Quote:
I freely admit I'm a complete geek.
That's not the four letter word I heard!!! 
D/W
| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| Starter motor geekery https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12718 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Starter motor geekery |
I freely admit I'm a complete geek. Maybe some of the sound clips will make good computer "startup" sounds...! |
|
| Author: | Dennis Weaver [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Starter motor geekery |
Quote: I freely admit I'm a complete geek.
That's not the four letter word I heard!!! D/W |
|
| Author: | steponmebbbboom [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where is AutoLab? |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
West Allis, Wisconsin. |
|
| Author: | NewLancerMan [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
and to think I now have 3 of the "biggy" starters lying around...and you have this little hyperstarter. Always trying to be the only kid on the block with *that* particular accessory why? JUST CAUSE!  MJ |
|
| Author: | steponmebbbboom [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What was the advantage with the rewound OSGR starter? |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
OSGR means "Offset Gear Reduction". All of the RWD gear reduction starters (Chrysler, Aussie Bosch, late-model Nippondenso, etc.) are of this design. It means the motor armature's axis is different from the drive pinion's axis. The other kind is "PGR", Planetary Gear Reduction, which is a coaxial system (motor axis and drive axis are the same). PGR starters by Bosch are used on a lot of '86-up Chrysler FWDs, Toshiba PGRs on 4-litre and V8 Jeeps, etc, but no PGR starters for RWD Chryslers. The advantage? I wanted to see if the starter's actual behaviour matched my predictions. It did. Slower but more constant cranking speed than a 4-series-wound starter, with higher initial torque and less noise. The Aussie Bosch starter is also a series/shunt design. |
|
| Author: | steponmebbbboom [ Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
How was the current draw? More or less? Sounds like it wouldnt shake the car as much either, did it? |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Current draw more or less compared to what? "Shake the car"...? Is that like that song "Rock the Catbox?" |
|
| Author: | steponmebbbboom [ Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What I mean is, did the rewound starter draw more, or less current than the old one would have by more than a negligible amount; ergo more or less "efficient". Both my older short osgr and my newer 88 dippy long osgr shake the car a little during cranking. |
|
| Author: | K.Beard of TMC [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | starter |
If my memory serves, the early RWD starter motors (<1973?) were rated 1.3HP, the later 1.5HP, & the RPMs were dropped slightly. They were physically interchangeable for nearly every /6,A,B,RB, with only a couple of exceptions over many, many years. I seem to remember reading that there was an oddball taxi-only direct drive model and another oddball used only on '66? hemis, but I've never seen either. |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: starter |
Quote: If my memory serves, the early RWD starter motors (<1973?) were rated 1.3HP, the later 1.5HP, & the RPMs were dropped slightly.
The 3-series/1-shunt starter ('62, then '64 thru early '73) was rated at about 1.3 horsepower. The '63 (also '64-'69 170 engine only) was about 1.4. Starting in late '73, horsepower rating was 1.5 (for the small-frame starters) and 1.8 (for the large-frame starters from '74-'88). The Bosch Australian starter is rated 1.6hp.Quote: They were physically interchangeable for nearly every /6,A,B,RB, with only a couple of exceptions over many, many years.
Yes, '62-'01. 3.9 V6, also.Quote: I seem to remember reading that there was an oddball taxi-only direct drive model
Taxi/fleet/truck/special order w/11" clutch. Chrysler-built solenoid-shift direct-drive starter of highly conventional design, interchangeable with the Prestolite ("Auto-Lite") bendix-drive direct-drive starters used on '60-'61 Slant-6s and Bosch direct-drive starters used on '63-'68 Australian Slant-6s...and directly replaceable by the 9-tooth-pinion variant of the Bosch Australia gear-reduction starter.Quote: and another oddball used only on '66? hemis
Same Chrysler-built solenoid-shift starter used on \6 with 11" clutch, but with one mounting hole threaded.
|
|
| Author: | K.Beard of TMC [ Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | thanks |
Thanks to SlantSixDan for correcting my memory; I didn't have my references available and couldn't remember the #s. From my experience, a common problem was that backfires could crack in the nose of the starters and the clutch would break, but other than that, I had very few problems with them. The problem seemed worse in my 360V8 (A)engines than my 383V8 (B). Some of the rebuilds came with already broken studs for the battery cables, so it'd pay to examine it closely when you pick one up. For the TMC giveaway cars, we've just dropped in a rebuilt and it's always worked fine. |
|
| Author: | NewLancerMan [ Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Is that like that song "Rock the Catbox?"
Thanks for that...its been in my head for the last 30 mins...CURSES! 
|
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kitty don't like it! (INKLE-jink, JINKLE-jinkle-jink) ROCKIN' the CATBOX! ROCK the CATBOX! Kitty don't like it! (INKLE-jink, JINKLE-jinkle-jink) ROCKIN' the CATBOX! ROCK the CATBOX! 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|