69 427 starter, what caused this?...

[Chris H.]

Here are some photos of the starter I took off of my 69 435 car. The starter would sometimes engage, other times just spin, and occasioanally just engage but spin really slowly like the battery was low.

Notice the part numbers..1107221 (61-63 Buick) and 1108400. I presume it's a rebuild and I have a repair reciept from 1971.

Can, should I have this rebuilt or is there a configuration problem with the rebuilt unit? 1108400 starters are very expensive so I'd like to reuse / rebuild this one if it can be made to work properly. I don't care about judging points for the time being.

All responses greatly appreciated. Chris

[Joe L.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Here are some photos of the starter I took off of my 69 435 car. The starter would sometimes engage, other times just spin, and occasioanally just engage but spin really slowly like the battery was low.

Notice the part numbers..1107221 (61-63 Buick) and 1108400. I presume it's a rebuild and I have a repair reciept from 1971.

Can, should I have this rebuilt or is there a configuration problem with the rebuilt unit? 1108400 starters are very expensive so I'd like to reuse / rebuild this one if it can be made to work properly. I don't care about judging points for the time being.

All responses greatly appreciated. Chris

Chris------


I cannot imagine who would have "restamped" a starter like this. It just doesn't make sense that someone would have done this in hopes of passing off a starter of one part number as another. Also, I've never known commercial rebuilders to do something like this. They usually don't use manufacturer's part numbers, anyway. Consequently, I have to assume that this was actually done by Delco-Remy for unknown reasons.

As far as the configuration goes, from what I can see of it, it appears to me to be configured as an 1108400. Of course, many other starter part numbers were similarly configured. There is one item that does indicate that it was manufactured as the original 1107xxx part number indicates. This is the slotted field coil shoe screws. These were used for all 1107xxx starters; original 1108xxx starters used phillips head screws.

The chipping on the starter drive teeth is not uncommon on long serving starters. You should be able to rebuild this starter without problem. Simply replace the starter drive as well as whatever other parts need replacing.

The last available starter drive from GM was GM #10470757, aka Delco D-2051. It's now discontinued but you should be able to find one. If not, I believe that aftermarket equivalents are available.

[Richard M.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

I would get with John Pirkle on this 706-860-9047

[Chris H.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Chris------


I cannot imagine who would have "restamped" a starter like this. It just doesn't make sense that someone would have done this in hopes of passing off a starter of one part number as another. Also, I've never known commercial rebuilders to do something like this. They usually don't use manufacturer's part numbers, anyway. Consequently, I have to assume that this was actually done by Delco-Remy for unknown reasons.

As far as the configuration goes, from what I can see of it, it appears to me to be configured as an 1108400. Of course, many other starter part numbers were similarly configured. There is one item that does indicate that it was manufactured as the original 1107xxx part number indicates. This is the slotted field coil shoe screws. These were used for all 1107xxx starters; original 1108xxx starters used phillips head screws.

The chipping on the starter drive teeth is not uncommon on long serving starters. You should be able to rebuild this starter without problem. Simply replace the starter drive as well as whatever other parts need replacing.

The last available starter drive from GM was GM #10470757, aka Delco D-2051. It's now discontinued but you should be able to find one. If not, I believe that aftermarket equivalents are available.

Thanks Joe. I'm a little concerned because the starter drive has less than 1000 miles on it. I wouldn't expect that kind of damage so soon. I was wondering if there something wrong with the alignment of the starter drive / flywheel or a configuration problem with drive.

Also, did the 1104800 use different bolt holes in the block?

Thanks, Chris

[Terry M.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Thanks Joe. I'm a little concerned because the starter drive has less than 1000 miles on it. I wouldn't expect that kind of damage so soon. I was wondering if there something wrong with the alignment of the starter drive / flywheel or a configuration problem with drive.

Also, did the 1104800 use different bolt holes in the block?

Thanks, Chris

Chris,

Inspect the flywheel teeth. If they are damaged they can wear the starter drive expressively. The starter bolts are the special knurled shank bolts for that application, right? And they were properly torqued, and didn't bottom put prematurely, right?

