Origin of this incorrect starter? ('62-340)

[Rob Edwards]

I'm making a list of parts that are wrong on this car, and came across the following bits on the starter. It says Delco Remy on it, and above that is the part number 1108367, then 7 M 20. I assume that means December 20, 1967, but can any of the GM part # gurus enlighten me? Thanks!

-Rob

[Clem Z.]

Re: Origin of this incorrect starter? ('62-340)

1969 Z-28

[Joe L.]

Re: Origin of this incorrect starter? ('62-340)

Rob------

As Clem mentions, the GM #1108367 was used for 1969 Z-28s. However, it was also used for many other small block applications during the 1968 to 1974 period. Included were 302, 307 and 327 cid applications. It was never originally used on a Corvette, though. Given the date on yours, I'd say that it was destined for some early to mid build 1968 model Chevrolet.

As originally configured, this starter was designed for use with a 153 tooth, 12-3/4" flywheel/flexplate. So, as originally configured it should have an aluminum starter nose with "straight-across" long/short starter bolt bosses.

If it's being used on a C1 Corvette with an original 14", 168 tooth flywheel, then it must have been re-configured. As I've mentioned before, once a starter goes through a commercial rebuilders' operation, it loses all of its original identity; the "numbers" on the frame mean absolutely nothing. In fact, as of late, a lot of rebuilders are now grinding off these numbers to avoid "confusion" which they may create. The only number applicable to a rebuilt starter which has any meaning, whatsoever, is the one that the rebuilder assigns to it. The starter frames (the part with the original "numbers" on it) are "neutered" and rendered "generic" in the rebuilding process whether or not the original numbers remain.

[Rob Edwards]

Re: Origin of this incorrect starter? ('62-340)

Thanks for the replies, gentlemen-

I've been having a heck of a time with the hard starting issue with this car. I've got an appointment next week to have a SoCal corvette guy look at it (Steve Luvisi, came highly recommended from another mid-year owner), and I'm pretty certain I've got timing issues, and a bad case of heat soak, of course. (I'm tempted to throw a Pertronix and remote solenoid and have done with it...) but now I'm worried about this starter. The car still takes a good 10-15 seconds before it'll turn over, even cold. Battery's on a tender every night, the plugs are good, carb's rebuilt, fuel pressure is fine (high if anything- cheapo NAPA fuel pump, soon to be replaced) Is it safe to say that if it'll start the car at all it's been reconfigured and the case markings are meaningless? (And if it was reconfigured, is it possible that a cheapo rebuild might result in a weak starter that's contributing to my hard start issues?)
I THINK the original flywheel is present(though the PO put in a new clutch, pressure plate and throwout bearing, and given the abuse evident in the tranny, maybe it's not the original/correct flywheel). If I pull the lower flywheel cover off it, I ought to be able to count teeth or get some sense of the diameter of the flywheel, no? Ah, more things to check......

I've attached a bad pic of the starter if that'll provide any additional insight into the unit in question. And no, there's no crossover pipe on the exhaust.. 8-)

Thanks again for your stellar C1 tech!

[Clem Z.]

Re: Origin of this incorrect starter? ('62-340)

i am no C-1 starter expert but it looks like it is not a "hi tork" starter because the starter housing does not look long enought. it should be about a 1 inch past were the power lead goes into the starter fields

[Joe L.]

Re: Origin of this incorrect starter? ('62-340)

Rob------

From what I can see of it, the starter nose looks correct for a C1. So, this starter frame does not currently have the starter nose that it was originally supplied with. As I mentioned, that's very common and should cause no problem, by itself. Probably the vast majority of GM starters out there now have been reconfigured by rebuilders.

If the starter turns the engine over rapidly and "the way it should", then the starter has nothing to do with your hard starting problem.

The NAPA fuel pump is not necessarily an inferior piece. Usually, NAPA-branded parts are very high quality. Plus, AC has not made a mechanical fuel pump in well over 15 years. The ones that come in AC boxes now are manufactured by some other source. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that "some other source" is the same for AC-Delco-branded pumps and the NAPA pumps. So, if you go out and purchase an AC-Delco fuel pump you'll likely get the same thing as you have with the NAPA pump.

[Rob Edwards]

Re: Origin of this incorrect starter? ('62-340)

Joe-

Here's a pic of the fuel pump, I can't figure out how to rotate the inlet and outlet so that the correct (well, are steel or stainless steel lines correct?) pump to carb fuel line that's sitting on the dining room table will line up correctly. It's just wrong, the original AC is in a box in Montana and is coming to me eventually. I'll get it rebuilt and installed so that's no longer an issue. I guess I need to tighten up the plate that the pump mounts to, huh?

-Rob

[Joe L.]

Re: Origin of this incorrect starter? ('62-340)

Rob-----

This is some sort of replacement style fuel pump of the crimped design. The original style was a "screw-type" pump. While incorrect as to configuration, that does not mean that the pump is of inferior quality or that it won't perform properly. With a crimped style pump, though, there's no way to change the orientation of the inlet and outlet fittings.