Borgeson box - pitman arm nut torque

1980 Dodge Diplomat coupe here...the FSM calls for 175 ft-lbs, but the Borgeson box instructions only call for 100-120 ft-lbs...seems like a big difference, no?

I compared the old nut to the new one and the threads in the nut, as in TPI, seemed identical, so why the big difference?

For what it's worth: I put 100 ft-lbs on there right now and the rubber seal that sits between the box body and pitman arm isn't compressed yet and shows space....so it would seem like the pitman arm should still "climb" the output shaft a bit more, and that'll need more torque on the nut.

I applied anti seize to both the pitman arm splines and the box output shaft splines to make the mating go easier. The same was applied on the nut and the lock washer, so it's not like I might be seeing weird torque readings because of friction alone.

Thanks!

Has to be a difference in torque rating between the large and small sector shaft boxes. Anyone know what that is?

No idea what the spec is, I had to use a 3ft cheater pipe to get the arm high enough up on the shaft so at least a thread was showing past the nut.
Read others having issues getting the arm up on the Borg shaft.

Not the first issue I've heard of or experienced with Borgy conversions

Unless Borgeson told you to use antisieze on the threads their torque recommendation is moot.

The use of and type of lubricant used can have a profound effect on torque readings.

If Borgeson did specify antisieze that can account for the difference between their recommendation and what the FSM calls for.

A look at a generic torque specification chart may shed some light on this.

Here's what Antisieze has to say about it

https://www.antiseize.com/PDFs/torque_specifications.pdf

Appreciate all the comments and feedback you guys.

I reached out to Brian @Borgeson this morning and asked him for advice / direction re: proper approach to this.

His response is as follows:



Obviously, I am NOT sharing this as applicable to all similar inquiries, however this was his response to mine.

Sounds like their typical 💩 response. Why don't they jus fix the _____ing problem. I'm surprised you didn't get the "You're the only one that's had the issue" I'll give menial credit for that. Borgeson is not the company they used to be. Good enough is now adequate. RANT OFF

well, a guy could always "tighten it up until it strips or breaks, then back it off 1/2 a turn"............

I went up to 140 ft-lbs, felt pretty solid, gave me a single thread showing past the nut and literally ended pushing the pitman arm up the shaft to exactly (+/- 0.050") the same place as where it was resting on the factory box. So I called it "quits" at that time!

The rest of the suspension pieces (so the tie-rods and steering linkage) are now all connected back up as well. That part of the project is done and that frees me up to finish the motor.

Thank you for the feedback everyone!

Surprised they didn't send you a thinner nut

Diplomat -- Could you tell IF the cross-link attachment point with the Pitman arm was now changed.... lower or higher... possibly causing an interference with the your exhaust/headers? If higher, then there would be a greater chance of interference; If lower, then there would be slightly more clearance away from the exhaust/headers.

I often wonder about the Borgenson ps box... with that described matter of linkage attachment and the results afterwards.

Mopar Mitch:
Sorry about the delay in my response!

So the short answer is: NO, and that's because everything has been completely OUT of the engine bay for over a year now. So I literally have no point of reference at the moment, and the only option I would have had before I pulled the stock box out was to measure from the floor to 'somewhere'.

I'll be popping out to the garage this afternoon so let me compare the OEM vs Borgeson box and see if I can somehow get you the measurement you are looking for.

I was not concerned about this because my W2 build required me to move to a different set of headers, and those are the TTI pipes which do not go under the centerlink (where it's usually the tightest fit).