CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2014, 07:24:49 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
104686 Posts in 12247 Topics by 4719 Members
Latest Member: Baconcks
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Originality
| | |-+  Alternator- Early '69 Build 61 amp
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print
Author Topic: Alternator- Early '69 Build 61 amp  (Read 2971 times)
IZRSSS
Guest
« on: April 27, 2012, 12:30:48 PM »

Does anyone have a 61 amp alternator with a time line of Oct. 3, 1968 thru Nov. 16, 1968 they can post pics of (specifically the stamp/date). It's for a 12A build. I have been told that there seems to be a pattern of a weak zero (2ND 0 in this sequence 1100843) in many of these due to worn out stamps that were not replaced on the line when they should have been.

In addition, can anyone recommend a company that specializes in reconditioned original alternators?

Thanks in advance.
Logged
crobjones2
Member
***
Posts: 292


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2012, 09:27:18 PM »

Marty - there is one on ebay in which both 0's are light 8H23

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1100843-1969-CAMARO-CHEVELLE-ALTERNATOR-8H23-/170831647495?pt=Vintage_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item27c65c1307&vxp=mtr
Logged

Chris
69 SS 350
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2012, 10:43:23 PM »

Thanks Chris. I didn't think to check EBay. Good spot! In this case both a 1 and a 0 are completely missing. And like you stated; the one remaining 0 is awfully weak. There might be something to the weak stamps of this time period after all. I certainly hope someone here can photograph theirs within this time frame so I know for sure.

I made a mistake up top. I used the cars build date as reference. I should have used the engines build date instead. Can anyone confirm this? I also think it should be anywhere from a month to 2 weeks prior to the build date of the engine. Can anyone confirm this as well?

Engine build date; November 11, 1968.

If you can recommend someone who specializes in original alternators please let me know. If not here, please send a PM...thanks!
Logged
1968 Z28
Member
***
Posts: 438


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2012, 11:21:02 PM »

Marty....I believe the alternator was added to the engine on the engine dress line at the factory...not the engine plant.  So, therefore, the alternator date would need to line up with the car build date....not the engine build date.  I think you had it right the first time.
Logged

Jerry G.

Z28-1968-07C-Norwood
Ermine White, Red Std. Interior
2nd. Owner, 38,000 miles
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2012, 08:47:48 AM »

My Car's build date is 12A & its engine build date is 11/11/68. If I read this correctly; http://www.camaros.org/assemblyprocess.shtml#engine, the correct engine and transmission were married and a Vin derivative was stamped on both (I'm assuming this included the date). Next, the engine went through a "dress stage" which included mounting the alternator. If I go with the build date of the car wouldn't I run the risk of overlapping the build date of the engine? Or, should this be a concern?
 
Thanks for bringing that up. I just need some sort of clarification. And sorry, I know I've crossed this bridge before but I can't find it in my search.

Logged
tmodel66
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1212


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2012, 09:37:16 AM »

The  VIN was stamped on the engine and transmission when it was put into the car. The build dates were stamped when they were built. Had nothing to do with the car as to build dates. Your alternator should be dated before your engine build date. The way I understand it all the components that were added to the engine on the dress line would be dated prior to the engine build. I've never seen anything dated between engine build date and assembly date of the car. 
Logged

Daniel  
'69 SS 350/4 speed  Fathom Green--POP
Mike S
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1101



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2012, 11:48:26 AM »

 Are you sure of that Daniel?
  Some engines were built and sat on a rack for weeks to months before being installed in a car. So in this case for alternators that were installed during engine dressing, the date stamped may very well come before or after the engine build date depending on the volume and popularity of parts consumed on the assembly line.
In the case of my 2 '67's with originl electrical parts the LOS built car has the optional alternator so it sat for a while and was built before the engine assembly date before being installed.
The NOR car used the standard 37A unit so the build date was more recent relative to the cowl assembly date but after the engine build date.
LOS- Engine date - T0214 - Cowl date - 4B (UOIT lists 4/13/67 specifically)- Alternator date 7A30 (optional 1100696 - 42A) - Voltage  regulator date 7C
NOR - Engine date T0308 - Cowl date - 5B - Alternator date 7E4 (standard 1100693 -37A) - voltge regulator date - 7E

Or did you mean engine build = engine dressing? Huh

Mike
Logged

67 LOS SS/RS L35 Hardtop - Original w/UOIT
67 NOR SS/RS L35 Convertible - Restored
tmodel66
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1212


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2012, 12:26:43 PM »

I don't know for certain. I just said I've never saw components dated between build dates of engines and cars. Evidently it happened cause your NOR car proves it did.   
Logged

Daniel  
'69 SS 350/4 speed  Fathom Green--POP
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4105


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2012, 01:07:30 PM »

All of the items assembled on the Engine Dress Line at the assembly plant (including the alternator) are dated back from the car's final assembly (off the line) date; they have nothing to do with the engine plant assembly date stamped on the front pad. The only bolt-on dated part installed at the engine plant was the distributor, which must be dated prior to the stamp pad date.

