Thanks Bill,
I was hoping some one would jump in and help us out with this. I did understand
that the change to the gear reduction starter was not done "because" of the new
transmission, but rather coincided with it on the Imperial.
Were there any Chrysler Corporation cars using the gear reduction starter prior
to 1962? For some reason I had it in the back of my mind that the Valiant had
it earlier than that. I may be confusing this myself with the alternator issue
since early '60 Imperials had generators and later ones had alternators, but I
am thinking that Valiants had alternators from the beginning.
Paul
In a message dated 7/16/2004 5:54:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Bill Watson"
<wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>The big change in starters in 1962 was not due to the change in the
>transmission, but a brand new starter design. The A-727 Toruqeflite was new
>for 1962, but the A-904 was carried over from 1960-61 and it, too, used the
>new starter, in most cases.
>
>Up to 1961 Chrysler used direct drive starters, usually purchased from
>Autolite, which became Prestolite when Ford bought a chunk of Autolite and
>the rights to the name. The new Chrysler starter was a reduction gear
>design, giving that unique whine when the starter is engaged. As a result
>of this, the number of teeth on the ring gear changed. Thus the two starter
>designs are not interchangeable.
>
>The Chrysler reduction gear starter was used on all American-built Mopar
>cars from 1962, with the except of 1962-64 Dodge 880 and Chrysler cars with
>a manual transmission. Those cars held on to the direct drive starter.
>
>In Canada the reduction gear starter was used on all Chryco products with a
>V8 engine. The slant six Valiants, Plymouths and Dodges continued to use
>the direct drive starter, supplied by Prestolite, until the end of the 1966
>model year. With the 1967 models, Chrysler Canada switched to the redcution
>gear xtarter.
>
>Thus Imperials from 1956 to 1961 used the direct drive starter and from 1962
>used Chrysler's reduction gear starter. According to my interchange book,
>the starters are the same from 1959 to 1961 on Imperials, using Chrysler
>part number 1889 200. This unit was also used on 1959-61 Chryslers, 1959-61
>DeSotos (except Firesweep), 1960 Dodge with 361 or 383 V8, 1961 Plymouth
>with 361 or 383 V8, 1962-64 Chryslers with standard transmission, and
>1962-64 Dodge 880 with standard transmission.
>
>The book also says the 1957-58 starter, 1842 562, will fit. This unit was
>used on 1957-58 Imperials, 1957-58 Chryslers and 1957-58 DeSotos (except
>Firesweep). It should also fit Canadian-built 1958 Dodge Custom Royal
>models (they used Chrysler's 354 poly engine).
>
>Bill
>Vancouver, BC
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 6:40 AM
>Subject: Re: IML: Starters
>
>
>> The fact that your sources tell you that the "early" 1960 starter will fit
>and "late" 1960 starter won't leads me to believe that they are inaccurate.
>1960 starters are all the same. I have never owned a '59 or tried to buy a
>starter for one, but I do have two '60s, one of them for over 40 years (Mom
>bought it new). I have replaced the starter on both of them. Electrically
>there was a change during the 1960 model year. That was the switch from a
>generator to an alternator.
>>
>> I have been told that 1956 through 1961 starters are all the same. I have
>an extra 1956 starter, and it does look the same as the 1960, but I have
>never tried to install it on the later car (probably won't either). The
>engine was changed significantly between 1958 and 1959. This engine was used
>for many years, but due to a change in the transmission for 1962, that
>year's starter is totally different. Even so, I have been told be some that
>it will fit in the early cars, but I have not ever tried it either.
>>
>>
>> I am sure that there is some way of verifying all of this, and I expect it
>has been throughly discussed at some point in the IML. Try searching the
>archives and see what you find.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> In a message dated 7/16/2004 12:11:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Chad
>Smith" <hemi_powered@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> >Paul:
>> >
>> >Teresa (not Theresa) was told by more than one parts outlet that the
>starter for the 1959 was unique to the 1959, that a 1960 may work, but the
>1961 that lives not far from me does not have the same starter. Please
>enlighten me if you know otherwise.
