C2:67 Battery Cable Part No.?

[Gerard F.]

Just got a new set of battery cables from Lectric Limited for my 67/327 non-air.
The 67 Judging Guide says the positive cable should be 6286182. The LL positive cable is stamped 6286180. LL says they are correct in their catalog. Are they?

Jerry Fuccillo
#42179

[Jack H.]

Re: C2:67 Battery Cable Part No.?

Well, my copy of the '67 AIM calls out PN 6286180 for the Pos Bat Cable on UPC 12, Sheet A6... Seems to me that's justification for LL's position vs. the '67 JG book. What do you think?

[Michael H.]

Re: C2:67 Battery Cable Part No.?

Not sure about 67 but the 6286180 is the correct cable for all 66 327's without AC and the 6286182 is correct for 427's without AC. (at least the 425 HP but not sure about the 390 HP) I'm not sure what the difference is between the 180 and the 182 but I would have to guess it's the strand count or size? I vaguely remember hearing that the 182 had copper plated strands instead of plain aluminum which would dramatically increase it's efficiency, especially on hot soak restarts.

Michael

[Gerard F.]

Re: C2:67 Battery Cable Part No.?

Jack,

I guess if the 67 Aim has the number, then LL is correct, and the 67 JG is wrong.

While I got you here Jack, is there any way to test spark plug wires before you put them on? I got a new dated set from LL and I understand from posts that there has been some problems with them. I tried a 1 1/2 volt volt-ohm meter on them to test for ohms and I get no continuity.

Is there another way of testing them?

Jerry Fuccillo

[Michael H.]

Also........

Could be wrong on this but I believe the big block only 182 cable had a 90 deg bend in the connector at the solenoid end. The connector for small block was straight. The 90 deg connector on BB cables would have allowed the cable to run back, along the top of the solenoid, instead of outboard, toward the area of the exhaust manifold.

[Jack H.]

Re: C2:67 Battery Cable Part No.?

Correct resistance varies with the wires used and their specific length as the carbon impregnated center nylon strand is spec'd in ohms/linear foot. Most techs look for plug wires to measure somewhere in the 20K ohm range and consider them throw aways when they climb appreciably above 40K. But, some 'funnies' can/do happen with short 'burn' spots developing in isolated spots as the wires age. Then, you get 'Jeckyl/Hyde' measurements with end to end resistance changing with temperature as well as movement of the wire....

If your VOM is in good repair and you're skilled in setting it properly for the specific measurement range you're in (presuming it's not completely auto ranging), an infinite resistance reading is shore nuf evidence of a bad plug wire!

[mike cobine]

Re: C2:67 Battery Cable Part No.?

The original style wires and their tendency to break is why those seeking performance went with solid copper wires.

You weren't listening to the radio anyway at 6000 rpm or so.

Also, if I remember right, they wouldn't always show continuity when tested with a low-voltage ohmmeter, but would work because the high voltage would arc right across breaks in the conductor.

Not really the recommended way to have a good quality spark.

[Gerard F.]

Re: C2:67 Battery Cable Part No.?

Jack,

Guess I got it figured out. They wouldn't show any reading with a 1 1/2 volt VOM. But when I put a 9 volt digital the readings came right up. All below 20k ohms, and between 4k and 6k per foot.

I guess I'm good to go. But when I start missing, I'll remember the comments about the performance wires.

Jerry Fuccillo

[John H.]

Re: C2:67 Battery Cable Part No.?

Jack -

I had this on my list, and I've already submitted a recommendation to revise the positive battery cable part number typo/error in the SB Mechanical section of the '67 JG; the 180 number is correct.

[Jack H.]

Good! *NM*