Re: 1970 LS-5 Alternator Pulley, revisited
Thanks, Dave!
I've been looking for one for some time, and they pop up periodically. The problem is the date code...too early, too late. I'm not sure what is "acceptable," but I figure for a B20 car (T0211 engine), it would likely be in January 1970 (but that's a guess on my part...more experienced restorers and judges might tell me I'm wrong).
I did find a *great* place to get a clone, and I've picked up one. $395 for a restored Rochester (plating, meter jets, etc.), stamped as 7040205 with your choice of date code. See Monzon:
I don't have it in hand at the moment, but I did talk with them and was very impressed. They produce a lot of this very model, I was told, and I'm hoping to see a high-quality unit come back. Unless and until I find the real deal with the proper date, this one should do. I very much appreciate the offer, however.
Jim: Ouch! I think this car had a similar issue with the brake cylinder. The numbers are hard to read, but looking at the casting options, what should have been a 5455509 unit is a 5480346 unit (complete with bale tag
). The car doesn't have J50, so it shouldn't have a J50 cylinder. I think it must've blown early in the car's history and been replaced with the wrong one. It has, very clearly, been on the car a long, long time. I bet a lot of cars, and owners, are in a similar boat. Service replacements for original parts...it hurts, too.
Thanks, Dave!
I've been looking for one for some time, and they pop up periodically. The problem is the date code...too early, too late. I'm not sure what is "acceptable," but I figure for a B20 car (T0211 engine), it would likely be in January 1970 (but that's a guess on my part...more experienced restorers and judges might tell me I'm wrong).
I did find a *great* place to get a clone, and I've picked up one. $395 for a restored Rochester (plating, meter jets, etc.), stamped as 7040205 with your choice of date code. See Monzon:
I don't have it in hand at the moment, but I did talk with them and was very impressed. They produce a lot of this very model, I was told, and I'm hoping to see a high-quality unit come back. Unless and until I find the real deal with the proper date, this one should do. I very much appreciate the offer, however.
Jim: Ouch! I think this car had a similar issue with the brake cylinder. The numbers are hard to read, but looking at the casting options, what should have been a 5455509 unit is a 5480346 unit (complete with bale tag
). The car doesn't have J50, so it shouldn't have a J50 cylinder. I think it must've blown early in the car's history and been replaced with the wrong one. It has, very clearly, been on the car a long, long time. I bet a lot of cars, and owners, are in a similar boat. Service replacements for original parts...it hurts, too.
Comment