1965 and 1966 Battery Tray's RH mount, non AC

[Ronald L.]

Its noted in many threads that for many years the repo battery trays were wrong.

Now the suppliers have two tray's one 65 and the other 66.

RH non AC cars - anyone know what the difference was 1965 to 1966?

[Wayne W.]

Re: 1965 and 1966 Battery Tray's RH mount, non AC

Its noted in many threads that for many years the repo battery trays were wrong.

Now the suppliers have two tray's one 65 and the other 66.

RH non AC cars - anyone know what the difference was 1965 to 1966?

Even the early GM replacement was incorrect at least for the 66 BB. They were too close to the exhaust. Original 66 off set to the outside to give extra room. The early reproductions were obviously of the first style and were also too close. Not sure this is the difference in todays reproductions.

[Michael H.]

Re: 1965 and 1966 Battery Tray's RH mount, non AC

Do the 65 and 66 AIM's show different part numbers for the tray?

[Glen C.]

Re: 1965 and 1966 Battery Tray's RH mount, non AC

Its noted in many threads that for many years the repo battery trays were wrong.

Now the suppliers have two tray's one 65 and the other 66.

RH non AC cars - anyone know what the difference was 1965 to 1966?

Ron, Comparing the battery trays in the 64, 65 & 66 AIM's, the 64 & 65 have the same part number (3824267) & drawing. The 66 AIM shows a redesigned & redrawn tray (3887416) with different brackets, the inboard one appears to be flatter & as Wayne said, it moves the tray further outboard away from the exhaust manifold. I would be interested in how far this change moved the tray, as mine seems way too close to the BB manifold.