Agbosticism vs. faith-based assembly (was: 4-cyl rod nuts)

["John Hertzman" <johnhertzman@domain.elided>]

In AD8-0198 Andrew Watry writes "I looked at a disassembled 1750 I have in my
garage last night, and the smaller, round end of the rod nut does go toward
the rod (up); the larger, hexagonal, wrench-flat end goes away from the rod
(down).  They for sure aren't locknuts."

 I don't have a disassembled 1750 in my garage (or a disassembled 2000, which
is what the question was about) but the 1750 parts book lists rod bolts
105.00.02.204.00, rod nuts 105.00.02.205.00, and tab washers 105.00.02.206.00,
in a straight numerical sequence 204-205-206, while the 2000 parts book lists
rod bolts 116.08.02.204.00, rod nuts 116.08.02.205.00, and tab washers oops no
tab washers in a straight numerical sequence 204-205-zip. The spread between
first-application prefixes 105.00 and 116.08 suggests that they are different
parts.

 The shop manual 1008 which was for the 1600 but which many people take to be
basic four-cylinder says (p.46) to lubetorque the rod cap nuts to 5-5.3 kgm
(36.2-38.3 ft lbs) and then "fit the stop nuts." The shop manual 2448 (Alfetta
engine, 1977 which is as close as I can come to a generic two-liter manual)
says (p.25) "Torque the cap bolts to 5-5.3 Kgm" (identical, so far, except for
capitalization) but says nothing about fitting stop nuts, palnuts, lockwashers
or tabwashers, threadlocker, prayer, or anything.

 Alfetta Inspection Specifications, group 01, sheet 11, issue 6-1975, has
precise illustrations on main bearing caps and con rod caps. The main bearing
cap exploded drawing shows a washer, separate nut, and thinner separate nut,
presumably a locknut, while the con rod cap exploded drawing shows one nut
with hex section toward the rod cap and a smaller-diameter non-hex section
away from the con rod cap, the reverse of the "smaller, round end of the rod
nut does go toward the rod (up); the larger, hexagonal, wrench-flat end goes
away from the rod (down)" which Andrew states his 1750 has.

 Whether the rod nuts 116.08.02.205.00 are elastic stop nuts or not, (and I
have seen nothing that says they are) the published evidence suggests that at
some point the wise men at Arese decided "We don't need no steenking
tabwashers, etc" for the connecting rods of their two-liters. Since the torque
values specified for the unwashered rod nuts 116.08.02.205.00 are the same as
for the locknutted 1600s and (presumably) for the tabwashered 1750, it
probably isn't just that they tightened them better. For the moment I am
agnostic, and if somebody who knows more than Andrew and/or I, individually or
combined, wishes to add an informed opinion I would certainly welcome it.

 Add smileys and/or other indications of amiable and respectful chat to suit
-

 John H.

--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided