 12k coaches built.
sorry, this guy doesn't have clue
.
I don't have a clue: which guy are you talking about?
Wow. For a non engineering type of person that actually made some sense. Don't ask me to repeat it.
do you have 9/16-18 or 5/8-18 wheel stud thread sizes..
www.etrailer.com/question-101173.html
9/16 cone shaped lugs are 120 to 140 foot pounds at least on Etrailer..
5/8-18 solid flanged lug nuts are 275 to 325 foot pounds.. NON ROTATING FLANGE type..
5/8-18 rotating flange lug nuts.. 190 to 210 Foot pounds..
so it depends on if you have 9/16 or 5/8 and which lug nuts do you use..
i don't want you or anybody else thinking that that 9/16 lug nuts can be torqued that tight.. it will stretch the studs.. causing failure
you may want to look thru the various lug nuts available on digital pages 49 thru 52.. www.billavista.com/tech/pdf_index/files/Wheels%20and%20Tires/Dorman%20Wheel%20Studs%20and%20Nuts%20Catalog.pdf
i hope i have not torqued you off..