Reman 1100884 Alternator for judging?

[Carr C.]

I'd like to get some opinions on utililzing this alternator if I was wanting to get my '70 LS5 Convertible w/ air judged.

As anyone knows who is seeking an 1100884 Alternater, they are RARE, and EXPENSIVE ($1,200 Bid, and I didn't win), especially when you factor in the correct date code requirements.

Would this reman alternater pass judging?

If this would not pass completely, what would be the potential point deduct and why?

Thank you,

Carr

[Kevin M.]

Re: Reman 1100884 Alternator for judging?

Looks real good to me right number and amps. Date code something like 1970 Feb don't have a 70 book.

Kevin

[Dick W.]

Re: Reman 1100884 Alternator for judging?

The stamping looks too perfect. It may be real but without seeing it in person it is hard to tell. Depends on the date of build of your car it could pass without any deducts

[Terry M.]

Re: Reman 1100884 Alternator for judging?

I too would like to see more -- I want to see the ear which has the threads for the adjusting bolt and the front and rear of the case. I am uncomfortable with the space in the 1100 884. I am not used to seeing the stamp set up that way. In the end, it might be necessary to see it “in the flesh.” There is more to the identifying features of an alternator than just the numbers.

[Joe L.]

Re: Reman 1100884 Alternator for judging?

Terry-----

Yes, I agree totally; there definitely IS a lot more to a correct alternator than just the numbers. Plus, the other items are elements of configuration. To me, anyway, that's much more significant than "numbers". As I've stated many times before, "numbers" are part of overall configuration, but they are a VERY small part of configuration.

[Mark #28455]

I bought one on e-bay

I bought one for comparison to my known originals on e-bay a few mos ago. The casting on mine was perfect in configuration - likely an original (pontiac or olds) that somehow had the numbers removed or had no numbers. The casting was however bead blasted, so the texture is wrong. The font on the stamping is slightly too narrow and the "1's" are wrong. My originals have a 1 that looks more like an I with the upper right corner removed. Notice the restamped 1 also lacks a base.

As for the gap between the 1100 and the 884, I have several different originals and some have the gap and some don't. Overall, it's not perfect, but you won't likely loose a whole lot of points.

Hope this helps,
Mark

[lyndon sharpton]

Re: Reman 1100884 Alternator for judging?

when it is on the car it is harder to see.

[D S.]

Re: Reman 1100884 Alternator for judging?

Carr, I personally know the folks that make this alternator. I just saw them today at a local swap meet. You won't meet two nicer, more honest people. I have one just like this one I bought from them over four years ago and it is on my '70 LS-5 A/C convertible. I also have the real deal 1100884 that they rebuilt and restored for me and it is in storage. However, the date is not correct for my car so I would lose points for having a real 1100884 but the wrong date.

I read with interest how many were concerned about losing points in judging. How many points would you lose if you had a completely wrong alternator as so many owners do? Many Corvette owners have beautiful examples of perfection in their Corvettes, not like anything that the plants produced. They were all variously flawed when they left the plants and now they are restored to perfection. Go figure. And let's focus on the engines particularly on the 1970 LS-5s with A/C (and/or TI) since this is the subject engine for the 1100884 discussion. I believe that the 1100884 was used for any A/C equipped 1970 Corvette. I have seen many original dimpled big block valve covers and ignition shieldings triple chromed to a blinding shine thus losing their original characteristic markings. The JG says it will deduct points for too shiny.

If you feel the desire to be more correct as with the other "correct" Corvettes I say go for it. It's obvious that you share the same passion as others to want to have your Corvette as correct as possible. I know I feel better about having a reproduction 1100884 rather than a parts store brand alternator on mine even though I know it is a reproduction. Usually only you and the astute NCRS judges know anyway.

Lastly, given the rarity of the 1100884s due to their limited production and application what choices do you have? In the argument regarding the reproduced 1100884s how many other parts on other "correct" engines are reproductions? Why are some reproductions okay and others not?

What drives the production of reproductions? Limited or no availability of original parts.

Thanks,
Scott