Starter re-stamp question

[Tom L.]

I found an 1108400 starter with a correct date for a '70 LS-5 on Ebay a few weeks ago. To his credit, the guy who listed it disclosed that it was a restamp. The auction was at about $125 when I last saw it. I didn't bid because it was a restamp.

I recently contacted another vendor who just acquired an 1108400. Based on the date stamp, I think it's the same starter. The vendor says that it's a "factory re-stamp", which they defined as "It is when Delco took excess starter cases and stamped them to their production requirements. It is the correct starter case configuration."

I've never heard of this. It this legitimate? Is it worth $425? Thanks.

[Mike M.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

I found an 1108400 starter with a correct date for a '70 LS-5 on Ebay a few weeks ago. To his credit, the guy who listed it disclosed that it was a restamp. The auction was at about $125 when I last saw it. I didn't bid because it was a restamp.

I recently contacted another vendor who just acquired an 1108400. Based on the date stamp, I think it's the same starter. The vendor says that it's a "factory re-stamp", which they defined as "It is when Delco took excess starter cases and stamped them to their production requirements. It is the correct starter case configuration."

I've never heard of this. It this legitimate? Is it worth $425? Thanks.

pass on it. stamping starters is common. 400+ $ way too much.mike

[Joseph T.]

Original 1968 8400 starter

pass on it. stamping starters is common. 400+ $ way too much.mike

Here is an 8400 dated 8 E 15 that I took out of a 68 390 horse convertible about 18 years ago.

It has been sitting on the shelf ever since. Still has the brace on it as well.

[Terry M.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joe, nice pix -- thanks for posting.

Is the nose painted? I can't tell if it is age patina or paint. Inquiring minds ...

[Joseph T.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joe, nice pix -- thanks for posting.

Is the nose painted? I can't tell if it is age patina or paint. Inquiring minds ...

Terry..it has been 18 years since I took this starter out of the 68..however I was restoring the car re chroming, re plating and dressing parts..so it is likely that I shot a coat of black paint on the starter to protect from rust. There is black paint on the gear so this leads me to believe that is what I did. The starter is however in remarkbly nice condition. believe it or not it has been under my bed for the last 14 years. I must have thought it was special.

I remember buying the car from a guy at Lake of the Ozarks about a 4 hour drive from St.Louis. I drove the 390 horse car home which had chrome side pipe headers and an exhaust leak.. It sounded pretty good.

If anyone needs any details off this starter just let me know before I put it back under the bed!

[Terry M.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Ah, the good ol' days. If it didn't move, chrome or paint was the solution. Still some very nice details there. Thanks.

[Alan S.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joseph,
Does having a starter under your bed help you to get going in the morning?
Regards,
Alan

PS: Wonderfully clear pictures! What kind of camera? My old Nikon FM is on it's last legs.

[Joseph T.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joseph,
Does having a starter under your bed help you to get going in the morning?
Regards,
Alan

PS: Wonderfully clear pictures! What kind of camera? My old Nikon FM is on it's last legs.

Alan..I use a digital Nikon Cool Pix 5200. It is 2-3 years old and there are newer better models for about the same or less money. An upgraded SD card will give you 1gb or more of space which is enough for thousands of pictures.

Its really too bad we did not have this technology years ago...to better document our cars.

I have a Nikon EM 35mm that I used to take pictures all over the world..but it too started having problems...then just yesterday I knocked it off the top of the dresser and broke the film winder.

Now it is truly a dust catcher....like the starter.

Joe

[Joe L.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Alan..I use a digital Nikon Cool Pix 5200. It is 2-3 years old and there are newer better models for about the same or less money. An upgraded SD card will give you 1gb or more of space which is enough for thousands of pictures.

Its really too bad we did not have this technology years ago...to better document our cars.

I have a Nikon EM 35mm that I used to take pictures all over the world..but it too started having problems...then just yesterday I knocked it off the top of the dresser and broke the film winder.

