62 Starters 7233/7889 Here we go again......

[Richard M.]

Ok......Been thru archives, twice. Searching "starter" & 7889 then 7233. Never saw the definitive answer to the difference in the Spec Guide vs JG on the 62 starter thing.

JG says ALL manual 62's use the #7233.
Spec Guide says early manual 62's use the 60/61 type #7889.
Confusing........Is there an answer to this or is it still a mystery?

I have a Sep 6, 61 built 62, #483, Eng assy Aug 28,61. Will a June 30,1961 #7889 fit into the date range for my engine, or do I need the unobtanium early dated #7233? I'm not really interested in any restamps.

Thanks,
Rich

[David K.]

Re: 62 Starters 7233/7889 Here we go again......

Rich, just went out and looked at the started on #399. It has a 1107233 with a build date of H 11.

[Richard M.]

Re: 62 Starters 7233/7889 Here we go again......

Hi Dave, Thanks for getting under for a look. So it looks like I need the 7233 for mine, built a bit later than yours. The chances of finding one are certainly slim.

Thanks,
Rich

[Dennis C.]

Rich, I'd guess your best bet is...

...Pirkle's wait list if it is still active. Certainly worth a try, along with an ad in The Driveline. Over the years, I've acquired 3 - 233's from him with working dates & no restamps from John. Best in the business. DC

[Dennis C.]

Oh, BTW - Hope you've already got a VR... *NM*

[Richard M.]

Re: Oh, BTW - Hope you've already got a VR...

Nope, need a regulator too. Thanks for reminding me......ha,ha...ha,ha...

Since it's going to take me about a year to get to the point of needing this stuff, I best get myself on John's waiting list. Let's see, a rare 723 starter, a 9002E VR(preferably one that works, as well as being pretty!), a 2174 generator(already have that, came on the car but it's a rebie), some dated wire, a correct battery to energize all this stuff, along with some dated gas and oil when it comes time to fire up the engine.:-)

Rich

[Mike E.]

Re: 62 #311 had a 7233

The 7889 vs 7233 starter debate has been around for one long period of time. That's one of those that showed up, as I recall, early in the process of developing the JG for 61-62. The AIM, section 6, sheet 11.00 was drawn on 5-3-61 and indicates 1107233 as the starter number, and indicates no engineering changes. HOWEVER, National Service Data for 1962 indicates that all 283 and Corvette used 1107889, and 327 and 409 used 1107233. That, as we know, is quite incorrect, but may have been used somewhere along the line to cause doubt to creep in.
Original owner. Reasonably correct date (certainly appropriately precedes assembly date). Could it have been installed on the car at the factory? Yes.
Should it have been? Not according to the AIM and observation of many 100's of original 62's. A single anomaly--not likely. Part of a day when they ran out of 7233's or found a few left over 7889's? Possible.
By the way--I've had about 15 real 7233's over the past 32 years of collecting--they used two different styles of "3's" in the stamping.