1970 with 69 part dates?

[Chuck S.]

Re: 825, 882, 884 alternators

Yes they existed...I have one on a car built AFTER the one in question. Was I just lucky? Or, was Leslie just unlucky? You'll also see them on other known original cars. But, if you're trying to find one without having seen one...you might think they never existed.

The only thing that might make me believe that Leslie's alternator could be original to the car is the fact that my 1100884 was STILL on my car. I don't know IF/WHEN my alternator might have been overhauled, but I might conclude that those old Delco alternators were heck for stought and long-lived.

On the other hand, we have been given some evidence here (JackH?) that other Delco alternators were subject to very early failure. If that was true in Leslie's case, the previous wannabe restorers might have to compromise on another alternator number...maybe a 69 alternator for AC, and not even a 70 alternator.

Cleaning out the part bins at the end of the model year I can understand, and I believe no effort was made to maintain FIFO (First IN, first OUT) discipline. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that an alternator from the PREVIOUS MODEL YEAR was THERE to be "cleaned-out"...particulary since the 825 alternator was not specified for installation on ANY 70 Corvette. I believe the General, knowing they weren't specified for any 70 Corvette model, would have cleaned them all out after the 69 MY. If anyone has EVER seen an 825 alternator on a known original 70 Corvette, I will change my thinking.

[Mike E.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Terry--
I appreciate your response. I, too, get really frustrated with the self-appointed experts who are full of bravado rather than knowledge. During my 15 years or so as 61-62 team leader, I always made sure that the judges I used were people persons who had knowledge of the cars as well.
Remember when we were 18?--we knew all the answers, didn't we! Now I'm not sure we/I even know the questions.
We have some "18-year-old" judges as well. That's unfortunate, but it's that way in every human endeavor.
I agree with you on many of your points--but, from the other side, one thing you didn't address is from the standpoint of those who are doing the judging manual, how do you write it to reward the correct car and penalize the incorrect one without drawing boundaries? That's the problem, as well as the interpretation of the boundaries.
25 years ago, as judging chairman, I overruled my engine judges and gave full credit to a 62 that had a block stamped the day before it was cast. That one was easy--the car was very original, immaculately done, and perfectly researched. If he had restamped a block, he wouldn't have made the error--the factory had to have done that. (Now I've given restampers an idea on how to get a block through!!!!!!!!)
Thanks for your response--now I'll step down, too.

[Mark #28455]

could even have been an early replacement

20 years ago, I could only afford junkyard parts not rebuilt ones. I bought more than a few alternators, starters, etc used and most never needed replacement with years more use - I have no doubt many original alternators have held up for years. I also agree with you that it seems unlikely the 825 was original to that car, but I also wouldn't be surprised either as it was functionally interchangeable, so it wouldn't have been wasted if it did show up.

More likely though was that the original 884 may have broken and since almost every car was still using the externally regulated alternator, the only source for a replacement was at the dealership parts counter. They could EASILY have had a 1 or 2 year old 825 alternator in the parts pipeline.

Mark

[Terry F.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

It is a difficult task to write a judging manual. Can you be more specific on what you mean by "but, from the other side, one thing you didn't address is from the standpoint of those who are doing the judging manual, how do you write it to reward the correct car and penalize the incorrect one without drawing boundaries?"

The process isn't perfect and never will be. I don't think it can be done perfectly. People need to have realistic expectations of the process. My car has met my own standard already. I would only have it judged to hang out with some neat people and learn a few things along the way. With that attitude, I will be alright. I expect some things to be viewed differently than the way I see them. I can't help that. But, I will talk about my car openly and we can all learn a thing or two. But, ultimately I am stuck with the outcome of the process. If I can't except that fact, I shouldn't have my car judged.

When a person has a car judged, it is sort of a two way street. The car sort of speaks for itself. Judge needs to look at the entire car, examine what is known about the car (documentation and history), note what is generally known about the car/model based on observation of several cars. I like original stuff over reproduction.

I need to go bid on somethin on ebay....

Terry

[Barry Chappell]

Re: could even have been an early replacement

I'm the original owner of a '70 (June built).
Not long after purchase (October '70) my alternator failed. It was the regulator in fact that failed. At that time there were no replacement regulators available.
The Dealer could have replaced the alternator, however they didn't do this, as there was a service bulletin to retro fit an external regulator.
This was done, and was used for several months until an internal regulator became available.
It's my understanding that the failure rate of alternators in 1970 was very high. This based on my own experience, and the service bulletin for the retro fit and lack of internal regulators to address these failures.

With that many failures, then local dealers would have repaired or replaced a great many alternators.

I'm not saying your alternator is not original, however this was a hot item in 1970.

Barry

[Joe L.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Leslie------

Are you sure that the year portion of the date code is an "8" and not a "9"? I was assuming that what was supposed to be the character that you typed as an "A" was actually a "9". If it is an "8" then I think it's highly unlikely that this alternator was actually original to the car. It just does not seem like a unit could have "hung around" anywhere in the PRODUCTION parts system for a period of 2 years.

