Reading ETKA hardware #s

[Larry C Leung]

Locknuts do not USUALLY carry any load other than the pre-load applied to
them in the process of acting as a "lock-nut". Therefore SS nuts are
perfectly okay to use in this application. However, if you get the SS
lock nut free, and the other but is still frozen, you've still got quite
a job to do, not sure if you save too much time, overall. 

LL - NY

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:26:36 -0400 Marc Swanson <marcswanson at mediaone.net>
writes:
>> This is one of my bete noirs, so pardon the RANT that follows!
>>
>> Stainless steel was never specified or used by Audi.  The reason is 
>usually
>> strength.
>>
>> It has one advantage - it doesn't rust.
>>
>> It has two disadvantages - it's usually weaker and it's usually 
>austenetic.
>
>
>I agree on all points.  The caveat both me and Huw have mentioned 
>needs to be 
>observed:  In areas where strength is an issue use the standard Audi 
>bolts.   
>However, the vast majority of nuts and bolts on the car stainless is 
>plenty 
>strong for.  Example:  I've used stainless locknuts on the engine and 
>transmission mounts as well as stainless hardware to secure the 
>transmission 
>mounts to the subframe.  No problems.  I would NOT however go using 
>stainless 
>on the bolts that go through the control arm bushings, the bolt that 
>secures 
>the ball joint, brake caliper support bolts,   things like that.
>
>
>> The second disadvantage - that it's usually austenetic - can be a 
>RIGHT
>> PAIN IN THE TITS!  Ever seen anyone drop a stainless cam cover nut 
>into a
>> bore? There is no corrosion risk up there, and retrieval of 
>stainless bits
>> that fall into the wrong places can be - erm - awkward?
>
>Hehe, oh yeah.  Have to agree that this is a big PITA.  I purchased a 
>pair of 
>extra long needle nose pliers just for this reason :-)
>
>-Marc-
>87 4ktq
>88 90q