Copper "grease" on bolts

[NickDawson]

Hey gang,
Been meaning to ask this for a while - Ive noticed that a lot of bolts connected to the body or frame on my UK import seem to be coated in a grease that has an almost copper looking shine to it.

Anyone ever seen that and have any idea what it is?

It could very well be just a liberal coating of engine and gear oil mixed with filings from wear... but was curious if it was something particular.

Thanks
-N

[Lalo88DK]

I always use copper-grease on bolts when I bolt them back together, then you have no trouble taking things apart again even after 10-15 years.

[Monkeyboy]

Look for a tube / can labeled "Anti-Seize" at your local parts store.

[msggunny]

Its what monkey boy said, anti seize. Good stuff to have on those bolts. Is it ex mod?

[Apis Mellifera]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51swwnn7CVL._SS500_.jpg

[NickDawson]

ahhhh thanks very much gang!
I'll have to pick some up!

[slorocco]

Wurth also makes one. I've got a can that's lasted me over ten years, and still going.

[bkreutz]

LocTite also makes anti seize in a stick form (kinda like chap stick) I find it a whole lot less messy.

[Crash]

Will it prevent corrosion between aluminum and steel? In those places where a bolt might be in contact with aluminum.

Crash

[Rineheitzgabot]

Nick-

I think it is funny, that if it didn't have Anti-Seize on them, odds are you would have posted somewhere on here saying something like, "these sonz-a-b!tchin' bolts are so corroded together, I am having a heII of a time getting this stuff apart." And quite possibly, you may have even said, "Is there any product I can put on these fasteners so they come apart easier next time?" Maybe not. Anyway, be thankful someone did that. It is not common that people do that.

Almost anytime I take something apart on the old girl, I smear a little on the threads of all the fasteners, just in case I ever have to take it apart again. Makes life so much easier. I keep a special miniature paint brush on my work bench, especially for this.

FYI: Don't ever get it in the laundry! You will wish you never bought the Rover after your wife gets through with you.

Crash-

I do not think that it will prevent electrolysis (the corrosion that occurs from certain dissimilar metals coming in prolonged contact with each other). However, I would love to hear what others think.

-Gary

[printjunky]

Just try finding out what the conventional wisdom is on any galvanic effect from anti-seize compounds. I dare ya!

I've found nothing very compelling or scientific to support any of the assertions I read. Half was marketing, the other half was opinion.

If I had to assess trends in those opinions and claims (after reading/skimming a hundred or so through several different searches), I'd say both Al- and Cu-based are fine on steel->steel (which is also my experience/observation). Aluminum->steel seems to be the diciest opinion-wise, though I did read that Rover required Cu-based A-S on that type of mating. Zinc-based A-S was also mentioned for Al->Steel. Nickel-based A-S was recommended a couple of times for Stainless.

Interestingly, several companies claim one or more (but not all) of their formulas prevent galvanic corrosion. That implies a difference in that capability among the various formulas.

I have used the copper-based A-S with success and currently have a jar of the aluminum-based on the shelf that seems to be working fine, mostly on steel->steel, with no ill effects. My opinion and (my) logic dictates that there are likely to be no problems using a bit of A-S ... copper- OR aluminum-based ... on any threads on a Series Rover. Particularly in light of the metal being suspended in a heavy-ish grease with other compounds included (there were several claims - including companies listing some ingredients that the basic copper-based A-S also contains aluminum. eg: the Permatex basic A-S).

There's a lot of freaking out in the internets about whether using A-S changes torque specs, increases fastener failure rates, etc - and I'm no metallurgist, but I just don't see a very high likelihood of there being any statistically significant real-word consequence. With the vagaries and variability of fastener construction, mass-market metallurgy, torque specs, and variances (+/-), vibration, environment, etc, etc - it's sometimes a wonder that the wheels don't fly off every time a Rover (or any car) takes a corner above 25mph. Yet somehow, knock on Birmabright, they usually don't. I'd consult a pro if I were doing my own maintenance on my nuke-you-lure sub. But otherwise, I think we'll be OK.

