Alternator wiring challenge

[Gonzo]

Rosie is my recently acquired 67 Sport Fury. This my first SOS for help with the most difficult of my experiences: electrics. Rosie came with a shiny, new remanufactured alternator and solid state voltage regulator. The bearings started chattering a couple of weeks after bringing her home. I bought a new Powermaster 7019 and new old-style points voltage regulator from Summit. My mechanic went to the hospital the day after I brought him the car, so he's down for an unknown time. I am trying to understand how to wire this outfit up. Please consider that the wiring as it stands is many connections with black tape. Spooky stuff. I would think it would be prudent to rewire instead of trusting what's there. But, hey, what do I know?
Is this a "dual-field" or "single field" setup?
Online wiring help available, such as a hack like me might understand? I tend to get lost with the tech wiring diagrams. I really like drawings. I thank any of you who might try to help me approach this problem?

 

[Big_John]

I'm not a fan of Powermaster... Full disclosure.

There are a lot of variables here... I looked up the 7019 Powermaster and it shows 2 field connections. This is commonly (and wrongly) called a "dual field". It's actually a isolated field, but I digress. To hook this up to stock 1967 Plymouth wiring, you just need to hook up the wire to the battery and one field connection that runs to the voltage regulator. There will be one field connection left open on the alternator. You'll have to make a wire jumper to that field connection and to a convenient ground.

BUT!!!! You say the previous alternator had a "solid state" voltage regulator. Depending completely on that regulator, your car may have been already wired for the isolated (dual) field by a previous ownerr. In which case, you'll already have the wiring for both field connections. So.... We need to figure out what's there now... and what VR you bought.

So... Did the regulator you pulled off the car look like this?

Or like this?

Then just to cover our butts, what does the new one look like?

 

[Gonzo]

Glad to get your reply Big John. I was impressed by your suggestions in other threads.
My VR is as pictured 2nd: the box with a connection at each end.

 

[Big_John]

Glad to get your reply Big John. I was impressed by your suggestions in other threads.
My VR is as pictured 2nd: the box with a connection at each end.

OK, if BOTH of the Voltage regulators look like that, just follow the directions I already laid out and you're golden.

To hook this up to stock 1967 Plymouth wiring, you just need to hook up the wire to the battery and one field connection that runs to the voltage regulator. There will be one field connection left open on the alternator. You'll have to make a wire jumper to that field connection and to a convenient ground.

 

[Gonzo]

Sounds simple enough. Does it matter which field connection runs to the VR?

 

[Big_John]

Sounds simple enough. Does it matter which field connection runs to the VR?

No

 

[Gonzo]

OK thanks. And run that #8 wire direct from alternator output terminal to positive on battery as you recommended in another thread?

 

[Gonzo]

I read through the suggestions you made in this thread and I realized I misread what you said when you asked which VR I took off the car. Actually it was the solid state 1st one, the 2nd old-style with points is what I bought and want to install. Very sorry to screw that up. I plead sleep deprivation.

 

[Big_John]

I read through the suggestions you made in this thread and I realized I misread what you said when you asked which VR I took off the car. Actually it was the solid state 1st one, the 2nd old-style with points is what I bought and want to install. Very sorry to screw that up. I plead sleep deprivation.

No excuse... I got about 3 or 4 hours last night. LOL...

But yea, that complicates matters just a little.

First, you have two options.... One is to return the wiring back to the original or use what's there.

A little history... In 1970 (or 69 with Imperials) Chrysler changed to the isolated field alternator. This alternator used 2 field connections. One field connection went to power (switched 12 volts) and the other went to the the voltage regulator. Very simplified is what would happen is the battery voltage dropped and the VR would complete the circuit to ground... and that would energize the field which would make the alternator charge.

In the '69 and older cars, the alternator had one field connection. That went to the VR and the other end of the field was grounded internally to the alternator. Again, simplified, the VR would control the charging by switching 12 volts positive to the field, and that made the alternator charge.

So, which is better? I can make arguments that it really doesn't matter much, but I'll give the nod to the later version as having some advantages. First and foremost, the later VR seems to be more reliable and easier to find. It's still a simple system and it works well. You have that... so use it.

