Tweet
On page 84 of JM it states that the mid to late 63 igniton coil is an 087 for all applications. Early 63's used an 091. Remember reading recently to always match the ballast resistor with the coil and vice versa. On page 98 under ballast resistor it states that the high HP engine ballast resistor has the black dot,etc. Well this is contrary to the article and I am guessing a mismatch. On my 63 I used a NOS 087 and a NOS correct 1931385 knows as D1111.(has the tab) & dot. I would have thought that the 087 coil used the D1110 ballast resistor.-no dot. Confused. Will I have more current or less current going to the points with the D1111. Guessing I will have more juice to the points? Would like to find the article which I believe was in "The Restorer" or maybe a Corvette mag. If anyone remembers which I would appreciate a tip. Also where is my thinking on the above? Am I entirely incorrect or what. Thanks again, John
-
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils part !!
The D1110 ballast resistor was typically used on the 250-300HP cars and this resistor I believe does not contain the black dot. Has a blue strips on one end. The D1111 was used on the 340 and 360 HP and has the black dot. One 1st qt was rather lengthy. To recap: Doesn't the D1110 belong with the 087 and the D1111 go with the 091 coil? Thanks again, John -
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
John,
The information on coil usage conflicts with my understanding as I thought the 091 coil was used on L76 & L84 applications through all of 63.
Hopefully some original owners can jump in here.
tcComment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
John,
If the JG lists the 087 for all mid/late cars, I believe it's incorrect. (actually, I know it's incorrect) At the start of production, all engines, both hyd and mech lifter, supposedly had the 091 coil and black dot resistor. (0.3 ohms)
At some point in early/mid production, the hyd lifter engines began using the 087 coil and blue stripe resistor. (1.8 ohms)
No mechanical lifter 340-360 HP engines used either the 087 coil or blue stripe resistor.
It's possible that the 091 coil and black dot resistor were never used on any early 250-300 HP hyd lifter engines but that's not comfirmed. However, the matched set (coil/resistor) was never mixed. Always 087/blue stripe, or 091/black dot.Comment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
If you look at the AIM sheet change record you will find that all early engines used the 091 coil and 0.3 ohm ballast, but a mid production change implemented the 087 coil and 1.4 ohm ballast for 250 and 300 HP engines, only. This is also backed up by information in a TSB to address burned points.
I submitted a letter with copies of all the requisite backup documentation to the "powers that be" four years ago, and, of course, nothing happened.
The 091 coil and 0.3 ohm ballast provide greater primary current for more spark energy, but are tough on points, especially in cold weather when primary current is highest. This combination continued to be used through 1964 on mechancial lifter engines only, and all engines got a 202 coil and 1.4 ohm ballast beginning in 1965.
As far as the "black dot" and "blue stripe" to identify the 0.3 and 1.4 ohm ballasts, respectively, I'm not convinced that so marked parts were used in production, but service replacements were apparently so marked.
There's not a signficant difference in primary or secondary resistance between the 091 and 087 coils, but it's possible the 091 has features that make it more heat resistant, but I am only speculating. As a rule I would try to match the ballast and coil per the AIM.
My mid production L-76 was configured with the 091 coil and 0.3 ballast from the plant.
DukeComment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
Yup, I agree Duke. My old 63 printing of the parts book spells it out clearly. The 091 and black dot resistor for all engines until early Feb of 63. Then, the 250-300 HP were to receive the 087 and blue stripe resistor, but the 340-360 continued to use the 091 and black dot resistor.
You submitted this info four years ago?? You must have sent it to the wrong place. Did you send it to Georgia?
By the way, how are we doing on the corrections for the 63-64 JG? I haven't heard much from Mike Cobine lately. Is he still the one gathering this info?Comment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
I PERSONALLY HAND DELIVERED the "package" to Roy Sinor at the August 2002 National Convention in Monterey, which included copies of the AIM sheets and TSB.
...don't know where Mike C. is now on the corrections issues, but I provided him with the MS Word e-file of my letter, which pointed out other errors including transposing J-65 and J-56.
Would you like an e-copy copy of my letter?
DukeComment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
I have a copy Duke. You sent it a while back, thanks. It would be interesting to see a list of all the items that have been collected so far.