Now it is truly a dust catcher....like the starter.

Joe

Joe----


The Nikon EM can be repaired. Just find a Nikon-authorized service center and send it off to them. They'll clean it, repair it, and it'll work like new.

Just once caution: I had this done about 3 years ago to a Nikon FA that I used for about 20 years. I even had an NOS Nikon MF-16 data back that I had found and purchased installed on the camera at that time. I haven't taken a single picture with the camera since.

About the same time, I purchased a new Nikon F100. I've never used it, either. Digital pretty much makes 35 mm totally obsolete.

[Joe L.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joe-----


Well, this answers another mystery for me---the 3 hole, cast iron starter nose. I've heard about these on several occasions, but I'd never seen one. Several days ago there was a discussion regarding the starter nose on a GM #1107352 starter. This starter was designed for use with a 12-3/4" flywheel and uses an aluminum nose. Bill Williamson had reported that he had an 1107352 starter with a cast iron, 3 bolt starter nose. I responded that I'd never seen one, but I didn't think it belonged on an 1107352 as I thought that all used an aluminum nose. Bill responded that when he bought it, John Pirkle had confirmed that it was configured correctly. However, given what I know now, I'm even more sure that, with all due respect, John was incorrect on this one.

In any event, the GM #1108400 was a starter configured for use with 14" flywheels. It was equipped with a cast iron starter nose which used 2 bolt attachment with bolts of 3-5/8" length. The starter nose you have pictured is a nose for a 14" flywheel. It is configured like other 2 bolt cast iron starter noses, except that it has a 3rd bolt hole.

It so happens that I have 2 NOS GM #1108400 starters manufactured after 1969, 1 NOS GM #1108338 starter manufactured in 1970, and several used but original 1969 and later 1108400 and 1108338 starters. NONE has the nose on it as you have pictured. All have the cast iron nose with just 2 bolt holes.

I also have NOS examples of what I used to think was every 66-81 cast iron starter nose for 14" flywheels. These are GM #1965721, GM #1969309, and GM #1984098. ALL are cast iron with TWO bolt holes.

However, I now understand what went wrong with my understanding of this issue. There was a FOURTH cast iron starter nose for 14" flywheel applications. It was GM #1964504 and it was used for 1108400, 1108338, 1108365 and other starters for 14" flywheel applications in the 1966-E1969 period. It was subsequently replaced by the 1965721 which is has 2 bolt holes for mounting bolts. The GM #1964504 is installed on the the version of the 1108400 starter which you have and I'm now very confident that it's correctly configured for 67-E69 applications. I feel very sure that this nose was also used on the GM #1107365 starter, too.

I feel pretty confident that the 1964504 is the 3 hole, cast iron starter nose.

Do you recall if the starter was actually attached to the block with bolts in all 3 bolt holes or were only 2 holes used? Are there any markings on the starter nose?

[Bill W.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joe the 8400 has the same nose as my 7352...only 2 bolts are used.

[Joseph T.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joe...see below

Joe-----


Well, this answers another mystery for me---the 3 hole, cast iron starter nose. I've heard about these on several occasions, but I'd never seen one. Several days ago there was a discussion regarding the starter nose on a GM #1107352 starter. This starter was designed for use with a 12-3/4" flywheel and uses an aluminum nose. Bill Williamson had reported that he had an 1107352 starter with a cast iron, 3 bolt starter nose. I responded that I'd never seen one, but I didn't think it belonged on an 1107352 as I thought that all used an aluminum nose. Bill responded that when he bought it, John Pirkle had confirmed that it was configured correctly. However, given what I know now, I'm even more sure that, with all due respect, John was incorrect on this one.

Joe..It is now starting to come back to me why I saved this starter. Back about 18 years ago I got a call from a guy that was looking for a starter for an L88 and he thought this 8400 might be the correct application. I think in the end we decided it was not and that the the nose of the L88 starter was different. I don't remember the details but never the less that conversation probably lead me to save the starter.

The only marking I see on the cast iron nose is a casting number 27. The original owner of the 68 390 horse car either blew the engine or decided to replace it and put in a 454 in '70 or'71. He transferred the original 390 heads, original starter etc..

All 3 starter holes appear to have bolt tightening markings so probably all three bolts holes were used. I still have that 454 motor..when I get a chance I will look to see if it has a 3 hole starter bolt pattern. Maybe you already know.

In any event, the GM #1108400 was a starter configured for use with 14" flywheels. It was equipped with a cast iron starter nose which used 2 bolt attachment with bolts of 3-5/8" length. The starter nose you have pictured is a nose for a 14" flywheel. It is configured like other 2 bolt cast iron starter noses, except that it has a 3rd bolt hole.

It so happens that I have 2 NOS GM #1108400 starters manufactured after 1969, 1 NOS GM #1108338 starter manufactured in 1970, and several used but original 1969 and later 1108400 and 1108338 starters. NONE has the nose on it as you have pictured. All have the cast iron nose with just 2 bolt holes.

I also have NOS examples of what I used to think was every 66-81 cast iron starter nose for 14" flywheels. These are GM #1965721, GM #1969309, and GM #1984098. ALL are cast iron with TWO bolt holes.

However, I now understand what went wrong with my understanding of this issue. There was a FOURTH cast iron starter nose for 14" flywheel applications. It was GM #1964504 and it was used for 1108400, 1108338, 1108365 and other starters for 14" flywheel applications in the 1966-E1969 period. It was subsequently replaced by the 1965721 which is has 2 bolt holes for mounting bolts. The GM #1964504 is installed on the the version of the 1108400 starter which you have and I'm now very confident that it's correctly configured for 67-E69 applications. I feel very sure that this nose was also used on the GM #1107365 starter, too.

I feel pretty confident that the 1964504 is the 3 hole, cast iron starter nose.

Do you recall if the starter was actually attached to the block with bolts in all 3 bolt holes or were only 2 holes used? Are there any markings on the starter nose?

[Joe L.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joe the 8400 has the same nose as my 7352...only 2 bolts are used.

Bill-----


Yes, as I described, that pretty much confirms for me that the 3 bolt, cast iron nose is not correct for your starter. I'm virtually certain the 3 bolt cast iron nose is functionally equivalent to the 2 bolt cast iron noses. All are designed for use on 14" flywheel applications. That's confirmed by the fact that this nose is on Joe's 1108400. The 1108400 is DEFINITELY a starter designed for 14" flywheel applications. By the same token, the 1107352 is designed for use on 12-3/4" flywheel applications, so I can see no way that the same nose could have been used for both.

The only possible way that the 3 hole cast iron starter nose could be correct for both the 1107352 and the 1108400 is if it was a "dual application" nose. In other words, if it worked for both 12-3/4" and 14" flywheels. I do not understand how that would be possible.

[Joe L.]

Re: Starter re-stamp question

Joe...see below

Joe-----


The 1108400 would not be a correct starter for any L-88 with ONE exception. The exception would be 1969 L-88 with M-40. The 1969 L-88 with M-40 did use the 1108400 (even though it doesn't say that in the NCRS spec guide). That's because all M-40 applications used a 14" flexplate.

All L-88's (except 1969 with M-40) used a a 12-3/4 flywheel. So, the 1108400 would not work for that application. The only differences between the 1108400 and the 1107352/1108351 is the starter nose, fork, and armature.

I do not understand why this 3 bolt, cast iron nose was ever used. It may be that some blocks were only drilled and tapped for 2 holes and some had 3. So, a nose that could work with any bolt configuration was used. Most blocks that I'm familiar with have THREE starter bolt holes. These can work with BOTH the "straight across" configuration (all aluminum noses for 12-3/4" flywheels) as well as "staggered" configuration (cast iron and aluminum noses for 14" flywheels).