It's exactly the same with the Ford Mondeos. The Mark 2 has four studs, the Mark 3 has five. I should think there's very little weight difference between the two and the design of the two models is broadly similar, so I can't think of any reasons why the Mark 3 should need five studs, that is, except for one. I own both and the tyre size is exactly the same so that isn't the reason, either.

One of the studs contains a locking wheel nut. We are always being told these should not be tightened to the same torque as the normal types of wheel nuts due to possible damage to the locking nut occurring. This is why I think Ford have now gone over to five studs; to make up for the locking wheel nut not being done up as tight as the others..

As for talking about weak wheel studs, takes me back to the Triumph 1300. I can't remember what size the studs were but I can always clearly remember they were noticeably smaller than those on, say, a Ford. I always thought I mustn't tighten the nuts on those too tight or there would very likely be problems.

Triumph's used the exact same rubbish studs as other BL cars. On Triumphs the annual ritual was to sound the stud with a hammer.

40lbs was torque for BL nuts.

For early TRs it was indeed around 45-55. However, my Haynes manual states 74ftlb for the TR7. All my 37yr old studs and nuts are OK, possibly because they don't get bashed with a hammer every year! Was this otiose ritual I have never heard of thought up by a redundant wheeltapper?

I have the "sporty" 3 stud model ,
peugeot 106 1.1, with go faster rust holes. :)

About 800kg, I think

ps still waiting for the steel, to fit...£3.25 delivered !
I spoil that car :)

Cheers
Liam

Edited by liammcl on 25/02/2017 at 19:59