It appears, nickel- and zinc-based A-S apply to a wider set of metal-to-metal circumstances and temperature ranges

Permatex does make an interesting non-metal (they say) anti-seize for marine use. Might allay any of those (galvanic) worries whatsoever.

[jac04]

If you are concerned about galvanic corrosion between the fastener(s) and the parts being bolted together:
Galvanic corrosion will take place between any two dissimilar metals that are in electrical contact with each other and submeresed in an electrolyte. No type of AS will stop galvanic corrosion on the areas of the bolts & parts that are exposed to the electrolyte. The AS may stop galvanic corrosion only on the areas that it is directly applied to, because it 'insulates' that area from the electrolyte & stops ion migration

[jac04]

Here's the rest of the story:
Now, I guess the other concern is the metal in the AS itself setting up the galvanic reaction. That may be why the "marine grade" ASs state that they don't cause galvanic corrosion and they are metal-free.
Anyhow, on to the torque issue. AS will affect the torque value to be used on fasteners since it greatly affects the coefficient of friction between the threads.
Since Torque = Preload x Bolt Diameter x Coeff. of Friction, if the CoF drops, the torque must be reduced to provide the same fastener preload. Dry torque versus lubricated torque is very different. Usually dry torque is about 33% higher than lubricated torque for the same preload. I use 3M Brake Lube/Anti Seize, and right on the can it warns of possible fastener problems from using it.
Most torque values called out in the service manual are dry torques, so applying AS and using the same torque value will result in too much bolt preload. This can lead to fastener and/or component failure.

[thixon]

The short answer:

No it won't help much, if at all. Its not gonna stay where you want it to anyway. A better option is to try some of the tapes and sticky coverings on the market. Go to 3M's website.

Unless you're 15, you'll be dead or in a nursing home by the time you have real trouble with galvanic corrosion anyway.:D

[amcordo]

Am I the only person on here that's replaced all of the bolts in the thing (except the drive-train bolts) with stainless? Just kinda curious...

[printjunky]

It might take me awhile, since I'm changing them to stainless on an as-projects-crop-up basis. A LONG while, hopefully.

[bkreutz]

I haven't on the Rover, but I have on other projects, there are some special considerations that have to be factored in, there's a wide range of strengths available, and then there's the "galling" issue. I've used this company many times and they've been very helpful (and competitive on the prices)http://www.totallystainless.com/totallystainless.htm

[TedW]

I haven't on the Rover, but I have on other projects, there are some special considerations that have to be factored in, there's a wide range of strengths available, and then there's the "galling" issue.

I've only faced the galling issue once, and that was with the big nuts/bolts on the windscreen hinges.

On the bright side, when you have galling you don't need to use any red Loc-Tite!:D

[thixon]

Um...you guys realize you still have galvanic corrosion with stainless steel fasteners and aluminum right? Again, unless you're using your rover as a sailboat, its gonna take a really long time for you to have major trouble. Footboxes will be shot long before you loose a wing mounting point.

[jac04]

Um...you guys realize you still have galvanic corrosion with stainless steel fasteners and aluminum right?
And, since stainless is further away from aluminum on the galvanic series, the aluminum will tend to corrode more quickly than if a steel bolt were used.

[Jim-ME]

I'm thinking that I will go back to using zinc plated bolts with stainless nuts for the ones I may need to take off more regularly than usual. Otherwise I'll just use zinc plated steel.
Jim

[amcordo]

Um...you guys realize you still have galvanic corrosion with stainless steel fasteners and aluminum right? Again, unless you're using your rover as a sailboat, its gonna take a really long time for you to have major trouble. Footboxes will be shot long before you loose a wing mounting point.


Already accounted for. That's why I use nylon washers on either side of my normal washers. +1 on the galling: use locktite and don't over torque when putting the fasteners on.

And having taken the thing apart I can safely say that I had to replace 3/4 of the bolts I removed because I either had to grind them off or snap them in half to remove them. My teardown took twice as long as it needed too, but now that I'm SS it'll be a simple trick to get it apart again.

