RE: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

["Bob Jasinski" <rpjasin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My comments on starters pertain only to the non gear reduction type used
with the cast iron torqueflites. I do believe there were two models as
evidenced by the different part numbers for the 318 vs. larger engines for
1961.  I do not have an earlier parts book to look at, so I invite others to
see what is offered for earlier years, if you have the parts book(s)
available.  It would be good to get to the bottom of this debate once and
for all.  

 

Bob J

 

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jean-Yves Chouinard
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:31 AM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fw: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

 

  

Here's some more on starters...Scroll down to read all emails between me and
John Grady.
Hope that helps or at least brings more info ...
300'ly
Jean-Yves
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jean-Yves Chouinard 
To: John Grady 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

Yes stock F and G starters do not have solenoid on top. They do not fit 62
up 727 trans. And the 727 starters do not fit the pre 62 cast iron trans. No
interchange possible there. Physically will not fit. 
I never had a 318 cast iron car so i can't tell you if that starter is
interchangeable with the big block cars.
If they do, maybe that is why there is two part #'s in the Chrysler book and
maybe that is the reason for the "regular" winding and the "heavy duty"
winding.
I could be wrong here , but if I remember right, on my first 60 Polara( cast
iron trans.), the starter gears are in contact with the flywheel or torque
converter gears, and the starter gears "backs up" inside starter and out of
the way as the car starts. On 62 up 727, the gears on the starter drive are
pushed out of starter to meet gears on torque converter and then back inside
as you release the ignition key back to normal.
I say that because I remember I had to bring the starter back to the
rebuilder on my 60 Polara because the "tension in a spring inside" had to be
adjusted. Not enough tension on that spring made the starter release out
before the car was started. The engine would just spark but not quite start
and the starter would disengage even if I kept the ignition key on!! That is
how they work, spped of the started engine disengages the starter drive...
So that is the difference between the pre 62 and post 62 starters...they
operate differently.
Does that make any sense? 
I was going to ask you if I should post your responses on the list
server...I will...
J.Y.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: John Grady 
To: 'Jean-Yves Chouinard' 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:31 AM
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

Did the stock F and G have no solenoid on top of starter? Maybe I am mixing
stuff up myself, and there are in fact two different Bendix drive starters
?? It someone put in a 318 starter, and it fits cast iron trans, it
definitely would not crank 413..or 392. The 318 starter would have been far
more common in auto parts stores of the day, if it fits and looks alike, may
explain some of this??-- someone put in a wrong, commonly available starter
at some point in past 50 years, in some C300 to G's? . There is a lot of
confusion around this . My point on F is the correct stock starter works
fine, rewinding it with heavier wire is not needed, but maybe there is more
to this? Yes, the later "ministarter " has a gear reduction, it is smaller
because later permanent magnet needs no winding, but it spins faster, so
more gear down is needed. I think that was an "across the board" upgrade at
some point by MOPAR in 70's or 80's? You can tell easily by looking if a
gear down design, the motor axle is not in line with the drive pinion, as
the gears offset it? I remember when it came out, it made a strange loud
noise, but cannot remember what year . They must interchange with 62 up
older solenoid on starter style, as 727 did not change , and current MOPAR
performance mini fits all aluminum case trans ( I think) ? 

It makes sense that the starter was upgraded or changed with 62 aluminum
727; that says 62 up big one with solenoid may be totally different in
overall starter design. Maybe that is what Bob is talking about? Do we know
it if fits the earlier cast iron mount pattern, independent of one wire or
two(that change is easy) ; big difference would then be solenoid on top or
not? Did pre 62 Chrysler ever have a solenoid on top? I though HD did have
it, but that is usually two wires (it can be one) ..

Maybe pass this on too; this discussion helps all of us. I did not want to ,
or mean to add to confusion on design changes; I only know for sure that 318
Bendix drive starter, no solenoid on top, on stick shift flywheel will not
crank the big engines, but stock correct 300F starter is OK.

Pass on, lets see what others know about interchange aspect..?

From: Jean-Yves Chouinard [mailto:jymopar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jymopar%40nb.sympatico.ca> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 6:52 PM
To: John Grady
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

One thing I know for sure is that the cast iron trans., like 300F, G , had
that starter with just the one big wire going to it from the starter relay.
Probably 55-59 too...But 1962 saw the appearance of the aluminum case
torqueflite (727), and the starter for those is different than the previous
years. No interchange here. I don't know if you call it "gear reduction" but
I know Chrysler kept that basic starter design for years after that. Then
you go to like the 80's and 90's on Dakota trucks(with V6!) and cars too
like the 80's 5th avenue 318 cars... they have what I call a mini starter.
That starter will fit on a 1962 Torqueflite!! And will crank that engine up
real fast!! That is probably what you call a "geared starter"??

