It's definitely worth it. Say they save $.10 for every bolt vs wheel stud/nut. That's $2 a car, on how many cars do they build?


Studs are stronger. But once the wheel is torqued, the studs aren't holding the wheel on the car, the friction of the mounting surface is. So, as long as bolts provide the needed clamping force, they work fine.

 

Yes, agreed it certainly adds up. And yes, the hub and face of the wheel are whats doing the holding. So say you have wheel bolts torqued to 90 ft/lbs and lug nuts torqued to 90 ft/lbs. Is that the same clamping force? Yes, its the same amount of energy or force applied to the fastener but does one have more clamping force than the other? I'd think so but can't fathom the physics behind it...

 

BMW has been using wheel bolts forever, this could just be a designed and assembled in germany kind of thing.

 

Depends on the fasteners used

 

That video really pumped me up.

How strange that one review says the car pushes like nobody's business (which I can believe given the reasoning behind hit) yet Hanz... or Franz (?) says it bites and turns in like crazy.

I prefer head studs only in case I have to pull stuff apart in the future. I am too cheap to keep buying head bolts LOL. Otherwise, I imagine one is as strong as the other. Again, I'm no engineer.
As for which is more effective at a given torque: whether the stress is on the threads of the stud/nut or bolt/block, I don't see much difference. Well, not enough to matter, that is.

 

Head studs/bolts are a bit different because of how long they are. Bolts can twist over the length of the shank, which can cause them to under torque. This is/should be accounted for in a properly engineered system. Lug bolts are so short they aren't as greatly effected by this.

 

That's why I was saying not enough to matter. I guess if you are boosting a butt load, it might.

 

I think it's a matter of how hard you're pushing the car... If you drive the car at 7/10 (IMHO even that's optimistic for your average journalist), it's gonna bite and turn like crazy. But if you go out and push it 10-11/10's, the short comings of the chassis are gonna come out... And I for one will take the word of a guy that runs a track/race prep shop and has reset many NASA TT records over some journalist.

And the fact that it's a bone stock car also has me more inclined to believe understeer is a thing at the limit. Ford knows most customers won't push it all that hard, and the ones that do (regular track rats), will modify the car...

 

^^^spot on in my opinion.

 

Yes, most cars push when driven at/past the limit. But this isn't supposed to be one of those cars...

 

If AWD is engaged, the rear is being over driven so you would not expect consistent understeer. Unless the system is not engaging as much as you would think.

It might also have to do with stress on the system with his left-foot braking? That extra drag on the rear just might cause the system to say danger, danger and preemptively shut down.

 

Yeah. It's just weird that the system seems to be so grossly undersized.

 

Agreed, but my post was more about different results with different drivers rather then about the car itself

About the car itself, mopar brings up a good point below. It could be that the RDU was overheating and becoming FWD quick with the Vorshlag guy and that was causing the bad oversteer, could be that it's a lot better when all systems are working...

 

So with that logic, RWD cars should not understeer ever?

Do any of you guys remember how badly the Evo understeered when it came out in the USA in 2003?

 

No, I have an 05, it handled pretty good stock. Even better with the diff restack. I would love a stocker for a daily...lol