[NickDawson]

Quite the discussion evolving here.
All I know is that the stuff saved my bacon tonight, made getting the pin out from between the brake lever and the servo a breeze!

[Terrys]

now that I'm SS it'll be a simple trick to get it apart again.

fyi, 300 series ss bolts & nuts, because ss is so soft, tend to deform the threads, and you will find removing tightend ss bolts equally a pain. Also, 300 series stainless is not as strong as a grade 8 fastener. 400 series (CA15, 410ss) are very strong and heat resistant, but expensive.

[jac04]

Already accounted for. That's why I use nylon washers on either side of my normal washers.
Not really. The chances of the stainless bolt not being in electrical contact with the aluminum is slim. You would have to have centered the bolt in the hole before tightening, making very sure that the bolt didn't touch the aluminum at all during the tightening process. Use your multimeter to check for continuity between the bolt head and the aluminum and you'll see what I mean.

[SafeAirOne]

A couple of thoughts...

I think you are much, much more likely to have an issue getting an unprotected rusty nut off an unprotected rusty bolt than you are to have a galvanic corrosion issue using any type of anti-seize.

Galling in stainless isn't really a problem if you use a different type of stainless for the nuts and bolts. For example, use a 316 stainless nut AND bolt, and it'll probably jam up during tightening, but use a 316 stainless bolt and a 304 stainless nut and you'll be all set.

[mongoswede]

Just remember that stainless bolts are not as strong...or I should say they tend to be more brittle. So they work ok for low strain applications but I wouldn't use stainless on something like a spring bolt.

[amcordo]

Not really. The chances of the stainless bolt not being in electrical contact with the aluminum is slim. You would have to have centered the bolt in the hole before tightening, making very sure that the bolt didn't touch the aluminum at all during the tightening process. Use your multimeter to check for continuity between the bolt head and the aluminum and you'll see what I mean.


True, but I've minimized the area that will be corroded. Plus even if I used a normal steel it would STILL get corrosion. Not a concern for me, but thanks for yours!


fyi, 300 series ss bolts & nuts, because ss is so soft, tend to deform the threads, and you will find removing tightend ss bolts equally a pain. Also, 300 series stainless is not as strong as a grade 8 fastener. 400 series (CA15, 410ss) are very strong and heat resistant, but expensive.

That's why I haven't replaced any of the drivetrain hardware yet. However, the SS bolts I used weren't the cheapest type; they are hardier than grade 2 (which as far as I can tell are what was used across the rest of the truck - for instance to hold the roof on) and just about on par with grade 5. They've got about 80,000 psi minimum yield strength and 100,000 psi tensile strength. I ended up spending about $400 on all of the bolts from an online distributor.

Quite frankly the strength issue is moot; they've been on some places across my car for a year now, and the rest for the past three months including that long trip to southern KY and I've had no issues with stripping, bending, or otherwise breaking. And I've no intention of using them on drivetrain since they're just not made for that kind of stress.

I'm surprised there's so much resistence to changing all the fasteners you can to SS from a few of you - it's not original, but regardless of what you say it'll be a darned site easier removing it than normal or zinc coated steel in a few years. I can attest to that because the PO used it in the floorboards when he did his upgrade in '95. They were simple to remove. Other bolts - as I said they were easier to grind or more likely to snap.

[thixon]

Tony,

I don't think anyone in this thread is resistant to using SS fasteners, we just wanted to make sure it was understood that using them with the intention of stopping the corrosion of the aluminum parts would not work.

I will say this, I think you'd be better off worrying about other improvements rather than spending time and money considering exactly what fastener goes where. It will take a really, really long time for you to have problems with corrosion of the aluminum parts. My truck had some issues with the mounting points of the wings in the engine bay. They were still usable, but did have some corrosion. The truck is 44 years old.

