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 short circuit. The stock fusible link would blow on a short in either alternator feed wires.
I had to wrap my head around it, but once I did, I understood. Your wiring diagram helped with that.
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 work for the older fuse boxes but could be done. Pretty simple to install, relieves much current stress on the single alternator feed Packard terminals, retains the factory circuit protection, and does not mess with the ammeter accuracy.
There's no reason why this can't be applied to other bodies. As you say, those are the easiest ones to do.
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 line per car. Then again, nothing about these cars was ever designed to last more than a few years, until the next trade-in.
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.
Following up a bit on the C-body recall discussed here, I stumbled on link to a Chrysler part number 3940087 over on an E-body site recently. Haven’t seen one of these in a long time, appears to be one of the mentioned C-body recall wires. Pretty much what I remember from 50 years ago with a few exceptions, there IS a 16ga fusible link incorporated, an extra female Packard connection on the firewall side, the wire run from the alternator ring terminal to the fusible link is 10ga. Can’t seem to figure out why a fusible link would be placed in the location it is. The fuse box connection is in fact split into two female Packards to connect to both back and front sides of the fuse box battery buss, that I remember now. Strange too, there seems to be quite a few of these NOS wires still floating around for sale fairly cheap, paid about $15 for it. Claims to be NOS, pretty crusty but appears to have never been installed.
Good to know. It makes perfect sense to me to have that circuit protected somehow.
To the same BATT terminal? ... for redundancy?
Load splitting basically, same reason for the existence of this bypass/recall in the first place, the reality of more stock load current than a single set of Packards in the bulkhead connector could handle safely on that alternator output lead.
I've heard that solid state regulators will have a much smoother/more consistent power output. Wouldn't be surprised if that stops any gauge fluctuations, if not greatly reducing it.
The '70 fuse block is pretty much the same as a '73, so I see no reason why it wouldn't work.
IMHO, soldering the fusible link isn't a good idea. The wire in the link can wick the solder up pretty easily, even if you are good at soldering. Makes the connections stiff and easy to break along with changing the point at which the fusible link does its job and burns out. Good quality crimped butt connectors covered with heat shrink would work.
The Packard connectors go to the battery feed bus. See Post #91