Instead of grounding one of the field connections, you now have to connect one (doesn't matter which) to the VR and one to power that switched on and off with your ignition. This means not using the new VR and instead using the existing one... As I'm reading it, there was no issue with it, just an alternator bearing.

Here's a simple wiring diagram that I found. Note that the VR and one field connection gets power from the ignition at the ballast resistor. This is a good place and what Chrysler used for this setup.

 

[Gonzo]

That's a terrific explanation and I believe I get it. Thanks for forgiving me my blunder.
Two reasons I was planning to go back original: 1. the wiring job done to change to the solid state VR system is lots of black tape wrapped connections which looks like future trouble; 2. I have the original alternator, which tested good at the alternator shop. I thought would be good to have it along in the trunk in case of a problem far away from home, and which would be wired to be easily switched out, since it is OEM. Does that make sense enough to you to rewire and go back to original?

 

[Big_John]

That's a terrific explanation and I believe I get it. Thanks for forgiving me my blunder.
Two reasons I was planning to go back original: 1. the wiring job done to change to the solid state VR system is lots of black tape wrapped connections which looks like future trouble; 2. I have the original alternator, which tested good at the alternator shop. I thought would be good to have it along in the trunk in case of a problem far away from home, and which would be wired to be easily switched out, since it is OEM. Does that make sense enough to you to rewire and go back to original?

No problem with that plan at all.

The earlier system works well.

 

[Gonzo]

Alright, Big_ John I'll go with that.
Thanks for staying with me.

 

[Mealness]

Was your Fury also upgraded to electronic ignition? My understanding is that the old points VR and single-field system should not be used with electronic ignition. Chrysler went to electronic ignition standard in '73, so no factory Mopar had the old charging system setup with electronic ignition. I had a '69 Road Runner where the PO had done the ignition upgrade but left the old charging system, and it discharged at idle, in gear, at stop lights. When I later swapped over a '68 Dart, I upgraded both and never had a problem.

MT

 

[Gonzo]

I appreciate your sharing your history.
Rosie came to me wired for the solid state VR upgrade, but the re-wiring done has me concerned about possible future problems. Lots of black tape wrapped connections. In short, I don't trust it. I would change back to the original scheme with new wire runs and a new old-style VR.

 

[stubs300]

Read, Study, and Learn!

charging system overview

 

[volksworld]

yes we know that it had the regulator upgrade...what we want to know is if you still have points and condensor under your cap ...if so everything's fine...if not you need an electronic regulator...many chain store replacement regulators have modern electronics inside them and should be fine to use (have the early style screw on connector but they are physically much smaller than the second one Big John posted)...there are also resto style ones out there that look just like the original one but have modern guts...think i got mine from FuryGT...back in the day the Mopar Performance electronic ignition kits came with a special regulator to replace the points style originals...i just dont recall the exact reason why they said you needed it or if they even gave an explanation

 

[Gonzo]

Still have points and condenser. Thanks for the alert on that.

 

[SA67NEWPORT]

IMO, Big Johns advise, diagrams and information presented are exactly on point. Just one thing to add is that IMO, one of the reasons for the electronic regulator to move to the 2 wire system is that the electronic components are a bit less expensive and more common, and the way they are physically mounted on the regulator metal frame are less complicated when the regulator is designed in such a way as to make the ground side of the alternator connection rather than feeding the positive side to it.
I have seen similar differences concerning charge status at idle with the mechanical vs solid state regulators. I believe this is due to the much higher speed and precision that the electronic regulator can react to load changes in the system over the mechanical regulator.

 

[Big_John]

IMO, one of the reasons for the electronic regulator to move to the 2 wire system is that the electronic components are a bit less expensive and more common, and the way they are physically mounted on the regulator metal frame are less complicated when the regulator is designed in such a way as to make the ground side of the alternator connection rather than feeding the positive side to it.

I've been told it was cheaper/easier to control the ground side, but I've never heard a good reason why. I never thought it would be about the internal mounting.... This makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Scoopy G]

Once again, Stubbs offers NO useful information, NO encouraging input, NO technical advice. I guess he thinks a car forum is a place where people go to ask questions so they can be shouted down by assholes who think they know it all. What a disgrace.