However, it's VERY possible that an alternator might have "hung around" the SERVICE parts system for that long. The GM #1100825 was once-available through GMSPO and through the Delco parts system, too. It might have been in dealer stock or in warehouse distributor stock and "stuck" at the back of the shelf. It may be that while the engine was replaced the alternator was lost or stolen or who-knows-what. If that happened the dealer would obtain another from the SERVICE parts system. At that time, rebuilt units might not have been readily available since the SI series alternator was first used for the 1969 model year and, then, only for a very limited number of applications. So, obtaining a new alternator might have been the only choice available. Given the limited 1969-1970 use of these and the fact that the cars were so new, SERVICE units might have languished on the shelves of dealers or warehouse distributors for quite some time.

[Leslie Forsman]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Joe, and all,

I feel very awkward for inciting such a firestorm over my crazy Alternator.... I really did think it was an "A" when I originally posted but after reading other comments, I'm pretty sure it's an "8" It's definitely not a "9".

The suggestion you all make of a service replacement at time of engine fix, makes sense with what the vehicle tells me, and what the old owner told me when I looked her over. The guy I bought it off of was totally not into restoring the car, and the fact that I found it still attached to the wiring harness (in the otherwise empty engine bay) implies that he didn't purchae it on ebay and try to pass it off as original. The originality error was totally mine.

Service Replacement it is!
Leslie

[Chuck S.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Ah, you didn't incite any firestorm...we're just passionate about this stuff and get excited about the details. Terry saw that the date format wasn't going to fit and that led to you getting more information. And, don't be feeling awkward...we've all made mistakes on reading the numbers; 3's, 6's, and 8's are often confused on cast parts.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Leslie-----

One other thing to keep in mind: whether it's a SERVICE replacement alternator or a PRODUCTION alternator, with the part number you have and the date you have, this is a VERY, VERY valuable alternator. In fact, it may be among the most valuable of ALL Corvette alternators. I'd be surprised if you don't get a lot of e-mails offering to buy it.

So, how much is it worth? Well, given the scarcity of these things with PRODUCTION dates, the absolute fascination that some folks have with original part numbered units and dates, and the prices that some of these folks are willing to pay, I'd say it's worth $1,000 or, perhaps, more.

I believe that this is an alternator that John Pirkle, a major source of restored alternators, has so many people on the waiting list for that he won't even add any more names to the waiting list. I suppose he figures that he won't see enough more of these alternators in his lifetime to satisfy the folks that he already has on his waiting list.

Also, can you post a photo of the rear case half of the alternator? A "straight-on" of the rear case half would be best. I can then tell you if it's the correct case half to match the front case you have. Sometimes, these things get "swapped".

[Leslie Forsman]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Joe,

I don't have a server to post the photo to, but I can email you one if you'd like.

[Jim T.]

Re: could even have been an early replacement

I am also the original owner of a 1970 350/300 with air pw/pb/turbo 400 that had a failure of the original alternator. I bought my trim tag G08 Corvette on August 18,1970. The alternator failed within the first year and the dealership replaced it with a 1100554 63A OJ28 fan/pulley #3875968AW. I still remember what the service rep said to me when I picked up my Corvette after the replacement, he said they put a higher output alternator on the car. Still have this alternator. Have looked in Mr. Covin's book and did not see my alternator 1100554 listed for Chevrolets.

[Jim T.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Leslie you mentioned the second owner was told by the original owner of your 1970 that the engine failed within days. I am interested in the reason of failure of a new Corvette's engine. I bought my 70 off the showroom floor. Picked up the car the next day and the engine failed immediately because of an lubrication problem. My replacement block predates the build date on my 70 and the only points lost would be not having the original stamping on the front of the block. The front stamping on my 70's warranty replacement block is CEOA 47538 (Chevrolet Engine 1970 and believe the A is for automatic and the 47538 is the sequence number. Block is a correct 3970010 with a cast date of D260. My original starter is #1108430 OF17 2. You might get lucky and find a build sheet behind the radio, or up in the drivers dash. I found mine in the behind the dash on the dirvers side. Very important to save the tack drive, remove the tack gear from the tack and lubricate it with grease. This maint procedure is not in the owners manual or the service manual but it should be to save you from having to replace the gear and distributor shaft.

[Terry F.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Joe, what would happen if the car somehow developed a problem after completion? I believe there was a department that fixed problems that may have popped up after the car was completed. Is there a chance something could have been changed out then?? Just a thought. Terry

[Leslie Forsman]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

Jim,

I wasn’t given the specific engine failure reason at the time I purchased the car, I just assumed it threw a rod some other such thing. I’m really beating myself up these days, for not having the foresight and getting the original owner’s name. I’d be a trip to trace some of these details down, like with the alternator, and what exactly failed and why.

My engine is CE1278 4 2, date code A 20 0, but the top half of the A is a real mess, so that’s an uneducated guess on my part. Could be a really bad “H” as well. I find the CE engine intriguing, so even though it’s a NOM, I’m willing to take the point hit and judge her as is.

I dropped the tank, and could see where the remains of the tank sticker are, about 2” square, but not enough to read. I pulled off the bottom panels for the dash, and looked up in there for an order sheet, but didn’t see one. Would it be stuffed up high in there, requiring me to take the front panels off, or should I be able to see it up underneath?

Thanks.

[Jim T.]

Re: 1970 with 69 part dates?

The build sheet on my original owner 70 was above the tach, very hard to see with the air conditioning duct work under there. It was a very long time ago, I might of found it when I replaced the speedometer in 1975. I did carefully remove the window sticker and still have it. The build sheet for my 68 without factory air conditioning is still in the original location behind the radio. Left it there for the future second owner to find.