Sharing common errors of restored cars

[Gene M.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

It is always interesting how persons use the NOS parts and or listings to justify the production line build. There is no guarantee that NOS and original production line parts are identical. Many NOS parts have been found to differ slightly to total different animal as compared to original production line parts.

Many of the NOS part have numberious configuration and/or different sources from original first off supplied part too. Thus the NOS part differs differently from others of the same part.

[Brian M.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

I've learned to never say never ever.

[David P.]

[Joe L.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

All------

First of all, I do not believe that NOS SERVICE parts are necessarily different than those used in PRODUCTION. In fact, I believe that a SERVICE part manufactured about the same time as a PRODUCTION part will, in the vast majority of the cases, be identical. Of course, a SERVICE part, even of the original part number but manufactured at some other time, either previous to or later than the PRODUCTION part may differ in some ways. There may also be differences due to several manufacturers supplying parts at any given time to both PRODUCTION and SERVICE. In the vast majority of cases and at any given time, GM did not supply different parts of the same part number to PRODUCTION and SERVICE. It would have been idiotic to do so since the economy of scale would have been lost.

Furthermore, I don't believe that original alternators necessarily had a smooth finish, especially the slip ring case half. I have an NOS GM #1100543 alternator [not for sale]. This is a NEW alternator, NOT a rebuild. Rebuilt alternators NEVER have the same part number as a NEW alternator and note that the part number on the label is the same as the part number stamped on the alternator. This alternator was manufactured on July 2, 1970 and could have been installed in PRODUCTION on an early 1971 LS-5 or LS-6. However, it was not; it was supplied to SERVICE instead. Note the broadcast code ink stamp on the case. If different parts were indeed supplied to PRODUCTION and SERVICE, why include the ink stamp on the SERVICE part? The broadcast code was a feature used in PRODUCTION; it had no meaning in SERVICE.

If one will note the surface finish on this alternator, one will note that it is quite grainy and rough. It definitely has the appearance of an abrasive particle-blasted finish. It's even possible that it was so-blasted. But, if it was, this was something done to NEW DELCO ALTERNATORS, PRODUCTION or SERVICE. However, the finish is more regular than I would expect from an abrasive particle-blasting The drive end case is smoother and more typical of a die casting, but it does not have a perfectly smooth finish and does not have a "skin". I have many, many NOS SI-series alternator cases, both drive and slip ring end, and all evidence the same sort of finish. Based upon the boxes/labels, some of these appear to date from the early 70's.

While this photo depicts a GM #1100543 alternator, I have no reason to believe that surface finish was any different for other SI series alternators. Whether it was different for 63-68 DN series, I do not know.

[Joe L.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

More photos of the alternator:

[Michael J.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

I think you are spot on about all that Joe, thanks for weighing in here.

[Dick W.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

Amen. Amen.

Amen! We are running car owners off because of the nit picking.

[Joe L.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

Amen! We are running car owners off because of the nit picking.

Dick-----


From what I see often reported here, I think the biggest part of the problem relates to way too much in the way of point deduction made for minuscule deviations from original.

[Gene M.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

Those alternators in the photo’s WERE NEVER USED ON MID YEAR CORVETTES. NOT EVEN CLOSE. They must be something for c3 or newer configuration. Definitely not a mid year part, totally wrong configuration. Definitely NOT applicable to this conversation.

[Brian M.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

I think you are spot on about all that Joe, thanks for weighing in here.

I'm with you.

[Joe L.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars


Gene-----

How was this conversation limited to mid year Corvettes? Please point out where that limitation is specified. In addition, where did I say that the alternator pictured was for a mid-year? I clearly stated that it would have been installed on a 1971-72 LS-5 or LS-6. As such, I'm quite aware it's not a C2 alternator.

By the way, the SI series alternator was used on Corvettes from 1969 to 1982, far longer than the DN series alternator used from 1963-68. The 1100543 I pictured was used from 1971-72. Nevertheless, since both the DN and SI series alternators were manufactured by Delco-Remy, there might well be commonalities in their manufacturing methods.

[Michael J.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

Dick-----


From what I see often reported here, I think the biggest part of the problem relates to way too much in the way of point deduction made for minuscule deviations from original.

Bingo! +1, I agree.

[Gene M.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

Gene-----

How was this conversation limited to mid year Corvettes? Please point out where that limitation is specified. In addition, where did I say that the alternator pictured was for a mid-year? I clearly stated that it would have been installed on a 1971-72 LS-5 or LS-6. As such, I'm quite aware it's not a C2 alternator.

By the way, the SI series alternator was used on Corvettes from 1969 to 1982, far longer than the DN series alternator used from 1963-68. The 1100543 I pictured was used from 1971-72. Nevertheless, since both the DN and SI series alternators were manufactured by Delco-Remy, there might well be commonalities in their manufacturing methods.

Having no interest in c3 and new my conversation was shared with persons interested in mid years. The category is listed for c2 if ya pay attention to what you read. So yes the conversation is LIMITED TO C2. Nothing, not one word about c3 stuff.

[Patrick T.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

Amen! We are running car owners off because of the nit picking.

Thanks Dick, I couldn't agree more.

[Dick W.]

Re: Sharing common errrors of restored cars

Joe's examples may not have been used on mid years but the case manufacturing process was the same.