Is this alternator pulley statement correct?

[William S.]

"The 65 L79 w/o air or PS uses a 3871242 alternator pulley and uses the 3829387 if it has PS." Is this correct?

I received my alternator back from John Pirkle with the 3829387 pulley and it does not line up with my other pulleys 2nd grooves. I do not have PS. I think I need the 3871242 pulley that is spaced out further. I have read all the previous posts on this subject and there seems to be a lot of confusion. Consider me confused

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

[Wayne M.]

Re: Is this alternator pulley statement correct?

"The 65 L79 w/o air or PS uses a 3871242 alternator pulley and uses the 3829387 if it has PS." Is this correct?

Bill -- I believe that statement is correct. Pulley '242' as shown below. '65 AIM shows the '387' with N40, but unfortunately does not show any sheet for the base L79 set-up [so we have to interpolate with L76]. Jury is out (per '65 TIM&JG) on whether the L79, no PS, had an idler pulley. Judging guide shows both pulleys as being 3_5/8" dia., so only the offset differs.

Added a 2nd pic I took in April 1968, of my first car ('65 L79) and you can just barely see a fuzzy alt. pulley that looks like the '242'. Can't recall if this car had the idler pulley or not.



y


m

[John H.]

Re: Is this alternator pulley statement correct?

"The 65 L79 w/o air or PS uses a 3871242 alternator pulley and uses the 3829387 if it has PS." Is this correct?

I received my alternator back from John Pirkle with the 3829387 pulley and it does not line up with my other pulleys 2nd grooves. I do not have PS. I think I need the 3871242 pulley that is spaced out further. I have read all the previous posts on this subject and there seems to be a lot of confusion. Consider me confused

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Bill -

Reviewing my collection of file photos of '65 L-79 and L-76 engines without A/C or P/S, all of them have the offset 242-style alternator pulley as shown in Wayne's upper photo.