mortorq???? Anyone use it
- Thread starter 90zcar
- Start date
toolman9w
Well-known member
2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee seat belts and GM bellhousing to case bolts.
MikeF2316
Well-known member
Dude, charge your phone!
bwringer
Well-known member
Goddammit, who do we gotta kill to get the stupid automotive engineers to stop making up silly new fasteners?
Grand Cherokee ? That's news to me. The KL body Cherokees use them on the bolts that hold the seats, not the seat belts. 200 also.
Goddammit, who do we gotta kill to get the stupid automotive engineers to stop making up silly new fasteners?
Mortorq is from Phillips, not automotive engineers, its also been around for some years now. It was designed as a high strength replacement to phillips for similar fasteners like pan head, countersunk, and low profile cap screws. I don't mind advancements and its welcomed in the rust belt, the issue I have is how slow to adopt manufacturers are so that these tools collect dust 98% of the time.
Wakefield
Well-known member
Does Mortorq hold better in the tightening direction than in the removal direction? That is,wallow out or cam out easily upon an attempt at removal? If so that is not good,and another fastener would be better from an engineering standpoint.
DSLTRK
Well-known member
I would think so, since it is not a tapered drive system such as Phillips. I don't think "Mortorq" would be the trademark if it did cam out easily.
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
Yeah, the Dodge Darts also use them. Apparently the fasteners cut down on the assembly time at the factory. They use them on the seat to floor pan mounting holes. Pretty dumb if you ask me. How many more fasteners types in the world do we need?
I think Wakefield's point (and one that was wondering as well), is why the asymmetrical design. I mean that thing just looks like it's designed for more torque on fastening and not so much on removing. Just saying, what other reason for the asymm design?
Last edited:
DSLTRK
Well-known member
Since it's not a symmetrical fastener, it really reduces driver side-to-side play and of course, cam-out, that would be experienced with a slotted or Phillips.
The design of the Mortorq is more favorable for assembly, engineers probably looked at max torque, tool life and ease of fastener manufacture. This Mortorq design is probably better than Torx for assembly operations when you look at the whole picture.
Wakefield
Well-known member
I believe that if a fastener drive system is biased for more torque capacity in one direction it should be the removal direction since removal often requires much more torque than was used in assembly.
Unless it is a throw away item that will not be disassembled for repair or maintenance.
Unless it is a throw away item that will not be disassembled for repair or maintenance.