[Terry M. Hunt]

When restoring my '65 GTO, I used Eric White's excellent book to look up the two letter picking code for my alternator. I don't see any such codes listed in the '64 section of this book. Is that because the codes for '64 have never been determined or were such picking codes not used in '64? I need the code for the 42 amp alternator used with TI.

[RAII 4-speed]

here is mine .....1965 tri power 4-speed built in December 1964.....ARE THESE THE CODES YOU ARE LOOKING FOR?

[Terry M. Hunt]

The picking code is a two letter code ink stamped on the alternator to make it easier for the assembly line worker to find the correct alternator to install without having to read the multi digit part number code stamped into the alternator case. I'm specifically asking if anybody knows the picking code(if such codes were used in '64) for the '64(not '65) 42 amp alternator used with TI.

[bill ryder]

I think the forum pretty well agrees the picking codes started in '65, but there have been a case or 2 with '64s. VERY few so hard to document. "Bill"!

[Keith Seymore]

The 1964 Pontiac "Inspector's Guide" does not refer to any two digit pick codes for alternators (only the part number and a brief description).

K

[John V.]

Agree with everything posted so far.

Only thing I can add is that the '64 KC & Balt Shipping Order docs DO contain an alternator code in a box labeled GEN.

However, I cannot say whether the codes found on these forms corresponded to an ink stamp on original '64 Tempest alternators.

Also, because the TI was a rare option, I have not documented the code for the early year TI 42A alternator used with PS (1100678 with the double pulley) if that happens to be the correct one for your car.

The codes I have documented are:

1100676 early year 37A alt used with PS, code T

1100683 37A alt used for all std cars plus late year with PS, code U

1100680 42A alt used for TI without PS plus late year TI with PS, code V

The 42A alt was std for the big car, 1100680 used for all std big Pontiacs plus late year with PS and 1100678 used early year with PS for the big Pontiacs.

If the codes did correspond to an ink code on the alt, perhaps the big car guys would know.

Terry, are you certain that the manifest (what you refer to as a "pick") code was ink stamped even on the '65 alternators?

Reason I ask, typically the Corvette guys document this kind of detail better than any other group. I couldn't find evidence that Corvette alts were ink stamped until the late '70s.

I don't know how PMD facilitated picking of alts in '64 or '65 or how come KC & Balt coded the alts the way they did on their Shipping Orders.

Just seems to me that there would be a fair amount of evidence available if they had been ink stamping them. I haven't ever even thought about it, but surprised that I couldn't uncover any evidence if it was the common practice.

[Option 382]

Originally Posted by John V.

Terry, are you certain that the manifest (what you refer to as a "pick") code was ink stamped even on the '65 alternators?

Reason I ask, typically the Corvette guys document this kind of detail better than any other group. I couldn't find evidence that Corvette alts were ink stamped until the late '70s.

The answer to that would be YES. If my 65 still has the original 2 letter code on the alternator then they must have used it in 1965. The same code is on my passenger broadcast sheet.

[8LUG]

RAII 4-SPEED. 4D21 wouldn't that be 1964 APRIL 21ST. Just asking?

[johnta1]

Yes.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by 8LUG

RAII 4-SPEED. 4D21 wouldn't that be 1964 APRIL 21ST. Just asking?

I think RAII has mentioned his alt before.

He is saying his car is a Dec '64 built '65.

His 1100680 alt is a '64 42A alt, I think he believes it to be original. The date code obviously indicates 1964 April 21st. Delco would not have produced any 1100680 alts after July '64. This was an O.E. only p/n, service alts were supplied less pulley so service alt p/ns never matched O.E. alt p/ns (SD alts were an exception). Once the '64 Model Year was over, PMD had no further use for the '64 O.E. alts but I have no idea what the disposition of remaining O.E. alt inventory might have been.

Since there were design differences incorporated into the '65 alts, it is difficult to imagine that a '64 alt, especially one produced as early as this one was, would have been used as an approved substitute for the correct alt in a Dec. '64 built '65.

And if '65 alts were identified by ink code to match the manifest code, doubtful that a leftover '64 alt would have carried the proper '65 ink code either unless re-inked.

But strange things happen so I can't say it positively could not have been original to that '65.

[Tom Vaught]

We know of several "strange things that have happened over the years" John V.

Tom Vaught

[60sstuff]

[QUOTE=John V.;5088552]Terry, are you certain that the manifest (what you refer to as a "pick") code was ink stamped even on the '65 alternators?QUOTE]

Although I don't have any photos showing a 64 with an ink stamped alternator, I do have a couple low mileage 65 Survivors having the pick stamp.

First Pic - TD Stamp = 12E build with Tri-Power, T.I. and Air Condition.
Second Pic - XC Stamp = 06B build with Zero Options.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Option 382

The answer to that would be YES. If my 65 still has the original 2 letter code on the alternator then they must have used it in 1965. The same code is on my passenger broadcast sheet.

[QUOTE=60sstuff;5089264]

Originally Posted by John V.

Terry, are you certain that the manifest (what you refer to as a "pick") code was ink stamped even on the '65 alternators?QUOTE]

Although I don't have any photos showing a 64 with an ink stamped alternator, I do have a couple low mileage 65 Survivors having the pick stamp.

First Pic - TD Stamp = 12E build with Tri-Power, T.I. and Air Condition.
Second Pic - XC Stamp = 06B build with Zero Options.

