You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter mikeee2
- Start date

... and probably counting.

Lug nut size: 21mm

Torque: 108-147 Nm, or 80-108 ft-lbf (for both P225/65R17 100H and P225/55R19 99V)

Tire pressure: 34psi(17") / 36psi(19")

Good for me since my previous car was a Elantra 2007 which have the exact same size lug nut. I don't have to buy another socket.

edit: I rotated my tires on my cx-5 yesterday, when I was unbolting the lug nut, it felt close to 80 than 90 ft-lbf. I used 90 ft-lbf this time, but I'm going to use 80 from now on.

Lug nut size: 21mm

Torque: 108-147 Nm, or 80-108 ft-lbf (for both P225/65R17 100H and P225/55R19 99V)

Tire pressure: 34psi(17") / 36psi(19")

Good for me since my previous car was a Elantra 2007 which have the exact same size lug nut. I don't have to buy another socket.

edit: I rotated my tires on my cx-5 yesterday, when I was unbolting the lug nut, it felt close to 80 than 90 ft-lbf. I used 90 ft-lbf this time, but I'm going to use 80 from now on.

Last edited:

L

80-108 ft-lbs seems like a wide range.

- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium

Just use 100#; it's easy to remember.80-108 ft-lbs seems like a wide range.

Do you prefer 94 with a 15% tolerance?80-108 ft-lbs seems like a wide range.

- :
- Plano, Texas, USA

Or just give us a single torque value like every other car manufacture, not a wide range.Do you prefer 94 with a 15% tolerance?

That number is 94. I'm baffled that people have a problem with Mazda's spec. The spec is 94.Or just give us a single torque value like every other car manufacture, not a wide range.

You might ask, how important is it to get almost exactly 94? Well, anything between 80 and 108 is fine according to Mazda. Giving a a spec range of 80-108 answers both questions at once.

I suspect Mazda was trying to make it simple for people. They took all of the math out of it.

Another way to say it is 94 +/- 14

That's a lot different than 94 +/- 2 which could be within the error of your torque wrench.

- :
- Plano, Texas, USA

My point is I’ve never seen a shop manual from any car manufactures specified the torque value on specs with a wide range. They always give a single value. The spec from Mazda isn’t 94, but 80-108 ft-lbf for lug nut. Giving a range doesn’t make it simple for people, but adding more on guess work. If we use the mid-value, 94 ft-lbf, like you suggested from the given range 80-108 ft-lbf, some may need a calculator to figure it out. Besides, 94 ft-lbf with a +/-15% tolerance gives me an impression that the value given isn’t precise, like a very sloppy engineering design on torque values.That number is 94. I'm baffled that people have a problem with Mazda's spec.The spec is 94.

You might ask, how important is it to get almost exactly 94? Well, anything between 80 and 108 is fine according to Mazda. Giving a a spec range of 80-108 answers both questions at once.

I suspect Mazda was trying to make it simple for people. They took all of the math out of it.

Another way to say it is 94 +/- 14

That's a lot different than 94 +/- 2 which could be within the error of your torque wrench.

Last edited:

Since torque limiting extensions generally come in 90 ft lb and 100 ft lb ranges, either one of those would be fine.

If you really wanted to be precise, do the math, find the mid point and torque to that spec (94) but I don't think they would put that range there unless you were OK torquing to anywhere in there.

- :
- Canada

My point is I’ve never seen a shop manual from any car manufactures specified the torque value on specs with a wide range. They always give a single value. The spec from Mazda isn’t 94, but 80-108 ft-lbf for lug nut. Giving a range doesn’t make it simple for people, but adding more on guess work. If we use the mid-value, 94 ft-lbf, like you suggested from the given range 80-108 ft-lbf, some may need a calculator to figure it out. Besides, 94 ft-lbf with a +/-15% tolerance gives me an impression that the value given isn’t precise, like a very sloppy engineering design on torque values.

Shop manuals would not specify a single torque value without allowing for some tolerances. Playing devil's advocate from your perspective, if those manuals specified 80 lb ft, and your torque wrench tightened to 83 lb ft, that would be considered "out of spec". Here is the owner's manual for the 2023 Honda CR-V. On page 644, it specifies a single torque value of 80 lb ft. It also states not to over tighten the wheel nuts. Now, most people don't carry torque wrenches in their trunks. If you have to change a tire on the side of the road, how do you know that you're not overtightening the wheel nuts?

It stands to reason that even though a single torque value is listed in Honda's manual, it is an average of the minimum and maximum torque required. Which means that there is a tolerance when torquing to 80 lb ft, allowing for a range of torque values within those tolerances to be acceptable. The only difference is that Mazda presents the range of acceptable torque specs instead of the single torque value average of that range.

- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo

What I did.If you have to change a tire on the side of the road, how do you know that you're not overtightening the wheel nuts?

I had regular wrench that is about 1ft long. I put my upper body weight on the end of it. That would be close to 100lb*ft. Yes. I verified it at home in my garage with my torque wrench.

If you try to stand on the end of the wrench ... that would be over-torquing it, unless you weigh less than 80lbs.