Recent content by 72RoadRunnerGTX

As for the truck issues, one of the dealers I worked at in the seventies had a contract with the Forest Service. Fleets of light and medium duty pickups to maintain and perform warranty repairs on. They all had wenches, radios, and aux lighting installed at delivery, all directly connected to...

One way to run added loads with this system. Leaves the ammeter function intact and retains the factory dash harness and circuit protection.

Just stumbled across this older thread about this “under-hood” or “shunt wire” by-pass. Read through it pretty thoroughly, not one mention that I could find about how this bypass alters the factory designed circuit protection for the stock unfused wiring, with all these parallel fusible links...

Likely the relatively low alternator output at idle of the early stock alternators in relation to whatever loads are taking place. Some issues with the thru ’69 mechanical regulator can cause that as well.

Some more load testing for this “Shunt wire” by-pass. 120+ amps on the stock wiring before any circuit protection trips?

Indeed, someone with an apparent electrician background, suggesting wiring circuit protection devices (fusible links in this case) in parallel, exposing all stock unfused wiring to more battery current potential than it can handle safely in the event of a short, does “blow my brain fuse”. Would...

“Firestarter ammeter”? The myth continues. Well for that matter, there really isn’t anything in this post I can agree with except maybe “Read up on the "ammeter bypass."”, or the big problem with the ammeter/shunt wire by-pass. Better hope you never experience a short in any of that stock...

Yes, the engineers that created original design for that bulkhead charge path connection got it right. The early sixties bulkhead screw terminal connector. Aways believed the bean counters made the call to use Packard’s instead, likely saved a fraction of cent and a few seconds on the assembly...

Didn’t think about it at the time, I could have emphasized in the videos more, this C-body recall approach as an alternative to the “Shunt wire” (direct alternator to battery) by-pass on other platforms as well that use that same fuse box. Includes ’70-74 E-bodies, ’71-74 B-bodies. A little more...

No fusible link was part of the recall wire as I recall, not really needed there to parallel the alternator output feed to splice 1. In the stock system, stock alternator, the battery is the only source of power with enough current potential to light up the 12 ga unfused wiring in the event of a...

Authority? no, I don’t, just a quick reference once in a while on parts applications/interchangeability. For that, haven’t run into many errors. Not real surprised they got this one wrong, going back to 1960. Simply shows no reference to generators, only alternator in 1960 and no reference to...

Stand corrected on that, I recall now, Valiant /6 only in ’60 for the alternator, across the board in ’61 pretty much according the FSMs. Had checked Rock Auto for the application before posting, says alternators on everything in ’60 and generators in ’59.

That’s interesting, haven’t seen one of those in many years. Interesting too, don’t recall it being available as an over-the-counter service part, available to the general public back then. Recall part numbers typically could only be billed back through factory warranty channels or issued to...

IMHO, Yes, to both questions, defiantly

1960 was the model year Chrysler changed away from generators to this alternator/ammeter across all platforms. Other than ’70 and up changes noted, the core charging/load distribution changed little since 1960 for this discussion. Some early models didn’t use Packard connectors at firewall...