I didn't say overtorquing couldn't cause damage to the rotors; I just said that's usually not what causes OEM rotors to warp and I've never heard of torquing to factory specs causing damage to rotors. The point of my post was that they should be torqued to factory specs, not a much lower level determined by one's own concern for their rotors. FWIW, the Buick calls for 115 ft-lbs and the wheel studs & rotors are much smaller than the ones that get torqued to 95 ft-lbs on a 2005 & newer Ram 1500 so I really don't know that the studs & rotors are the only determining factor. Somebody that makes a heck of a lot more money than I and hopefully knows more than I about how tight the lug nuts should be conjures up these figures somehow and I just follow them. I have no idea why there'd even be such disparity between the lug nut torque on a 2004 or earlier Ram 1500 and a 2005 or later Ram 1500. Also, I would think that maybe there would be a difference for aluminum wheels vs. steel wheels but the manual makes no mention of that. I can say that the guy that had my truck before me must have put them on much tighter than the 135 ft-lbs the manual calls for on my 2002 because I had to use a cheater bar on my lug wrench to break them loose, and yet my brake pedal does not pulsate like it should if the rotors are warped.

 

Really? Your 2005 Ram 2500 calls for 145 ft-lb.

 

I too had to use a breaker bar to get the old nuts off prior to changing my rotors. And like you i wonder why the older rams require more torque, maybe somebody knows the reason why.

 

been doing 100ft lbs for the past 2 years

 

Here's something interesting I noticed...again quoted directly from the Haynes manual...

2004 and earlier
1500/2500 models......135 ft-lb
3500 models..............145 ft-lb
2005 and later
1500 models..............95 ft-lb
2500 models..............145 ft-lb
3500 models..............155 ft-lb

The 2005 and later 1500 models saw a 40 ft-lb decrease in lug nut torque while the 2500 and 3500 models each saw a 10 ft-lb increase in lug nut torque. Makes me wonder if the 95 could have been a misprint?

 

Never had any wheels flying by me on the highway at 100ft lbs for the past few years, Guess I outta up them just to be safe.

 

Interesting for sure. 95 does seem low for a truck no matter what model it is. You would think the editors would pick up on that if it was a misprint. Imagine your wheel comes off, and you say well i was following what the manual said lol .

 

I've personally rotated my Hemi QC 1500 4x4 wheels 7 times since I've owned it.
I always torque the lugs to 110ft lbs and have never had any issues.
I think that if the lugs aren't torqued evenly to the same specs on each lug, I can see why rotors will warp.
If a person chooses to just tighten the lugs using a bar and not a torque wrench, how do they know if one nut is tightened at 110ft lb and others say at 130 or 95 or 140?
Now that I believe, would cause warping that people are seeing.
Just my 2p. (sorry I'm English lol)
Al.

 

Dealer looked it up for my 06 and said 135 so that's what I have always done?!?

 

Not to tell you what to do, but I would maybe get a second opinion on that and if 2nd dealer says the same thing I'd consider the 95 in the Haynes manual to be an error. Haynes gets much of their information from the same source as the actual dealer's service manuals (I've walked thru dealership service areas and found their manuals open to the exact same electrical schematics etc. that I have in my Haynes manual at home; but I doubt the Haynes manual is as thorough as theirs) so I would like to think they'd have it right. Like I said before, I don't know what could be so different between a 2004 & older and a 2005 & newer. This would be interesting to hear back about...

And yes chasman, 95 does sound awful low for a truck of any kind. I owned about 5 or 6 Chevy S10s/GMC Sonomas before I finally started buying full size trucks and I seem to remember their lug nut torque being higher too; somewhere to the tune of 110-120 ft-lbs.