I am looking for the correct starter number for a very early '57. Is it 1107664 as for all '57 vettes shown in the NCRS judging manual or 1107627 shown for '56s with the exposed plunger and lever linkage? Couldn't find early enough dates stamped on the 664 starter (Pirkle included). Thanks.
C1: Early '57 starter motor correct number
Collapse
X
-
Re: C1: Early '57 starter motor correct number
Jim and Vass-----
I agree. I believe that the 1107664 starter was used for all 1957 Corvette applications. At the beginning/end of model years it's always possible that there may be some "carryover" or "overlap". However, the 1956 starter motor, GM #1107627 was of a somewhat different design than the 1957 starter motor and I doubt that it would have been used for 1957 engines.In Appreciation of John Hinckley- Top
Comment
-
Re: C1: Early '57 starter motor correct number
Jim and Joe,
Thanks for the prompt response. According to John Pirkle, he asked Sinclair about it and Scott responded that a very early '57 could have the '56 starter. John Pirkle cannot locate a 664 '57 starter with stamped date earlier that October '57. My vette was built around Oct. 5, 1956. I plan to take my vette through NCRS judging and need the correct part numbers/dates. I have already ordered the '56 starter and I want to make sure I purchase the right part.- Top
Comment
-
Re: C1: Early '57 starter motor correct number
Vass,
IMO you will find it easier going through the judging process if you use a '57 starter. Reason, the judging books indicates as correct, the '57 starter. Your prrmise is "I have an early '57 and I think they (may) have used left over '56's. The judge very well could say,"I don't think so." You are certainly entitled to your opinion but the judge will be going by the book. If you can provide doctumented proof of a cross over period, that's another thing. And, doctumentation is then taken through an evaluation process, often a lengthy process.
My knowing that the '56 starter was causing hot engines restart problems in '56. I'd would be less suprised if the very, very late '56's didn't show up with the 664 starter. Regards,- Top
Comment
Comment