>> >
>> >Teresa
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: RandalPark@xxxxxxx<mailto:RandalPark@xxxxxxx>
>> > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:00 PM
>> > Subject: Re: IML: engine removal and reinstallation
>> >
>> >
>> > Now this is interesting. Theresa says that '59 has a one year only
>starter. I have always thought that the starter used on Imperials was the
>same for 1959, 1960, and 1961. In '62 Imperial finally changed to the gear
>reduction drive unit that we are so familiar with for so long.
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > In a message dated 7/15/2004 9:48:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Chad
>Smith" <hemi_powered@xxxxxxx<mailto:hemi_powered@xxxxxxx>> writes:
>> >
>> > >Cheers Kate! I have seen the sorry little man down the street laying on
>his back under his Dodge pickup with a tranny on his torso trying to heft a
>transmission up into his truck having not heeded this very advice. It was
>quite a sight, I think that tranny may have weighed just about as much as
>him...LOL
>> > >
>> > >I have watched my father, brother, and husband (all mechanics) hoist
>engine/tranny out as one unit for many, many years, and for those very good
>reasons that you listed. I appreciate your two cents, it is nice to hear
>from you. An experienced mechanic should be able to take the entire thing
>out in not much longer than just the engine. As you mentioned, not only
>worth the time...but definitely worth saving the risk of ruining any parts.
>> > >
>> > >In my case, the starter for my 1959 is a one year starter. A
>replacement, while not only hard to find, is very costly compared to other
>Mopar starters. My father has his own version of the penny saved story, and
>goes like this "A penny saved is better than a penny earned...you've already
>paid taxes on it." Unless you have money to burn, and time to hunt down
>those ever elusive parts, your point is well taken.
>> > >
>> > >Thanks again!
>> > >
>> > >Teresa Smith
>> > >1959 Imperial South Hampton Custom
>> > >Kennewick, WA
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: Kate
>Triplett<mailto:ad_ablurr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ad_ablurr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>> > > To:
>mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ma
>iling-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> > > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:57 AM
>> > > Subject: IML: engine removal and reinstallation
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Ok guys, just two cents from a 5'-4" 140 pound woman with too many
>permanently mashed knuckles and a healthy respect for iron tonnage.
>> > >
>> > > It may be one heck of a lot more work to pull all the radiator support
>hardware, grille, etc to get that engine and tranny out as a unit, but I can
>guarantee you that it is worth the extra effort!
>> > >
>> > > NOT having to lift nearly half a ton of fragile metal parts out of a
>rats nest of iron protrusions and hoses, wires etc and getting it high
>enough and angled enough to have the tailshaft clear the floor AND not hang
>up and damage anything in the process is worth the extra time by itself.
>> > >
>> > > The OTHER important benefit of having the front end stuff out of the
>way is that you will not have to mate up the engine and transmission while
>you are under the car, swearing a blue streak and hurting your (already
>bashed) fingers, and those of the other person you will have to have helping
>you reef the darn thing in!
>> > >
>> > > I have seen too many shadetree mechanics do considerable damage to
>input splines, bolt flanges, starter parts, etc., to take this advantage
>lightly. Mating up an engine and transmission on the ground outside is a
>job. Doing it blind while half of the parts are not in sight and just that
>little bit out of alignment is a long and painful stay in purgatory. A
>little extra time will likely save you untold misery and possible injury -
>to you and the car!
>> > >
>> > > As before, just my two hard-earned cents....
>> > >
>> > > Kate Justet Triplett
>> > > Kate's Custom Gunleather
>> > > Monroe, WA
>> > > "Lucille" 1968 Crown 4 door HT
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----------------
>http://www.imperialclub.com<http://www.imperialclub.com/> -----------------
>> > This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>> > reply to
>mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and your
>response will be
>> > shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>> > Administrators should be sent to
>webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to
>http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm<http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com -----------------
>> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
>> shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>> Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>>
>>
>
>
>
>----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com -----------------
>This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
>shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network