1964 Alternator Bracket change 3825460 to 3860461 (May 1964)

[David L.]

The 1964 alternator bracket was revised on April 4, 1964, according to the revision record of the 1964 AIM (Sect. 6, sheet A2.00).
The change was simply relocating the threaded hole for the bolt that attaches the 3828920 clip. I assume that this relocation was for clearance purposes. For those who own original 1964 Corvettes (without A.C.) made in April 1964 or later which bracket do you have, the 3825460 bracket or the 3860461 bracket, and what is the build date of your car?
Enclosed is a photo of an original 3825460 bracket and the drawing that I drew back in the late 1980's while researching these brackets.

Dave

[Gene M.]

Re: 1964 Alternator Bracket change 3825460 to 3860461 (May 1964)

David,
My early '65 (November), has the upper sketch hole position. My buddy's '64 (early march) that I worked on, if I'm recalling well had the lower hole position with the holes farther apart.

Sorry, originally I put this in backwards...... all fixed now after re checking.

[David L.]

Re: 1964 Alternator Bracket change 3825460 to 3860461 (May 1964)

Gene,
It makes sense that your 1965 (Nov. 1964 build) would have the 3860462 bracket and it also makes sense that the 1964 (Mar. 1964 build) would have the 3825460 since the change on the drawing was April 8, 1964. The actual assembly line change must have taken place sometime between April and November 1964. Hopefully others will help narrow this gap.
Thanks,
Dave

[Gene M.]

Re: 1964 Alternator Bracket change 3825460 to 3860461 (May 1964)

Gene,
It makes sense that your 1965 (Nov. 1964 build) would have the 3860462 bracket and it also makes sense that the 1964 (Mar. 1964 build) would have the 3825460 since the change on the drawing was April 8, 1964. The actual assembly line change must have taken place sometime between April and November 1964. Hopefully others will help narrow this gap.
Thanks,
Dave

Dave, Yes that is true in fact you will most likely find overlap and some backwards usage on parts that were not purged since they were both functional designs. I think this would be considered a "roll in cut in" that did not require a purge of old design. Both designs were placed in the same bins for line assembly.