J.Y.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: John Grady 

To: 'Jean-Yves Chouinard' 

Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:02 PM

Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

Hi again;

There are at least two starters in this period, I believe they might
mechanically interchange, depending on that aluminum plate between engine
and transmission, and stick or not. . One has a Bendix type drive, the light
duty one, and an input stud only, without a solenoid on top. That was used
on lighter engines than hemi and 413, I am not sure of how it was broken
down. I think the light one was on 57 D500 325 hemi's . It will not crank a
large 392 engine against normal spark advance, I DO know that; I had it on a
392 300D engine, with a Plymouth 301 or Dodge 325 hemi flywheel in a 57
Dodge D500 convert, 3:70 rear, Packard OD trans, all this about 1961-2. (Ate
57 chev 283 FI daily for lunch! Got a new 62 or so 421 Pontiac Ventura 4 spd
coupe too! Top end pull away ! ) Starter came from a 325/318,/301; A
Chrysler sourced aluminum adapter plate was needed then to hold the starter,
space back clutch bellhousing, about 1" thick, that may have come from
Plymouth or Dodge too, or possibly an early hemi , forcing the small starter
w stick. I used a dodge 11" oil truck clutch, B&B type, I think 3200 lbs of
springs! I knew no better, thought a starter is a starter (I was 18 or 19!)
; 392 from a junked wreck had no starter with it (That Packard stick OD w
392 D ,would be a hot setup today!). Paid 250$ for 300D engine in late 61...
I should have gotten the starter for that huge amount! 

I tried to find out more at the time about stick shift 392 in late 50's big
Dodge trucks, but rare piece. Only 392 factory stick? 

I had to drill into crank for pilot bearing clearance , shorten trans input
shaft etc. Started with late 50's MOPAR stick trans, blew about 12 of them;
could not take it, crummy pin syncros snap off, drop down, blow countershaft
gears. Packard was a huge upgrade, gears are huge, as are cone type syncros
, 2-3 only. That ~ 4" stroke of 392 is not kind to stick transmissions..

One good idea I came up with was a machined ring pressed into TF 392 crank
end pocket to actually hold a shortened pilot bearing on perfect center ;
hole behind was clearance only.. 

I have no idea what a rebuilder is selling "for hardly any extra $" but the
stock F 413 starter started the cars,--- if the battery and starter are good
and unmolested. The original starter typical problems are probably worn
brushes, worn bearings, stuck brushes, burned commutator(all somewhat normal
wear) ; contact burn/failure in solenoid ; winding shorts / faults would
typically come from thermal overheating, why they tell you to crank 30 sec
max and then rest, stuff like that. Or stuff like wet/splash/flooding, poor
storage etc. Also, these failures are why the original that did not work was
fixed by any suitable rebuilt or NOS replacement. As I mentioned, you have a
5 pound bag, in terms of winding space, you cannot put a 10 pound winding in
it. Maybe a later, larger OD field frame exists? Heavier wire will of
necessity have fewer turns in same space, draw more current, may make it
better or worse. With a diesel size battery, maybe better. Certainly better
than an obviously known to be defective stock one. But we know absolutely
the stock one worked fine in 1960. I have had a lot of D's and F's, never
had starter problems, maybe just lucky. 

I do not remember when gear starter came in on 440 `B block..do they fit?
Was this F one still in J?? that is one tough cranking job; I sold my J long
ago, but remember rapid cranking..

From: Jean-Yves Chouinard [mailto:jymopar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jymopar%40nb.sympatico.ca> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:28 PM
To: John Grady
Subject: Fw: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

Hi John. 

Here's a bunch of "why's" from a club member...care to answer?..as I sure am
not able to...

If you email to chrysler300@yahoogroups everyone on the list will receive
it...

J.Y.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Bob Jasinski 

To: 'Jean-Yves Chouinard' ; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Chrysler300%40yahoogroups.com>  

Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:10 PM

Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

Very good information from John Grady, thanks very much for posting Jean,
this is very helpful information. I would just like to make a few comments
though, if I may.

If there was only one (non-gear reduction) starter available, why did my
rebuilder tell me I had a light duty winding in my starter, and then offer
to obtain and subsequently install the heavy duty version in my starter?