I would really like to hear some comments from carlton on these items but I understand he doesn't visit this discussion board. Has anyone talked with him recently?Comment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
Michael, I have had more slack from my friends because I am using the NOS 087 coil. In my mind I always thought that my fuel car should use the 091 no matter what month. But trying to follow the rules in JM. Been both OJ judge at big shows lately and on judging teams at the smaller shows and the guys say 087 because of the manual. What's a fellow to do my friend? Highly suggest that since your writing updates and submitting them to the team leader that you include this confusing issue. So I basically know the answer without reading all the posts below your name but most certainly will and make comments. Let me guess without looking. 091 coil takes the D1111 and my car is incorrect. That figures. Well since it's had 2or 3 water pumps (has 609 now) couple fuel pumps etc I guess it needs more cheep parts. Trying to find a good 091 coil is not easy and I won't use a repro. Meanwhile the points can fry themselves for awhile. Or I can cheat and put a D1110 resistor on and pull out the black marker until the above problem is resolved. Thanks again my friend, Jr.Comment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
Duke, I see I have opened up a sore spot with you and others. Makes me feel better though in a way because having been involved with one aspect of the restorations forever I have preached to numerous customers about which coil to use. Rattle it off without looking. Then when it finally comes time for my own resto project found out that my info was clouded so to speak with the 087 popping up. Confused big time.
When I read a recent article which reinterated what Michael said about ohms resistance-you said the same thing. I said Oh, Oh. Somethings not kosher here. I have a mismatch of parts again. Talked to Jorjorian and many others before this post and all said the same thing. No fuel car in 63 had an 087 unless bubba put it on. Well bubba did-see pretty white car w/wrong coil. Glad this issue might be resolved. It's a serious one and not a cosmetic judging thing. The car owners are going to have ignition problems using the mismatched parts recommended. Thanks very much, JohnComment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
Duke,
would love to see an e-copy of your letter - also, if Mike Cobine is lurking, would love a copy of the combined list of "errors"Rick Aleshire
2016 Ebony C7R Z06 "ROSA"Comment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
I have restored a 1963 SWC with the L-76 engine option and a July production date. As many of us do this time of year I am putting together a shopping list for the Carlisle Corvette show. One of the last remaining items I need is the coil and resistor. With the information I have gathered I was ready to purchase the 087 coil and the 1.4 OHM resistor. (I have a Delco D1111 resistor) Is there any documentation or studies from original late 63 cars other than the 1963 AIM that has been previously mentioned. I have been on a few "Snipe Hunts" with this project and would like to know what I am hunting for prior to the hunt. I am not after judging points but correctness.
Thanks for the help!
RayComment
-
Here's What I Would Do.....
John,
First of all, I would NEVER make an incorrect change or install any incorrect parts on my car just to align with the JG, no matter what. That makes absolutely no sense at all to me, especially when the there's proof available that show the JG is incorrect.
In the case of the coil/resistor, I would gather information/documentation and bring it with me when I bring the car for judging. The first pages would be a scaned/printed copy of this particular discussion. I'm sure that by tonight, there will be a lot more posts here that agree with what we've described as the correct combination of coil/resistor and I seriously doubt that there will be any posts that disagree.
Second, I would bring a scan of a page from the 1963 parts book that CLEARLY lists the correct coil/resistor combination for all 63's. I can provide just such a scan, if needed.
Third, I would bring my GM assembly manual that also clearly shows the correct coil/resistor combination, one of which NEVER indicate the 087 coil as being used on any 340-360 HP 63 car.
I would also try to contact the judge that will be judging your car at the event you are planning to attend. If you meet resistance, I would then repost the problem on this board. Chances are the judge that will be at this event will already know what the correct coil/resistor should be for your car.
I'd be very interested in knowing what the judge has to say about this.Comment
-
Re: 63 ballast resistor and coils
Rick, e-mail me and I'll send you the letter.
Ray - there is also the TSB on burned points and coil utilization that explains the production change. It would also be supportive to look at a '64 JG and see what it says about coil utilization. AFAIK it was the same as the mid to late '63 after the running change.
There are still some original owners out there, who know their cars well, but many owners change their cars to conform with the JG. Like Michael said, I would never do that, but the points chase is compelling, and recent owners have no experience base to fall back on.
That's why we try to get the JG changed, but it's like pulling teeth. In the case of coil/ballast utilization, there is multiple GM documentation that makes the case unequivocal.
DukeComment
-
July 63 Parts Book (coil)
John, and everyone else with a 63.....
This is a scan of a page from a July 1963 printing of the parts book. It clearly shows the 091 as being used on ALL 340-360 HP cars, all year. No mention, at all, of an 087 for 340-360 HP. It does show the 087 as being used on 250-300 HP cars as a second design during the 63 run. I would definitely print this page and keep it with the car on the judging field.
Comment
Comment