1964 Battery Cable ?

[M W.]

Hi all,

Looking over my score sheets from a recent meet I noticed I was deducted a few points for having service replacement battery cables. I am wondering what is the give away on these spring type cables verses the original type? I purchased mine from Lectric Limited a few years back and thought they were as close to original as possible. Does anyone have any pictures of original cables?

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks,
Craig

[William C.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

Craig, the originals have a more radised finish on the top and bottom edges than the reproductions. It's clearly on the battery cable print, but did not get incorporated into the reproduction tooling.

[Dan H.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

Hi Bill, can the LL ones be modified to give a more production 'look'? How much radius etc. Thanks,
Dan

[William C.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

Well, it's not quite that simple, I'm looking for a print now and if I can find one I'll post it or a picture of an "of the era" NOS cable. The radius is only one difference, the second is that the reproductions (at least when Tim Partridge started the reproduction cables) were produced in a poured mold where the originals were produced in a pressure molded process, so the outside finish of the reproduction is not a smooth as the originals. Tim sold his tooling to LL many years ago, and I believe the same process (if not the same tooling) is still used. Not sure what the hit is for Repro part, but I think about one point. I don't think the repro can be inproved enough to pass, but it depends pn how many hours of work one is willing to pu6t into the attempt.

[William C.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

Print attached, note the radius on the edges. Same design used 63-69 until the sidepost and bolt system cam into play. Hopefully the file is readable, hard to take a picture of a blueprint!

[Dan H.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

Thanks Bill, radius isn't tooo severe, should be something to while away the hours on!
Dan

[William C.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

Here are a couple of pictures of an "of the era" service replacement part, '63-64 Olds application so ignore the wider rear section, but I think you can see the radius on the top and bottom edges. This part was manufactured sometime between 1964 and 1968 most likely as the tooling for the spring was modified to add a BAR to prevent overstress when installing on the battery. All the molds were modified at that time to use the new spring, both Production and service. I tried to find the tooling for the original design spring in the late 70's, but the engineer who controlled the machines they were made on said the all the early tooling had been scrapped after the design change.

[William C.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

Note also how smooth the outside finish is on the molded part. I don't think the repro's replicate that well either due to the difference in the molding process.

[John D.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

The cable that shows the most is the ground cable. Many years ago my sister had a late 60's Pontiac. It had a really nice ground cable on it that was the same as my 63 except it was tooo long. Being a good brother I bought her a nice new battery cable and put the correct split ring one on my 63 after we shortened it.
The repros are a very nice SR part. I think you would only get about one ding for them.
I did good on my sisters cable though. It had a part number stamped on it. First show I got hit on the number. So a little lacquer thinner took it off.
Anyone ever see the tool that Snap On used to sell in the old days for split ring battery cables. I don't need the bubba pliers. I mean the real deal tool. My friend Tim at Grabiak Chevrolet had one but I never saw another in my life. When he died I asked his brother for the tool but it was long gone. John

[James W.]

Re: 1964 Battery Cable ?

Here are the only pictures I have of some originals on a Duntov/Bowtie 1965 BB. They aren't the best but I think it shows the difference in the radius from one side of the clamp ring to the other.

Hope this helps.


Regards,

James West