When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've been hearing a pretty noticeable "clickity clack" from the front right CV axle when I turn left and accelerate for quite a while now. Today I decided to increase the torque on the front RH axle nut a little up to 75 lb-ft and the noise is completely gone. So what's going on here do you guys think? Is it just a worn outboard axle joint or was the torque simply too low? There's a new wheel bearing in the hub if anyone asks. Maybe the CSM is incorrect on that 65 ft-lbs spec? I've found tons of mistakes in the '66 CSM so it wouldn't be surprising. I don't see any corrections in the '66 or '67 TSBs or Service Guild publications, maybe it came in a later one (if someone could check)? 65 does seem low to me, but what do I know (not much, lol).
The assembly line values are for the first time brand new parts are put together in a controlled environment. The CSM is for maintenance on the vehicle after it has left the factory. Rust, dirty or dinged-up threads, or a poorly-calibrated torque wrench could cause over-torquing and possible failure of the axle stub or bearings.
The assembly line values are for the first time brand new parts are put together in a controlled environment. The CSM is for maintenance on the vehicle after it has left the factory. Rust, dirty or dinged-up threads, or a poorly-calibrated torque wrench could cause over-torquing and possible failure of the axle stub or bearings.
Yes, good point. Well, I guess considering the joint can accept a 110 ft-lb spec and I only went up a little to 75 with the end result being no clattering noise so that's a good thing in this case. I could still use the same cotter pin hole so it wasn't too dramatic. I think I'll just leave it as is and see how it performs.
So I'm still ruminating on this, something isn't right. A fellow Facebooker on the Toronado group turned me on to the actual specs in the 1967 Toronado section of the CSM. The axle nut on the 1967 Toronado is torqued to 150 ft-lbs! It's basically the same design........considering how many errors I've found in the 1966 Toro section, I'm betting the '66 spec of 65 ft-lbs (or 60, depending on where you look) is just straight up wrong. There has got to be a TSB or a Service Guild somewhere along the line that addresses this, however I haven't found it yet. There's no way they went over double the torque on the '67 axle without some reason for it. This 1966 CSM is gonna be the death of me as you have to dig deep to ensure no errors on every single damn thing. It's bloody chock full of errors on the Toros.
- The '66 Assembly manual says it should be torqued to 110 ft-lbs (pg 3-2.4. or pg 119)
- The '66 CSM says it should be torqued to 60 ft-lbs in the Tq specs section (pg 3EA-20), yet it states 65 ft-lbs in the illustrations (fig 3EB-3).
- The 1967 assembly manual says 110 to 190 ft-lbs (pg 128 or pg 3-1.23)
- The 1967 CSM says it should be torqued to 150 ft-lbs. (pg 3EB-1, step 6 of installation)
1967 CSM drive axle section
Last edited by ourkid2000; Dec 21, 2025 at 08:25 AM.
OurKid2000 - Thanks for the correction information, including location of incorrect info in Assembly Manual and CSM - it took me less than 2 minutes to make the corrections in my 2 CSMs. Since I've done work on at least one of the axles, I'll double-check the torque on both nuts once we get into warmer weather.
Thanks again.
Thank you. I will be printing out a page to insert in my 1966 Olds CSM.
Originally Posted by torotoyguy
OurKid2000 - Thanks for the correction information, including location of incorrect info in Assembly Manual and CSM - it took me less than 2 minutes to make the corrections in my 2 CSMs. Since I've done work on at least one of the axles, I'll double-check the torque on both nuts once we get into warmer weather.
Thanks again.
My pleasure folks! Some kind folks on here offered to help me out with the references for this but I guess they got busy with life and it never happened. I ended up purchasing my own set of 1965 Service Guild issues off of Ebay and, sure enough, I found the smoking gun.
Anyway, I have no idea why they had 60ish ft-lbs listed for this application. I must have corrected about a dozen problems in the Toronado section of the '66 CSM so far. I actually may pick up a '67 CSM just so I can compare the information between it and the '66 when I'm doing work on this thing (seeing as though they're just about the same car). It's been extremely frustrating at times when you absolutely know there's something wrong with the manual but haven't got the correct reference information to confirm. Some items were corrected in the '67 manual so it's probably worth having one.
I prefer to print the Service Guild page and include it in the my CSM's because it shows the legitimate source the hand written change can be traced back to.
OurKid2000 - Thanks for the correction information, including location of incorrect info in Assembly Manual and CSM - it took me less than 2 minutes to make the corrections in my 2 CSMs. Since I've done work on at least one of the axles, I'll double-check the torque on both nuts once we get into warmer weather.
Thanks again.
It's odd that the assembly manual has the correct spec while the CSM is wrong. I would assume the assembly manual came first but who knows.
It's odd that the assembly manual has the correct spec while the CSM is wrong. I would assume the assembly manual came first but who knows.
I am sure we will never get an "official" answer from Oldsmobile. The CSM's were probably printed first due strictly to the number of manuals needed for every dealership in the US and for Export.
1. The CSM was the complete "removal, Repair and Reinstall procedure" all over the world. Distributing the sheer volume of the manuals would take considerable time.
2. The CSM included a completely new and very different model......Toronado.
3. The CSM was used to train dealership mechanics about the new models before they arrived at dealerships.
4. The CSM was used as the new models arrived at dealerships with issues discovered in "dealer Prep" before they went in the showroom and on the sales lot.
5. The PIM was a much smaller publication and wouldn't be needed until just before training for assembly line techs were to build the cars.
6. The PIM didn't need the huge volume printed because there was a lot fewer assembly plants than dealerships.
7. The PIM pages can be quickly removed and replaced on the assembly line.
8. The Service Guild in December 1965 noted the correction. This was after the CSM and PIM's were printed and distriibuted.
9. I would think the dealerships were notified to check all Toronado's shipped before a certain date to check the torque by dealership mechanics.
......Just my two cents worth.
I am sure we will never get an "official" answer from Oldsmobile. The CSM's were probably printed first due strictly to the number of manuals needed for every dealership in the US and for Export.
1. The CSM was the complete "removal, Repair and Reinstall procedure" all over the world. Distributing the sheer volume of the manuals would take considerable time.
2. The CSM included a completely new and very different model......Toronado.
3. The CSM was used to train dealership mechanics about the new models before they arrived at dealerships.
4. The CSM was used as the new models arrived at dealerships with issues discovered in "dealer Prep" before they went in the showroom and on the sales lot.
5. The PIM was a much smaller publication and wouldn't be needed until just before training for assembly line techs were to build the cars.
6. The PIM didn't need the huge volume printed because there was a lot fewer assembly plants than dealerships.
7. The PIM pages can be quickly removed and replaced on the assembly line.
8. The Service Guild in December 1965 noted the correction. This was after the CSM and PIM's were printed and distriibuted.
9. I would think the dealerships were notified to check all Toronado's shipped before a certain date to check the torque by dealership mechanics.
......Just my two cents worth.
Excellent points, I never thought of it in those ways.
So, I'm left wondering where the 60/65 numbers came from - from CSM, the front wheel bearing nut on RWD cars is initially torqued to 30 ft-lbs before backing off and adjusting to finger tight, so that isn't the erroneous source.
So, I'm left wondering where the 60/65 numbers came from - from CSM, the front wheel bearing nut on RWD cars is initially torqued to 30 ft-lbs before backing off and adjusting to finger tight, so that isn't the erroneous source.
Yes great question. It's always a little frustrating when the corrections are made and there's no explanation as to why.