Why did the problem go away once the newly rebuilt starter was installed? I
changed nothing else but the starter.

Why does the 1961 parts book show two starters? Shown is a p/n 1889100 for
the 318, and the 1889200 for the larger engines.

For troubleshooting purposes, the AEA Tune-up spec sheet shows the Chrysler
starter, p/n 1889200 Free Running Speed current draw @ 78 amps max 11.0
volts; Lock Torque (stalled) current draw @ 350 max amps, 4.0 volts. This
information may help with diagnosing the problem.

300ly,

Bob J 

From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Chrysler300%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Chrysler300%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On Behalf Of Jean-Yves Chouinard
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:52 AM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Chrysler300%40yahoogroups.com> 
Subject: Fw: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

Hi to everyone.
I'm forwarding this tread to the list server as it pertains to Tom's starter
problems. It's from Club Member John Grady. He is an electrical engineer.
Jean-Yves Chouinard.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: John Grady 
To: 'Jean-Yves Chouinard' 
Cc: Ed Cornish ; Keith Simons 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

Hi,J-Y ; 

Maybe I can help. As an EE ,and PE, I have a perspective on it. Maybe you
can pass this on...

First the starter as designed started thousands if not millions of B blocks
and hemi's over the years , (at 10 below zero, too! ) and does not need
redesign or new windings of heavier wire. Heavier wire draws more current,
which drops the battery volts even more, and needs the same # of turns to
get the same magnetism, which is what makes the force. The force is
proportional to turns, as well as to current. As more turns of larger wire
will not fit in the same space , it is the wrong way to go and may make it
worse. The resistance of the wire does not change or deteriorate over time;
it does increase a little when hot, but that is normal and was accounted for
when the unit was designed. Anecdotal talk of how heavier wire improved
things has more to do with just rebuilding the starter , new brushes etc.
Heavier wire means an 8 volt starter is now used on 12v; pros and cons to
that. Works great , fast spin on a nice warm day... may not turn at all when
cold.

You can separate this into two problems1) the engine is hard to turn 2) the
starter is not providing full force . It is critical to CLEARLY find out
which it is (!) before doing anything, or you waste money and time.

Hard to turn, but starter OK, is usually timing too advanced (distributor
weights did not return, or wrongly timed, or "turned up' timing in pursuit
of performance-this has a characteristic cranking sound, quick turn followed
by almost stall at TDC, repeat .) , a mechanical bind in starter drive
(tolerance of starter pinion to ring gear-it must not jam-loosen starter and
move back etc; damaged or off center ring gear.) or something in the engine,
transmission or belt drive is dragging(unlikely, if car idles and runs OK).
A too tight piston or ring fit in a rebuilt engine can REALLY aggravate
things when hot... If starter is good, and you measure starter current draw,
it will go way up when hot if engine bind is loading it down. Current draw
on a good starter is always proportional to how hard it is to turn, if
starter and battery are OK. . So, you really need to know that number; you
must have a starter ammeter to say anything about what is wrong.

Second problem, not enough force from starter, is actually easy to
troubleshoot. The service manual provides a starter no load speed and
'locked rotor " torque value...do what it says, to find out the story! --and
sometimes gives an ampere draw at locked rotor and free spin. You do need a
starter ammeter; !!! check the draw IN the car is job # 1 !!!, while
cranking hot and cold and measure battery volts at the same time. The
battery should stay at 10.5-11 or more , no matter what you do; if not,
battery is in question..most common problem, or a cheap toy battery. Winter
storage allowing it to die and then a spring charge cuts 50% out of a
battery; a carbon load pile can find that.(Harbor tool) . Always buy
batteries by weight, not sales bullshit; the bigger / heavier the better;
store inside on wood surface (no concrete) and trickle charge once a month
for a 24 hour day. Leaving trickle charger on , even fancy 'self turn off"
ones, can wreck battery by evaporating the water. . Cables must be heavy
gauge, in good shape and tight. Cheap thin cables loose power, but any
problems in cables or ends will be accompanied by getting hot when trying to
start for extended times. Feel the ends for heat after cranking for a minute
or so. It is not generally necessary to scrape paint etc, as bolt has no
paint and current goes through that side into block too. ..but it cannot
hurt.

