Another Bentley Typo ?

[Doug E]

So I goto check my Bentley manual tonight for the torque specs on the wheel to wheel hub and I find the following in the Bentley:

on page 460-17 in the brakes - mechanical section it is listed as 130 Nm (96 ft-lb) while on page 470-12 in the brakes - hydraulic section it is listed as 130Nm (94 ft-lb).

I can't imagine there is a real difference between 2 ft-lb, but doesn anyone anyone know what 130 Nm calculates to exactly in ft-lb?

Just to be safe I used 95 ft-lb.

Thanks.

[Early_S_Man]

The factory service manual says 94.0 lb-ft.

The incredible thing is that nobody at Bentley noticed. I guess numbers don't mean anything to their English-major editors!

[82SuperC]

130Nm = 95.88293 lbf-ft.

[Early_S_Man]

JB,

Besides the fact that you gave an answer with the following extraneous significant digits ... 8293 ... that could never be justified ...

Your calculation was based upon an approximation in Newton-meters of an original specification in kiloponds of 13.0 ... which was stated in the factory service manual, along with the English equivalent in lb-ft, which was 94.0!

[Wayne 962]

It's tough to keep all of those numbers straight. There are two typos like that in the first print run of 101 Projects. I think I looked up the Turbo value for something instead of the N/A value...

-Wayne

[speeder]

I would say that if your 911 lug nuts are anywhere near 94ft.lbs., you are torqued better than 98% of the cars on the road.