1100833 Alternator

[Terry M.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

Just an FYI Joe. Ralph also sent it to me this morning to post -- I had jury duty today, so I was in the electronic dark for most of the day. I guess Ralph couldn't wait for me. I am glad you stepped into the breach while I was doing my civic duty.

[Dallas K.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

Here's a couple of pictures I had in my files of a 69 and a 70 rear case.


1.jpg2.jpg

[David L.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

Dave-----

I don't think your slip ring frame is correct for an SI series alternator manufactured in late 1969. At least, it's not correct if the alternator were a 1970 Corvette alternator. I can't really say that I have any direct experience with the 1100834 alternator but I would expect that it would either have the same style slip ring case half as 1969 Corvettes or the same as 1970 Corvettes. I cannot see why there would have been a difference between Corvette and other SI series alternators manufactured about the same time.

The 1969 Corvette alternator slip ring frame end had a "flat" grounding boss, "7 fin" heat sink, and no slightly raised rectangle under the Delco script. The 1970 had the raised grounding lug boss, identical "7 fin" heat sink, and a slightly raised rectangle under the Delco script.

The slip ring case half pictured is for 1971 and later, although it's always possible that some late 1970 used it, too. However, I don't think the latter would include one manufactured in October, 1969.

And, yes, slip ring end is the correct term.

Joe,

I have done more research and agree with you 100%. I have found that the 1100834 alternator slip ring end FRAME is the same as those on a 1964-1968 alternator except it has a mounting boss.

Thanks.

Dave

[David L.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

Here's a couple of pictures I had in my files of a 69 and a 70 rear case.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]45349[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]45350[/ATTACH]

The slip ring end FRAME on the left must be from a 1970 (# 801309) as I can see the 1970 label above.
The slip ring end FRAME on the right must be from a 1969 (#1971526).
As per Chevrolet Parts History (for over the counter parts) 1971526 was replaced with 801309 in May 1970.

Dave

[Joe L.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

Here's a couple of pictures I had in my files of a 69 and a 70 rear case.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]45349[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]45350[/ATTACH]

Dallas-----


These are exactly what I would expect for 1970 and 1969.

[John P.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

The back in Dick's photo is for a 1970 model year alternator.

[John P.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

The C.E. frame in Dave's picture is for a 10SI series alternator made 1972 or later.

[David L.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

The C.E. frame in Dave's picture is for a 10SI series alternator made 1972 or later.

John,

Pictured below is the back side (C.E. frame with 5 round holes) from my 1977 El Camino 1102394 alternator dated 7A20 (Jan. 20, 1977). I bought the El Camino new in 1977 and saved the original alternator when it had to be replaced. The C.E. frame (aka slip ring end FRAME) is GM # 1852101 as per my 1977 Chevrolet Parts Catalog (March 1977). GM # 1852101 was first used on the 1972 Chevrolet models as per my 1972 Chevrolet Parts Catalog (Feb. 1972). My 1981 catalogs list GM # 1852101 for 1972-1979 Chevrolet models as well. GM # 1852101 is also a replacement for GM # 1971526 (1969 Corvette models ), GM # 801309 (1970 Corvette models ), and GM # 1946523 (1971 Corvette models).

Is my C.E. frame on my rebuilt 1100834 alt. dated 9K10 with the 8 slots (photo on 03/13/2013 @ 02:34 PM) a 1946523 C.E. frame that was used on 1971 Corvette models?

Thanks for your comment.

Dave

[John P.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

This frame came into use in the 1976 model year. It was used on the 10 and 12 SI series alternators.

[Ralph S.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

Can the scratches be removed without damaging the numbers on my 1100833( first post)

[Joe L.]

Re: 1100833 Alternator

Can the scratches be removed without damaging the numbers on my 1100833( first post)

Ralph------


No way I know of. Plus, if you try to remove them the chances are it's going to result in an appearance which will call into question the legitimacy of the stamping.