All that said, its your hobby. Do what you want with it. If it makes you happy to see nice shiny SS fasteners holding the body together then install 'em.:thumb-up:

[SafeAirOne]

I've had my wings, rad support panel, floor panels, transmission tunnel and seat box off so many times that I've had plenty of opportunity to replace all the 1/4-28 fasteners with 1/4-20 stainless bolts and nuts/washers. I haven't had a problem removing the fasteners since. Occasionally I'll come across an original fastener (like on the sill panels) and it'll be a real PITA to get apart, or it'll just snap during removal.

The aluminum gets pretty corroded using the original fasteners in some areas, such as the fastener holes on the seat box where it rests on the steel t-posts or where the steel compartments in the seat box are riveted (using al rivets) to the aluminum seat box.

[TedW]

And, since stainless is further away from aluminum on the galvanic series, the aluminum will tend to corrode more quickly than if a steel bolt were used.

This may be technically correct, but my real-world experience doesn't bear this out.

My truck was 21 years old when I go it in '91. It spent its life in Maine, and had all the usual aluminum corrosion: where the steering box cover rubbed against the inner wing, where the tail lights were grounded on the tub, etc etc etc. Every nut/bolt seemed to be rusted into one piece. Ugh.

I proceeded to replace all the fasteners with stainless, and in the following 20 odd-years have seen no evidence of aluminium corrosion with stainless fasteners. And this is while living within sight of the ocean - we have salt air, salt water, salt snow, salt on the roads in winter, salt everything. People's cars can rot just sitting in the driveway here.

So I guess I'm going to continue to schlep to Ace Hardware for stainless. Just my $.02.

[jac04]

True, but I've minimized the area that will be corroded.
Again, not really. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you don't fully understand galvanic corrosion. The physical electrical connection between the metals is not where you see the galvanic corrosion. It is the surfaces of the metal that are exposed to the electrolytic solution.

Anyhow, I guess I'm getting a little too technical on the subject, so I'll just drop it.

[TedW]

Anyhow, I guess I'm getting a little too technical on the subject, so I'll just drop it.

IMO this subject should be ongoing. It seems that we are all trying to do something that the elves at Solihull went after half-heartedly: stopping rust.

Yes, the body is aluminum, but that was an accident of history, and as we have discussed here, comes with its own set of problems.

Yes, some parts are galvanized (thankfully), but many more are not - like the bulkhead and the frame (which IIRC was galvy on early protos and dropped for cost reasons).

And it seems that the designers went out of their way to make a truck that has the maximum number of dirt traps and critical areas / wiring that get sandblasted from daily use.

We are all trying to keep our beloved 40+YO beasts on the road while not dissolving before our eyes. Let's keep sharing what we have learned.

[Terrys]

Galling in stainless isn't really a problem if you use a different type of stainless for the nuts and bolts. For example, use a 316 stainless nut AND bolt, and it'll probably jam up during tightening, but use a 316 stainless bolt and a 304 stainless nut and you'll be all set.

Mark, Not to put too fine a point on it, but the only difference between 304 and 316 is Moly(bdenum) and they both have the same physical properties (Yield, UTS, E2" and RA) and will gall equally.
Mongoswede, 300 series stainless is far from brittle; it's quite soft, with a much higher elongation than carbon and low alloy steels. Brittlness, a lay term for ductility, Elongation and reduction of area is measured both by pulling tensile bars, and Charpy V Notch testing. 300 series test bars pull like taffy, and when heat treated (quenched and solution annealed)for maximum corrosion resistance, and has max UTS in the 65,000 psi range, and yield strengths of around 35,ooo psi, very low compared to low alloy carbon steel, but much higher ductility. Grade 8 fasteners are made from Low Alloy carbon steels with yield strengths of 85,000 min yield, and 105,000 min UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength) They are lower in Ductility than 300 series stainless steels, but because their strengths (Y & UTS) are so high, are not effected unless over stressed.
The above useless trivia is garnered from 30 years producing Carbon, Low Alloy and Stainless Steels, with full chemical and physical testing labs.
My major customers, GD Electric Boat, GE Power Generation, and Dresser Rand were pretty particlar about the quality of our castings. (up to 15 tons)

[albersj51]

I agree, this is a good conversation. I am very new to Rovers and have been thinking about ways to reduce the corrosive effects of differing metals, so I am learning a lot here. Thanks for all of the technical data!