The engine was "bare-naked" when it arrived from the Engine Plant; the photo below shows what the engine looked like as-shipped from the engine plant in 1959, and it didn't look any different in the 60's. Everything you don't see in the photo was added at the car assembly plant.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
Mike S
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1101



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2012, 01:33:18 PM »

Hi John,

  Not to deviate from the main topic but I've seen this photo a number of times and each time I study it I notice something new.
I see the 6 cyl engines are blue. Was there any significant reason for that color and not Chevy orange?

 I see a very familiar thing though with the floor. It looks like it is built with wood blocks, no doubt due to the weight of the engines and the machines moving them. When I worked at Grumman Aerospace years ago several of the older assembly plants that were building aircraft during WW2 and beyond had wood floors made with 10x10 blocks (if I have the size correct) stacked tightly side by side.

Thanks,
Mike
Logged

67 LOS SS/RS L35 Hardtop - Original w/UOIT
67 NOR SS/RS L35 Convertible - Restored
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2012, 02:05:44 PM »

Jerry was correct Smiley  So, what about acceptable time lines for the alternator Huh
Logged
Mike S
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1101



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2012, 06:01:16 PM »

Hi Marty,

 I would say it depends on what alternator was used and how many in a batch run. The standard alternator with a car ordered with little options that required anything beyond 37A would be consumed faster hence closer to the vehicle assembly date than one that was used with let's say A/C.  So maybe a week before to several weeks depening on the demands.
  Like the gas tank date vs. cowl date thread, maybe one for alternators?

Mike
Logged

67 LOS SS/RS L35 Hardtop - Original w/UOIT
67 NOR SS/RS L35 Convertible - Restored
1968 Z28
Member
***
Posts: 438


View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2012, 06:33:11 PM »

Marty....What Mike said.  There was a production total of appx. 244,000 cars in 1969 and there was a total of 44,737 that had the C60 option that used the 61amp alternator.  So, it would probably depend on the total stock of the 61 amp alternator that they kept on hand and the rate that they were used on the line as to when they were manufactured.
  So I would say that you would probably need to ask around to find as many cars as possible in your manufacture date range and ask what their alternator dates are.  Or maybe there is someone else on here that has had a lot of experience at working with alternators and kept records as to the alternator vs car dates.

Wish I knew more...
Logged

Jerry G.

Z28-1968-07C-Norwood
Ermine White, Red Std. Interior
2nd. Owner, 38,000 miles
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2012, 07:40:32 PM »

Good point Jerry. Mike's use of logic is refreshing and makes perfect sense. However, like with most topics First Gen, the proof is in the pudding, and or better stated; in the stats. So, your recommendation above all makes the most sense.
 
I know for a fact there are members who have cars with similar build dates as mine. I also think some of them were built in L. A... Whether or not they will contribute is another matter. If they do, we can as they say kill two birds with one stone. Relative alternator dates as they relate to the cars build date, and any consistencies with regards to the build date of my car and weak stamps? Hope they do contribute. I think a lot of us can benefit.

In addition, given what's been discussed and the regularity by which these alternators must have been pulled from the shelves, wouldn't it be safe to say their dates should be very close to the actual build date of the car? Say days to 4 weeks tops?
 
Sure need some folks with the 1100843 who know theirs are original to the car to hone in.

Thanks guys!

BTW...like your avatar Mike.


« Last Edit: April 28, 2012, 08:17:59 PM by IZRSSS » Logged
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4105


View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2012, 11:25:47 AM »

Hi John,

  Not to deviate from the main topic but I've seen this photo a number of times and each time I study it I notice something new.
I see the 6 cyl engines are blue. Was there any significant reason for that color and not Chevy orange?

 I see a very familiar thing though with the floor. It looks like it is built with wood blocks, no doubt due to the weight of the engines and the machines moving them. When I worked at Grumman Aerospace years ago several of the older assembly plants that were building aircraft during WW2 and beyond had wood floors made with 10x10 blocks (if I have the size correct) stacked tightly side by side.

Thanks,
Mike

Chevy 6-cylinder engines were blue for decades, long before red and orange showed up on the first V-8's in '55. Wood block floors were very common in GM assembly and manufacturing plants until about the mid-60's, when new plants were built with concrete floors. The creosote-soaked wood floor blocks were a maintenance nightmare, especially if they got wet, expanded, and created "humps", like big "bubbles" in the floor.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.119 seconds with 17 queries.