1967 L71 alternator diodes

[Hector G.]

Recently received a 1 point deduction for "diode stamping missing" on the alternator at a recent NCRS chapter meet. Preparing to remedy this issue, I removed the alternator (part number 1100696, dated 7B6, Engine block casting C217, Engine pad stamp T0328 JE, Vehicle Production date 4/27/67) this morning. The car had just under 15k when purchased. I have driven the car approximately 500 miles. In my humble, and yes, bias opinion, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the car's odometer is correct. Will spare you the basis of the opinion. I mention the car's mileage for the following reason.

I believe the alternator is original to the car. When I removed the alternator, I noticed that one of the stampings was just barely visible. The markings were as follows:

423
7A12
466

Here is my dilemma. The last 3 digits, "466" are not what the 67 TIM (6th Edition) calls for. The TIM indicates, on page 148, that the last 3 digits on three negative and positive diodes should read "467".

I should also note that I have seen several John Pirkle Sr. restored 1100696 alternators, two with a February 1967 date with the "466" digits, not the "467" digits.

Does anyone have an opinion on whether the TIM is correct and why?

Thanks for your input.

Hector

[Gene M.]

Re: 1967 L71 alternator diodes

Recently received a 1 point deduction for "diode stamping missing" on the alternator at a recent NCRS chapter meet. Preparing to remedy this issue, I removed the alternator (part number 1100696, dated 7B6, Engine block casting C217, Engine pad stamp T0328 JE, Vehicle Production date 4/27/67) this morning. The car had just under 15k when purchased. I have driven the car approximately 500 miles. In my humble, and yes, bias opinion, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the car's odometer is correct. Will spare you the basis of the opinion. I mention the car's mileage for the following reason.

I believe the alternator is original to the car. When I removed the alternator, I noticed that one of the stampings was just barely visible. The markings were as follows:

423
7A12
466

Here is my dilemma. The last 3 digits, "466" are not what the 67 TIM (6th Edition) calls for. The TIM indicates, on page 148, that the last 3 digits on three negative and positive diodes should read "467".

I should also note that I have seen several John Pirkle Sr. restored 1100696 alternators, two with a February 1967 date with the "466" digits, not the "467" digits.

Does anyone have an opinion on whether the TIM is correct and why?

Thanks for your input.

Hector

466 is good

[Hector G.]

Re: 1967 L71 alternator diodes

Thanks Gene. Does that mean the TIM is incorrect?

[Richard M.]

Re: 1967 L71 alternator diodes

Most electronic components are/were identified with part numbers and date codes.

I never researched the diodes but I'm wondering if the Manufacturer Part#(likely Delco) for one diode is 423466 and the other is 423467, one +polarity the other -polarity and stamped the date code between prefix and suffix.

I don't know if individual diodes could have been purchased in service, maybe just the entire rectifier assembly for the Service Departments.

EDIT....A little research. Individual diodes were available shown in this P&A catalog.

My reference photos say the stamped component part numbers were 423466(POS) and 380466(NEG). I think the JG may be in error with the 467 designation.