J


Again, not really. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you don't fully understand galvanic corrosion. The physical electrical connection between the metals is not where you see the galvanic corrosion. It is the surfaces of the metal that are exposed to the electrolytic solution.

Anyhow, I guess I'm getting a little too technical on the subject, so I'll just drop it.

[printjunky]

I agree with both of Ted's last posts. My real world, unscientific observation, in an uncontrolled environment (for what that's worth) is that stainless through the Birmabright is not as insidious as regular steel. Though, of course I can't see down to the molecular level. Could be going all to white powder somewhere under the surface.

Ted's next post aligns with my own Rover ethic as well. Finally (after having and losing two other series III Rovers [check my other posts for that story]), I have (though am not driving yet) my dream car back in my driveway. (I also consider myself lucky that my dream car isn't a Ferrari 250 Dino - though if you're offering ...)

Since I bought my first Series Rover in about '90, I've called them the ultimate recyclables. I expect/hope I'll never buy another car (though I also have a low miles Miata if I need to get up to highway speeds quickly).

So bring on the corrosion-beating, rot-reducing, gall-ungalling, life extending (mine and the Rovers) hints, tips and tricks!

[mongoswede]

Mongoswede, 300 series stainless is far from brittle; it's quite soft, with a much higher elongation than carbon and low alloy steels. Brittlness, a lay term for ductility, Elongation and reduction of area is measured both by pulling tensile bars, and Charpy V Notch testing. 300 series test bars pull like taffy, and when heat treated (quenched and solution annealed)for maximum corrosion resistance, and has max UTS in the 65,000 psi range, and yield strengths of around 35,ooo psi, very low compared to low alloy carbon steel, but much higher ductility.


Yep, Just reviewed my material data and realized I was wrong. For some reason I had it in my head that it was brittle...not sure why. I work with A286 (660 stainless) all day...amongst other materials so i should have known better.

[109 Pretender]

Carroll Smith has a great book on fastener do's and don'ts although it's geared more for racers. A lot of good points have been brought out in this thread and anti-seize is very good for fasteners that you intend/expect to remove again - especially if those fasteners will be exposed to road grime and moisture like suspension bolts. I'd personally never recommend s/s for any stressed connections that are critical like suspension bolts. Absolutely true that reduced friction will affect torque so compensate as necessary or install as manual indicates. (If you use ARP rod bolts they will come with special lube and a much higher torque setting because they have calculated for the reduced friction imparted by the lube). Personally, I used s/s for all little screws like the window seals because they work better in that application. I also like the looks of s/s for body fasteners because they won't surface corrode and are largely exposed - but it's not original and that can be an important consideration for some folks.

Let's not forget that our vehicles usually had a hard life, were seldom washed and maybe even covered in decades worth of mud - in other words, the worst case scenerio for electrolysis to start. And yet, by and large the vehicles survived. Now that the vehicles are in the hands of caring owners I expect all our Rover's to have another 40 years or so left in them because we try to do correct repairs, keep 'em reasonably clean, and we are aware of the problematic issues of alum./steel combos. Just keeping things clean, insulating w/paint and nylon washers where possible, and vigilant watch for corrosion potential will provide more dividends than just about anything else. Remember, electrolysis requires more than dissimiliar metal contact - it requires a moisture conductor with ionic content. Dirt, mud, etc along with water provides the vehicle for the conduction process to begin.
So give the old girl a bath now and then and pay attention to the areas that collect the grime!

Cheers!

[amcordo]

Again, not really. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you don't fully understand galvanic corrosion. The physical electrical connection between the metals is not where you see the galvanic corrosion. It is the surfaces of the metal that are exposed to the electrolytic solution.

Anyhow, I guess I'm getting a little too technical on the subject, so I'll just drop it.