[Paul J.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Thanks Joe. I'm a little concerned because the starter drive has less than 1000 miles on it. I wouldn't expect that kind of damage so soon. I was wondering if there (was) something wrong with the alignment of the starter drive / flywheel or a configuration problem with drive.

Thanks, Chris

There ya go. There is sometimes a small misalignment, which can cause this type of failure or even break a flywheel. That is why there are shims made for this.

[Joe L.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Thanks Joe. I'm a little concerned because the starter drive has less than 1000 miles on it. I wouldn't expect that kind of damage so soon. I was wondering if there something wrong with the alignment of the starter drive / flywheel or a configuration problem with drive.

Also, did the 1104800 use different bolt holes in the block?

Thanks, Chris

Chris------


Are you saying this starter drive was NEW 1,000 miles ago?

The 1108400 starter used a starter nose exactly like the one pictured.

[John H.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Chris -

Has the starter brace been in place (the one from the forward end of the armature case to the block)? If it's not there, it can chew up the starter drive or break the nose; those two bolts weren't designed to carry the entire cantilevered load of the starter, especially when it's cranking.

[Chris H.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

The starter has the knurled bolts and it does have the front brace. Yes, I believe the starter was replaced about 1000 miles ago based on a repair bill from 1971.

Attached is a photo of the flywheel.

Thanks, Chris

[Joe L.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

The starter has the knurled bolts and it does have the front brace. Yes, I believe the starter was replaced about 1000 miles ago based on a repair bill from 1971.

Attached is a photo of the flywheel.

Thanks, Chris

Chris------


Just because the starter was replaced does not mean that the starter drive was replaced when the starter was rebuilt. Many rebuilt starters that I've seen have used drives installed, often with chipped teeth. This is especially true of "el cheapo" rebuilt units. I believe that many of these type rebuilds only involve dis-assembling, cleaning everything up, testing the electrical parts for functionality, replacing brushes and bushings, and re-assembling.

In a real high quality rebuild just about everything is replaced except the starter frame and nose and, sometimes, even the nose is replaced.

The teeth on your ring gear, at least the ones pictured, look very good to me.

[Ronald L.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

In your first set of pictures I am seeing a 3 A 15 date code.

Like 1963 or 1973, neither would be proper for 1969. I also have know long gone bubbas rebuilders to put the numbers in, back then this is just about what you'd get, correct nose, donor case and fields, etc. Other clues may be had by removing the solenoid and verifying the part number on that.

Its a potential that the factory did this by cleaning up scrap housing laying around, but the date difference is questionable. Sounds more like a 1971 version of a rebuild as I expect Delco to restamp the entire text set.

If you do not know 100% that this is the starter the car left the factory with, lose it and get a properly dated one, that is, if your intent is to have the car factory correct. You can always go to a parts store and just get an el cheapo what ever they have so to have something that works, if that grinds up the gear you know you are installing them wrong or have other issues. 71 was a long time ago to have a rebuild, and grease in there is pretty dried out by now too.

In any event alignment is probably the issue as the others have indicated.

[Chris H.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Thanks everyone for the responses. I'm going to have this one rebuilt for $100 and will then reinstall. If it still gives me problems I will shim it.

Correct and dated 1108400s range from $400 to $900. This unit is enough of an enigma that I'll enjoy watching the judges talk about it on the judging field. At worst it will judge as a service replacement.

Chris

[Joe L.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Thanks everyone for the responses. I'm going to have this one rebuilt for $100 and will then reinstall. If it still gives me problems I will shim it.

Correct and dated 1108400s range from $400 to $900. This unit is enough of an enigma that I'll enjoy watching the judges talk about it on the judging field. At worst it will judge as a service replacement.

Chris

Chris-----


I'd at least have the field shoe screws changed to phillips drive type. The slotted screws will be a dead give-away.

[Chris H.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

Thanks Joe, good point. I'll do that. Chris

[John P.]

Re: 69 427 starter, what caused this?...

You should not have to shim a cast iron drive end.If you do it is an indicator of something else not being right i.e.worn flywheel,incorrect bellhousing etc. In regards to the part number stamping,at the least it will not meet the standard of "typical factory production".If you are looking for the part number points, i would not expect you to get them with this starter.