Is the TIMJ correct on battery cables???

[Keith B.]

My TIM judging guide 1966 states: Non-Air cars positive 6286188 and 2981079 neg.
Air cars 6286181 pos and 2979821 neg.

I called Paragon today and confirmed they buy from Lectric Limited the company that have the tooling and blueprints for battery cables and other electrical items. There numbers were different, heat stamped.

I called Lectric Ltd direct and spoke to the Tech and foreman responsible for the blueprints and he just updated their cast print dyes.

For a Non-air 1966 his cables are heat stamped with 6286182(pos) and 2979821 (neg). As you can see the positive is 82 vs 88 (pos) and the neg for non-air is the same but the Tim states for AIR only 2979821.

Interestingly enough I have an org 1966 car I bought from the org owner 4 yrs ago with 39K miles. I have confirmed thru him my cables are factory, he never changed them. My positive is unreadable but my negative reads 2979821. However the NCRS guide states this cable should be on an AIR car.....mine is a BB Non-air car.

My positve cable is worn so I was going to order a new set but the numbers being made from the blueprints are different from the TIM. My neg cable is perfect but one can only buy in pairs.....unless someone has a correct positive cable out there for sale in either 6286188 or 6286182.......

Any battery number experts out there who can help??

Thanks /Keith
NCRS new member....# pending.

[Chuck S.]

Re: Is the TIMJ correct on battery cables???

Hi Keith. I'm no midyear expert, and I would be incredulous that any questions about battery cables are still up in the air on midyears...those midyear guys are sticklers for detail.

What happens on repro parts is that the reproducer will make one version of a part suitable for that model year, and ignore other variations that require a big expense of tooling and stocking a low volume part. An example of this is repro batteries for 70-72 Corvettes; for years the only repro battery you could get for these cars was the reproduction R89W...this is the big block and T60 optional heavy duty battery. This may have changed now, but back then you couldn't get the R89S, which is what most of those Corvettes came equipped. The vendor's inside sales guy may not even realize there were more than one set of battery cables used.

If you have the 66 AIM, look under the engine option code in the last section in the back of the AIM. Any change in battery cables for that engine would be shown in that section with appropriate part numbers. ANY changes from the standard or base car due to options will be shown in those options sections.

[Keith B.]

Re: Is the TIMJ correct on battery cables???

Chuck: Thanks and I will check my AIM. I tend to believe that my TIM is 100% correct and that perhaps the GM licenced vendor with the blueprints is off with his part numbers. However, as noted in my message I have a one owner 66 with low miles and have the factory brown (neg) cable heat stamped with # 2979821. According to TIM this cable should be on a AIR equipped car, mine is non-air.

My gut tells me they put on a AIR stamped cable at the factory on a non-air car.

I have found a few other things different in the TIM also, my interior rear-view mirror is again factory org to the car day/night "guide" and "glare proof" with grey surround around the 8 inch glass. According to the TIM it should have a 1/2" black knob. Mine has a 1/2" grey knob that matches the surround.

The issue I have it the key people who make this battery cables believe
( correctly or not) that they have the right part #'s stamp and sell them to other large corvette vendors. I want to get my car judged and where does one find the numbered cables that the TIM states is correct????

I tell you one thing I had Paragon and Lectric Limited perlexed and confused today..........

[William C.]

Re: Is the TIMJ correct on battery cables???

Per the AIM, 2979821 and 62861(6or8)2 sorry I can't make out the next to last number

[Mike E.]

Re: Is the TIMJ correct on battery cables???

We have to always remember that what the AIM says and what the judging manual says are typical installations on the assembly line. Yours likely has the original cable on it. Now the question is: "Is that typical factory installation, or is it an anomaly?"
For example, all 62's should have had 1102174 generators on hydraulic-lifter cars. Yet there is an original-owner 62 with a 1102268 generator (specified for solid-lifter motors) on a 250-hp car. And the date is right in line with what it should be. This car still has original hoses on it. Does that make it "right" for the judging manual? No, because we've documented many 100's of 62's that have the right installation. Should this owner change the generator? Absolutely not! Should the judging manual be changed because of 1 anomaly? No. Should the owner get full credit when the car is judged? Absolutely, because of the obvious originality of that component in context with all the originality at every other item on that car.
So, we need to determine what was typical installation on the assembly line in 66, taking your car, many other unrestored cars, and whatever documentation we have, in order to continue to assure that the judging manual and the judging process are of the highest quality.
Good question, by the way!!