True about not understanding the physics and chemistry behind the corrosion - but I feel like maybe you haven't tried it much on your rover(s)... You can tell me it'll turn to dust all you want and I'll tell you this:

I'm just going off real-world experience now. As I said earlier, the nylon washers and SS hardware the PO put on ten years ago haven't caused any aluminum to turn to dust, so it is what it is. Just wanted to share my experience with everyone so that they'd have an option if they wanted to move my route towards a rust-resistant rover (YAY SS and Galvanized steel!)

[printjunky]

Quick aside on insulating washers, in recording studios, we use nylon 'shoulder washers' (washer with a bushing attached, basically) when hanging gear in racks, to ensure, or at least maximize electrical isolation, so as to eliminate the hum from various grounding issues. If it's not going to hum, it's not going to go galvanic. (Though I suppose it would while (if) the electrolyte bridges any gap between the parts.) As previously stated, I would consider this anti-galvanic overkill. But there might be some extreme Rover owners out there to whom no length is going too far. ;) (is that the Gentle Sarcasm Smilie?)

[Terrys]

Land Rover may have figured it was a good way to save money, but it never made much sense to me why they never ran a ground wire through the chassis harness to the rear of the truck, relying instead on the body being the return leg for all the rear lights. The closest point to the lights, where the aluminum tub meets the steel frame, is the 5 tabs along the top of the rear crossmember. Ever notice how those 5 spots are always eaten up? Ever notice when you take one of the rear light bases off the truck that it's frequently corroded around the screw holes. Coincidence?
Galvanic action is greatly increased in the presence of electrical currents, so running a wire, oh, say a piece of 12ga. wire, from the point where the NEG battery cable attaches to the frame, through the chassis, same route the chassis harness takes, to the rear, and to each individual lamp base, may greatly reduce the tub corrosion. I think that might be a little easier than trying to electrically insulate every fastener (and the 2 parts the fastener is fastening).
I'm sure all of you who have been around boats have noticed the heavy green 8 ga wire that goes to every through-hull fitting, terminating at the engine. Long common practice on boats is to use sacrificial zink annodes on the rudders and prop shafts.

[printjunky]

(In the pro audio world again) Similar to 'star-grounding" a guitar amp.

[jac04]

... but I feel like maybe you haven't tried it much on your rover(s)... You can tell me it'll turn to dust all you want...

Sorry, Tony. I never said the aluminum was going to turn to dust. In response to someone pointing out that galvanic corrosion will still occurr with stainless fasteners on aluminum, you stated "Already accounted for. That's why I use nylon washers on either side of my normal washers." You seemed to be stating that you were using the nylon washers because you knew about galvanic corrosion and were actually trying to do something to stop it. I was simply pointing out a key flaw in your reasoning.

Now, all the Rovers I have restored have utilized a lot of stainless hardware with no attempt to isolate it from the aluminum. I actually drove one of the vehicles I mechanically restored (a 69 SWB) through a few Maine winters with absolutely no signs of galvanic corrosion issues. The vehicle even had very thin original paint, so the aluminum wasn't well protected. However, the vehicle had a galvanized chassis which was left bare. Because zinc is more active than aluminum, the zinc on the chassis becomes the sacrificial anode.

I know you are "rust proofing" your vehicle by galvanizing a bunch of stuff, which is great. I know you are not galvanizing the chassis. Have you thought about installing sacrificial zinc anodes on the chassis?

[PeterK]

Joining in late,

I went all out on a 109 I built several years back.
Absoloutly every steel part was galvanized.
Axles POR-15
Every fastener practical was stainless
Every connection loaded with copper grease
Tub, seatbox, floors, footwells Rhino Lined
Loads of aluminium rivet nuts, with SS machine screws
All body rivits replaced with SS machine screws and SS nylocks.

What I learned.

Any connection where a galvanized part was present, there was no corrosion whatsoever with SS.

A connection between two aluminium parts with a SS fastener started to show signs of corrosian after several years, paint blistering, white dust.

There are very few such connections but it was universal.