The free spin test in service manual checks for shorts in armature, as it
will not rev up to high speed with a shorted armature; you also can check
resistance from commutator bars to shaft, should be an open circuit...most
shorts are from winding to shaft or core, but turn to turn shorts happen
too...and slow down rev test. Test field winding for shorts to frame too.
There is a free spin rated current, it should be within 5-10%.The locked
rotor test is a little tricky to do, but checks torque output vs. current
draw; it draws very high current for that, which will find bad brushes or
open windings in armature. Worn brushes imply a lower spring pressure, and I
have seen brushes 'frozen" to the brush holders by long storage and so not
pressing on the commutator; that leads to low torque and bad burning which
destroys the commutator. Always free up brushes in slides, check them when
rebuilding a stored car( generator, too) . Problems with armature can
usually be found visually..a shorted turn will be burned, or commutator
burned etc. = look carefully.

In the realm of weird things, I had a situation like this, it turned out to
be the wire lead attachment / big bolt on the starter frame of a 60 Dodge.
It was OK and tight on the cable, but the nut UNDER the lug was loose, (!)
which allowed the stud to move sideways in the steel and touch the starter
frame, (sometimes......!)drawing huge current and barely turning,,
intermittently. This, from factory. Loose starter bearings or off center
ends can let armature touch field poles, but only when starter is on,
magnetism pulls it sideways. --that will totally kill output torque. 

New battery, generator , regulator , battery cables etc did nothing on that
60 Dodge, and a jump would start it , deflecting blame from the starter.
Correctly tightening the under nut fixed it. So, I empathize.... Drove me
crazy. Starter Ammeter is what found it. How much the headlights dim at
cranking is a poor man's ammeter!

The solenoid MUST make the main contact solidly and be correctly assembled,
as it will spin weakly while engaging, but full torque doe not come until
solenoid shorts out the pull in winding , which happens after pinion is
almost all the way in. Tolerances in this are critical, someone may have
rebuilt wrong. There is no need to run a ground right to the starter, as the
engine block has a very low electrical resistance. In fact shorter, heavier
cables and a big fresh battery matter most .

The thinking should be: the stock setup is fine, something is wrong
somewhere..they knew what they were doing. . At a bare minimum , you need a
starter ammeter, and a voltmeter..and compare with a good car. 300F does not
crank easily, but stock works fine.

Hope this helps,

John Grady

PS, gear reduction or "geared mini starters" non stock are better, but
original is fine too. They are better as they have permanent magnets, no
field winding, gear down gives it more torque at same current draw.

From: Jean-Yves Chouinard [mailto:jymopar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jymopar%40nb.sympatico.ca> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:38 AM
To: John Grady
Subject: Fw: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

This is the email from Tom Cox about starter problems...

J.Y.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Thomas Cox 

To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Chrysler300%40yahoogroups.com>  ;
parts@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:parts%40jcauto.com>  

Cc: donbelton313@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:donbelton313%40yahoo.com>  

Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:14 PM

Subject: [Chrysler300] Battery/Starter-300F

Thanks to the many folks that have given advice. A summary of the
suggestions:

1. Make certain the ground connection is to clean metal giving a good
ground.
2. Have the rebuilder use heavier winding materials.
3. Ground the battery to the starter (with clean, unpainted connection).
4. Cool the starter with water to see if a reduced temperature makes the
problem lessen to confirm the starter problem.

After all these, I contacted Jeff Carter who has bailed me out of many
difficult issues with the 300F build. He indicated, in agreement with all
the above, that it is likely a starter problem that may be due to multiple
starter rebuilds (or just age) where the field windings have deteriorated to
the point that they have too much resistance and are not funcioning properly
and when the starter gets hot, it does not provide the electrical boost
needed. That, and the probability that the windings of the armature are not
the heavier-duty variety. He no longer knows of a shop that has the
knowledge or the parts to do a proper rebuild with new field windings and
armature rewinding. 

Do any of our members have a starter shop that has this experience and parts
to do a complete and proper rebuild? It seems that may be the best solution
to the problem at hand. I imagine other folks are having, or will have, a
similar need. Louie Barrie indicated that he had a fellow with a great deal
of knowledge about these things. Any leads would be greatly appreciated.

Tom Cox

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2777 - Release Date: 03/29/10
06:32:00

----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2779 - Release Date: 03/30/10
06:32:00

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2780 - Release Date: 03/30/10
18:32:00

----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2781 - Release Date: 03/31/10
06:32:00

----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2783 - Release Date: 04/01/10
06:35:00

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm

For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    Chrysler300-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Chrysler300-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/