Today I was thinking of a problem I had many years ago with a new early 66 big block car. To get the point the engine had the incorrect starting motor from the factory. Car barely would crank. Finally cooked the starter. The dealer called in the zone manager and then it was discoverd that the starter was not the correct one for my 425-450 HP car. Maybe this is a known fact today. I am not into the 66's but a lot of you are. Surely there must have been a slew of others built the same way. Maybe it's even in your JM.
-
-
Re: 66 BB starting motor trivia
John-----
I can't figure out a scenario that would have caused this. Here's a few improbable possibilities, though (with my explanation of why they're improbable):
1) 1966 Corvette big blocks with manual transmission were originally scheduled to use a 12-3/4" flywheel and 10-1/2" clutch, just like 1965 L-78. Prior to the start of production, though, this was changed to a 14" flywheel and no cars with the originally scheduled configuration were produced. If, for some reason, the folks in St. Louis had installed the same starters as used for 1965 L-78 (and, probably, the same as originally scheduled for the 1966 big blocks), a severe problem would be created. The starter drive housing configuration is different for 12-3/4" and 14" flywheel applications and the starter assemblies are different for each. They are not interchangeable. However, I would not think that if a starter for a 12-3/4" flywheel application were installed on a 14" flywheel application that the starter drive would engage the flywheel ring gear, at all. So, they would not be able to start the car and drive it off the assembly line.
2) It's possible that the small block starter, GM #1107320 was installed. That starter was a standard torque starter rather than a high torque as used for most big blocks. However, the latter is irrelevant in this case, since the small block starter was designed for use with a 12-3/4" flywheel just as described above. I can't see how that starter would have engaged the flywheel ring gear as I described above.
3) It's possible that some starter of unknown part number correctly configured for a 14" flywheel but of standard torque design was used. I don't know why such a starter would have been in the plant at that time, but it's a possibility that such was incorrectly delivered to St. Louis or incorrectly specified for use in big block applications. However, I would expect that such a starter would have functioned perfectly well about 95% of the time in a big block application, even though most big blocks did use the high torque starter. I would not expect functional problems if a standard torque starter were used on a big block; the high torque starter was, basically, a bit of "overkill" under the vast majority of starting circumstances, even on a big block.
I cannot see any other possibilities other than the above, although there may be some. For all the different starter part numbers used over the years, there was really very little difference between most starters. The primary differences for most 63+ starters were nose configuration (i.e. designed for 12-3/4" or 14" flywheel) and standard or high torque (field coil and armature differences).In Appreciation of John Hinckley -
Re: 66 BB starting motor trivia
Joe,I vaguely recall that the starter on the new 66BB was not a high torgue starter according to the service manager and mechanic. They installed the correct one and the car was fine after that. Don't know any other details as it was sooo long ago. Happy New Year, JohnComment
Comment