Starter 899 Questions

[Bill O.]

This m

1) It post-dates the end of the 1961 Corvette production run, so it would not have been installed on a new 1961 Corvette.
2) It could have been a service replacement, even for the 233.
3)
4) It could have been installed on new 1962 Chevy passenger cars with manual transmissions.

As always, your help is appreciated.

[Mike E.]

Re: Starter 899 Questions

1,3,4, and 2a. Not 2b. My research over the last 38 years has found no 62 with an originally-installed 7889.

[Bill O.]

Re: Starter 899 Questions

Thanks, Mike.
Let me ask for clarity on the second part of point 2...could a 7899 have been a service replacement for a 7233, based on what you've seen? I thought I read somewhere that the 7233 was only installed on new cars. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that meant they were not available as service replacements, adding to the scarcity.

[Mike E.]

Re: Starter 899 Questions

I'd agree with your assessment, Bill.

[Joe L.]

Re: Starter 899 Questions

Thanks, Mike.
Let me ask for clarity on the second part of point 2...could a 7899 have been a service replacement for a 7233, based on what you've seen? I thought I read somewhere that the 7233 was only installed on new cars. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that meant they were not available as service replacements, adding to the scarcity.

Bill-----


I cannot find that either the GM #1107233 or the 1107889 were ever available in SERVICE as new starters under those numbers. Of course, as a rebuilt starter, those numbers MIGHT be found on just about any starter for any application.

The GM #1107889 was, basically, a starter used for 283 applications and was a lower torque unit. The 1107233 was a starter used for 327 and higher CID applications and was of a higher torque design than the 1107889. While GM might have used an 1107233 for a 283 application, I doubt very much they would have used an 1107889 for a 327 application.

[Bill O.]

Re: Starter 899 Questions

Ahhhh.
Joe, does that mean a 7899 dated after the last '61 Corvette was built would have been standard issue on a 1962 Chevrolet passenger car with the Turbo-Fire 283 (170 hp)...presumably a three speed? (I'm making another assumption...that the 1961 passenger car production run also ended before this starter was made)
...or was it just unused, left-over inventory, which doesn't sound exactly logical. Seems like it should have some application...certainly not Chevy II or Corvair...maybe another make in the GM fleet?

[Joe L.]

Re: Starter 899 Questions

Ahhhh.
Joe, does that mean a 7899 dated after the last '61 Corvette was built would have been standard issue on a 1962 Chevrolet passenger car with the Turbo-Fire 283 (170 hp)...presumably a three speed? (I'm making another assumption...that the 1961 passenger car production run also ended before this starter was made)
...or was it just unused, left-over inventory, which doesn't sound exactly logical. Seems like it should have some application...certainly not Chevy II or Corvair...maybe another make in the GM fleet?

Bill------


The GM #1107899 starter was used for 1962 passenger cars with 283 cid engines. I don't know if 1962 passenger cars with Powerglide used a block-mounted starter as 1962 Corvettes did. If they did use a block-mounted starter, then the 1107899 would only have been used for manual transmission applications.