Page 1 of 1

Anti-Seize or not?

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:41 am
by rjk40
Bike: 1975 Ducati 860GT

I will be replacing the head mounting nuts with stainless ones. Is there any history on whether or not to use anti-seize compound on the nuts/studs, and if so, should the torqueing spec be lowered about 20% from the "dry" value, as some documents indicate, or should they be installed "dry"? The main reason for the anti-seize would be, of course, to ease the potential disassembly process.

I have used anti-seize in a number of auto applications, especially when putting a steel bolt into an aluminum hole (as in spark plugs into an aluminum cylinder head), to mitigate electrolysis, with 100% success.

Any comments are welcome.

Richard Kovach
Malabar, Florida, USA

Re: Anti-Seize or not?

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:25 am
by baddean
I vote using Anti-seize and adjusting the torque. (I would, FWIW)
The electrolytic action between the stainless bolts and the cases could be significant over time.
I, too, use Anti-seize when assembling dissimilar metals. (spark plugs, exhaust nuts/bolts, etc.)
Usually fasteners that are subjected to heating/cooling cycles.

Re: Anti-Seize or not?

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:39 am
by rjk40
Hi Dean,

Thanks for the info. It makes sense to do it that way, especially given that we/I have done this in the past with good success. It also makes sense to pay attention to re-torqueing the fasteners after a short period, to be on the safe side. BTW, the stainless nuts will likely not contact the head, as there are wave washers under them, so the only contact should be with the steel studs on which the nuts and washers are installed.

The old Haynes Ducati 860 manual also recommends, when re-installing the heads, to put a bit of graphite grease (or anti-seize) in the area where the heads join the cylinder sleeves, again to facilitate easier future removal.