Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

[Michael J.]

While still trying to find a within-six-months date coded 1100696 alternator for my '67 L71 (all the usual sources are not replying so I guess they have none), I am thinking about a plan B for judging this year. Anyone know what the deduct would be for an alterantor that is a 696, but a year or so earlier than the engine build, vs. a proper date coded alternator that is a 693 and not proper part # for the L71? My logic would think that the proper part # takes less deducts than the date, but I may be wrong.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

They're on the same line for the Mech judging sheets.

https://www.ncrs.org/sinor/63-67%20Score%20Sheets/63-67%20Mchncl.pdf

However, my "guess" is that you're better off with the wrong date, though in theory I don't think it would make a difference.

Patrick

[Michael W.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

Patrick is correct (I think). I'd sooner see a correct part number rather than acceptable date as the lesser of two evils. It is also possible that a different part number could have some additional deviations in configuration that would cost more points.

[Dick W.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

FDICC, 5 areas that each carry 20% of the total point assignment.

Date is 20%, if the configuration is correct but otherwise an incorrect part number 20%

[Michael J.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

Thanks for the info guys, Think my plan B will be the 696 with a date 12-18 months before engine build. At least then the configuration is correct and will match with the other TI components and L71.

[Joel F.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

You are in a tough spot, but I would think you could find a correctly dated 693 relatively cheaply (at least compared to an incorrectly dated 696). The value of this is that you can then continue to look for the correct 696 and still achieve the same number of points in events. I know I would not be happy with the right part and the wrong date any more than I'd be happy with the wrong part and the right date. The 696's are out there but you do need some patience to find them.

[Michael J.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

Right, the 693s are easy, and of course a lot cheaper. I am just leaning toward the 696, even if a year or so before engine build, because it is the correct part and thus the correct configuration for a '67 L71. I will keep looking, but Oct. will be here before you know it.

[Mike G.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

try ken bruno for an alternator. 518-834-9271. i bought 2 rare alternators from him.

[Michael J.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

try ken bruno for an alternator. 518-834-9271. i bought 2 rare alternators from him.

He was the first one I tried, two emails and no replies. Maybe I should call him as he may not be an email person

[Dick W.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

Beware that there is a vendor that is restamping blank cases with the number you want and also dates them.

[Michael J.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

Thanks for all the help, I had a call back and I have one being done now that is the correct code AND part #.

[Mike G.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

Beware that there is a vendor that is restamping blank cases with the number you want and also dates them.

the vender we are talking about? is it done correctly?

[Dick W.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

He is not perfect yet.

[Mike G.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

i hope mine is real. i bought a may 884 from him a year or two ago. i have not put it on the car yet. that was one of the only things missing on my 70 lt1. it looks like the real thing to me but i have never seen another one off the car so thats not saying much.

[Mike G.]

Re: Judging question, part # vs. date deducts

should i post pics of what i have? i paid top dollar for this part so i hope it is good.