Envioronment is daily driven work truck in coastal Nova Scotia, LOTS of salt year round.

Now I use cheap hot dipped galvanized nuts and bolts in many locations.
SS where it seems appropriate.
Genuine aluminium rivets

Cheers

Peter Knowles

[JackIIA]

here's a neat little website that i think helps to put the different anodic/cathodic stuff in relative perspective. i leave it to the engineers to understand the details (seems like every rover owner on the site with the exception of me is either an EE or an ME - seriously. no poets out there?).

but what's kind of cool is the hierarchy of sacrificial metals relative to one another.

http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/corrosion/galvanic.htm

[SafeAirOne]

Mark, Not to put too fine a point on it, but the only difference between 304 and 316 is Moly(bdenum) and they both have the same physical properties (Yield, UTS, E2" and RA) and will gall equally.


I think I may have got the types of stainless wrong in my example--Trying to do it from memory, as I'm not at the shop. My experience with the galling problem is that I was putting a bunch of 1/4-20 SS nyloc nuts on 1/4-20 SS bolts and was having many of them jam halfway tight. I went back to Fastenal and asked them what was going on, and they explained the galling issue and gave me their other stainless alloy nuts--Probably 18-8. Either way, I've used hundreds of these nuts in combination with the different alloy bolts and haven't even had a hint of galling since. Galling problem solved.

[amcordo]

Sorry, Tony. I never said the aluminum was going to turn to dust. In response to someone pointing out that galvanic corrosion will still occurr with stainless fasteners on aluminum, you stated "Already accounted for. That's why I use nylon washers on either side of my normal washers." You seemed to be stating that you were using the nylon washers because you knew about galvanic corrosion and were actually trying to do something to stop it. I was simply pointing out a key flaw in your reasoning.

Now, all the Rovers I have restored have utilized a lot of stainless hardware with no attempt to isolate it from the aluminum. I actually drove one of the vehicles I mechanically restored (a 69 SWB) through a few Maine winters with absolutely no signs of galvanic corrosion issues. The vehicle even had very thin original paint, so the aluminum wasn't well protected. However, the vehicle had a galvanized chassis which was left bare. Because zinc is more active than aluminum, the zinc on the chassis becomes the sacrificial anode.

I know you are "rust proofing" your vehicle by galvanizing a bunch of stuff, which is great. I know you are not galvanizing the chassis. Have you thought about installing sacrificial zinc anodes on the chassis?


Well eventually I'll upgrade to a galvanized chasis - but it's a ways off for a number of reasons. Let me take a step back and ask this: does anyone have a timeline for galvanic corrosion on any of these parts? Do I really need to worry about sacrificial anodes? Keep in mind my primary enemy no matter what has to be your run-of-the-mill salty roads in the winter corrosion.

It's starting to sound like, at least for me, the tradeoff I need to make is either resisting salt spray or resisting galv... blah blah corrosion.

I demand both.

Now I just need to find more plastic/fiberglass parts and just turn the whole car into a modern vehicle...

[jac04]

... does anyone have a timeline for galvanic corrosion on any of these parts? ...
Check out PeterK's post above. Looks like several years. Maybe he can provide a little more feedback on the exact timeline.

[thixon]

Time line.....Look at your tuck. Look at other peoples trucks.

There is already 60 or so years worth of observational data that can be used to predict how long it will take for things to start coming apart.

If anyone here is that worried about it, then coat the fasteners, parkerize, or maybe plate with gold? You could always use nylon fasteners:D.

[kevkon]

And in doing so it becomes obvious that galvanic corrosion between dissimilar metals is the least of the concerns with a Series truck. The big killer is corrosion of the metal frame and bulkhead. Keep those protected and call it a day.

[printjunky]

and galvanize everything!

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6165630.html

[gudjeon]

When I made my own wiring system, I grounded every panel and made one large common ground to eliminate any potential electrical problems. A larger main ground is seen, as mentioned on composite construction such as planes and boats. Will this help with galvanitic corrosion? I'll let you know in another 50 years. :thumb-up: