63 alternator boot

[William C.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Two issues. There were two versions in 1963, prior to December '62, the part number used was 2965115? (very faint on the old print) then the '2984033 was introduced and carried thru the remaining builds. so a '63 prior to January or Feb, would have a very different looking configuration, referred to on the drawing as a "Nipple" rather than a "boot" as the later config was referred to. No resemblence between the two, but if someone has a early original '63 and can post the picture we'll have the whole story. Print was changed on 12-21-1962 from the old to new part.

[Jimmy G.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Mike

For once I disagree with you. 1963 boots are entirely different. I have gone junking with Pirkle enough to know there are several 63 styles and at least a couple of later stlyes. ( Cross , half cross, and straight moulding lines) I have never tried to connect dates with the style however. Your 63 is late and may have a 64 up style. My 31K Duntov car was early style. Ask Pirkle in Carlisle and he can tell you a whole lot more than I can

[John D.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Two issues. There were two versions in 1963, prior to December '62, the part number used was 2965115? (very faint on the old print) then the '2984033 was introduced and carried thru the remaining builds. so a '63 prior to January or Feb, would have a very different looking configuration, referred to on the drawing as a "Nipple" rather than a "boot" as the later config was referred to. No resemblence between the two, but if someone has a early original '63 and can post the picture we'll have the whole story. Print was changed on 12-21-1962 from the old to new part.

I am not savy to using the digital and putting it on line. But the early style nipple as you call it has a larger hole for the wire. I had no trouble slipping it up over the connector. That early style is what is on my 9900 car Bill. But the 2nd version has a real small hole just a tad bigger than the wire and no way can you put that over the connector. The 2nd style of course is like your pic. Jorjorians pic illustrates the earlier style.
Brian of Corvette Specilites emailed me a third style he took from a 63 parts car. I will email his note to you immediately. The one Brian sent is appears on the photo her that has about 5 boots on it. Confusing to say the least.

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Two issues. There were two versions in 1963, prior to December '62, the part number used was 2965115? (very faint on the old print) then the '2984033 was introduced and carried thru the remaining builds. so a '63 prior to January or Feb, would have a very different looking configuration, referred to on the drawing as a "Nipple" rather than a "boot" as the later config was referred to. No resemblence between the two, but if someone has a early original '63 and can post the picture we'll have the whole story. Print was changed on 12-21-1962 from the old to new part.

Betcha that new boot didn't wind up on new cars for at least a few months after the date on the document.
Also, of interest, is the fact that the part number for the 63 only wire harness assembly never changed during the 63 model run.
Might this suggest that the first design was used through the end of 63 and the new design used for the first 1964 harnesses? The part number changed for the harness for SOP of the 64 model.
Just guessing.

[Bob J.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Two issues. There were two versions in 1963, prior to December '62, the part number used was 2965115? (very faint on the old print) then the '2984033 was introduced and carried thru the remaining builds. so a '63 prior to January or Feb, would have a very different looking configuration, referred to on the drawing as a "Nipple" rather than a "boot" as the later config was referred to. No resemblence between the two, but if someone has a early original '63 and can post the picture we'll have the whole story. Print was changed on 12-21-1962 from the old to new part.

Hi Bill , this maybe true on prints.
I don't have access to prints but I took hundreds of pics of unrestored cars and explicit notes. The pic I'm posting is of Bob Lojewski's 5,900 mile 63 Z06 serial 89XX ----the boot is the same as mine and Ricks which were both built after JAN 1 1963,Bob

[Joe L.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Here's an absolutely, positively known original from a late 1969:

[John D.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Jorjorian, That is a really nice photo. You can learn a lot just by checking out various items. To stick to the subject for a change though the boot in your photo is identical to mine.
I would like to correspond with you on other pics of Lojews 5900 Z06 car. 8900 is only 1000 earlier than mine. Do you have any pics of the FI unit?
Thanx, John D

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

I would like to correspond with you on other pics of Lojews 5900 Z06 car. 8900 is only 1000 earlier than mine. Do you have any pics of the FI unit?
Thanx, John D

Don't change the subject.

By the way, here's the boot on my 66. Been that way for the 25 years that I've owned it. Looks a little different than some.

[John D.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Mike

For once I disagree with you. 1963 boots are entirely different. I have gone junking with Pirkle enough to know there are several 63 styles and at least a couple of later stlyes. ( Cross , half cross, and straight moulding lines) I have never tried to connect dates with the style however. Your 63 is late and may have a 64 up style. My 31K Duntov car was early style. Ask Pirkle in Carlisle and he can tell you a whole lot more than I can

Jimmy, Thanks for your support in my time of dire need as once again I was robbed at gun point. Yeah 63 boots are entirely different for sure. I hope these good replies keep coming in. This is a real learning experience for all.
Thanx, JD

[Michael H.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Yes master. Sorry. My NCRS number is a lot earlier than yours though.

Is that something important that I should have been aware of before posting?

[John D.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Here's an absolutely, positively known original from a late 1969:

Joe, So you are saying then that Dr. Mike thinks my 63 should have a late 69 boot!!!! Amazing what you learn around here.

[Joe L.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Joe, So you are saying then that Dr. Mike thinks my 63 should have a late 69 boot!!!! Amazing what you learn around here.

John-----


Well, just because it was used for 1969 does not mean it wasn't used earlier. In fact, I am very confident that Bill is correct and the same boot was used from L1963. From my own observation it looks like that period was at least through L1969. How much later than that, I don't know.

I do not understand why some 64-67 C2's apparently originally used a different boot. Perhaps, Delco-Packard found it necessary to procure said boots from outside suppliers during certain periods of time. Just a guess, though.

[Richard M.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Wow, what a thread! I never would'a thought these rubberized protection devices would be so popular.

Decided to jump in and post a few pics of my own. First 2 from 63 coupe #9664(~Feb 27 63 build). Last 2 pics from a no-a/c nos harness, unsure of era, but #'s ink stamped on bag are"0521-K-6", whatever that means. Any ideas?
Rich

[John D.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

Wow, what a thread! I never would'a thought these rubberized protection devices would be so popular.

Decided to jump in and post a few pics of my own. First 2 from 63 coupe #9664(~Feb 27 63 build). Last 2 pics from a no-a/c nos harness, unsure of era, but #'s ink stamped on bag are"0521-K-6", whatever that means. Any ideas?
Rich

Rich, Your boot is 100% identical to the one on my 9916 car. That's a wonderful pic to add to my file folder on alt. boots.
Maybe Clupper knows the number thing as I have no clue. Thanks very much, John D.
Your NOS harness is most likely a SR for your 63 though.

[William C.]

Re: 63 alternator boot

That would be consistent with the first design used in '63. Note the lack of the inner rib used in the '033 part to match the ring in the alternator insulator used in later production. Time from print change in December until implementation in our plant and use of available inventory would be carried on the change notice, which is unavailable given the current status of what became Delphi corp, so the actual change date on the '63 models will have to be determined by original cars. Appears so far the first design went thru February, maybe some owners of original March-April-May cars will chime in.