Well that settles that.

The XC is especially interesting. I'm not a '65 guy, but hasn't there been some question about the alt usage in '65?

The XC would be the 37A 1100704. Was known to be used for several years. But the early '65 37A alt was code TF, 1100729. If the 1100704 superseded it, I wonder why and was it different in some way (like clocking?) from the 1100729?

[RAII 4-speed]

Just looked at my alt again. It is original to the car when new.
My car was ordered in July of 64 and delivered on Dec 11, 1964. The cowl tag is 12A
I did not remove the alt to look for ink marks, but I did take a few pics and will try to attach them . It seems that the slot for the harness plug is on a different spot then most 65s I have seen. But it seems to be like most 64s I have seen. Are all ink marks in the same areas?

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by John V.

[The XC would be the 37A 1100704. Was known to be used for several years. But the early '65 37A alt was code TF, 1100729. If the 1100704 superseded it, I wonder why and was it different in some way (like clocking?) from the 1100729?

My car called for a TF, per the build sheet.

K

[John V.]

Keith, I found the old thread from about 3 yrs ago where Larry Banks was trying to figure out the whys and wherefores for the '65 usage of the 1100704 and 1100729. I was involved in that discussion and we discussed your Build Sheet TF then too.

Seemed like we found evidence of early and late usage for both nos., never figured out why though.

RAII, of the examples shown in the pix for the '65 alts, the ink stamp seems to be adjacent to the adjusting strap, but doesn't look like they were stamped exactly same orientation, so I'd guess there is variability. It would make sense that they would be stamped in away that the code was visible when installed so that an Inspector could readily confirm the correct alt install. But until this thread, I wasn't aware that any '65 alt was ink stamped with the manifest code, so I'm just guessing.

Since yours is a '64 alt and '64 did not use the '65 style manifest coding, no telling what ink stamp may have been on your alt.

How have you determined that your alt is original to the car?

If it is original, perhaps '64 O.E. alts left over at the end of '64 Model Year production were carried over for use in '65 production and your car was built with one of them. The alternator used would have no connection to the order date of the car, only the build date. Any left over '64 O.E. alt may or may not have been ink stamped with a '64 manifest code (perhaps the single letter codes I mentioned in the earlier post). And they may or may not have been ink stamped with the appropriate '65 manifest code once they were designated for using up on '65 builds (the '65 TI 42A alt was code TB for Model No. 1100727 or possibly XA if 1100699 was also used in '65).

If there is no ink stamp on your alt, that would come as no surprise to me since I have never noticed them before. Even if '65 and/or '64 alts were all ink stamped with a manifest code, perhaps the stamps washed off so readily, few seem to be in evidence today.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by RAII 4-speed

Just looked at my alt again. It is original to the car when new.
My car was ordered in July of 64 and delivered on Dec 11, 1964. The cowl tag is 12A
I did not remove the alt to look for ink marks, but I did take a few pics and will try to attach them . It seems that the slot for the harness plug is on a different spot then most 65s I have seen. But it seems to be like most 64s I have seen. Are all ink marks in the same areas?

Interesting. My Alternator (April 64 KC build) was clocked one bolt position to the right (when I received it), with the power terminal closer to the valve cover location. If the clocking in the picture is correct, it might explain why I had a short between the power terminal and the valve cover (with burned wires on my vehicle) some years down the road. Rubber boot wore away in my location. Another screw-up at KC?

Tom Vaught

[RAII 4-speed]

Originally Posted by John V.

Keith, I found the old thread from about 3 yrs ago where Larry Banks was trying to figure out the whys and wherefores for the '65 usage of the 1100704 and 1100729. I was involved in that discussion and we discussed your Build Sheet TF then too.

Seemed like we found evidence of early and late usage for both nos., never figured out why though.

RAII, of the examples shown in the pix for the '65 alts, the ink stamp seems to be adjacent to the adjusting strap, but doesn't look like they were stamped exactly same orientation, so I'd guess there is variability. It would make sense that they would be stamped in away that the code was visible when installed so that an Inspector could readily confirm the correct alt install. But until this thread, I wasn't aware that any '65 alt was ink stamped with the manifest code, so I'm just guessing.

Since yours is a '64 alt and '64 did not use the '65 style manifest coding, no telling what ink stamp may have been on your alt.

How have you determined that your alt is original to the car?

If it is original, perhaps '64 O.E. alts left over at the end of '64 Model Year production were carried over for use in '65 production and your car was built with one of them. The alternator used would have no connection to the order date of the car, only the build date. Any left over '64 O.E. alt may or may not have been ink stamped with a '64 manifest code (perhaps the single letter codes I mentioned in the earlier post). And they may or may not have been ink stamped with the appropriate '65 manifest code once they were designated for using up on '65 builds (the '65 TI 42A alt was code TB for Model No. 1100727 or possibly XA if 1100699 was also used in '65).

If there is no ink stamp on your alt, that would come as no surprise to me since I have never noticed them before. Even if '65 and/or '64 alts were all ink stamped with a manifest code, perhaps the stamps washed off so readily, few seem to be in evidence today.

My car is a one owner car and the alt is the one installed from the factory. All paperwork on anything done to this car was saved and there is no mention of ever changing the Alt and it looks like there has never been a wrench on the bolts.
My car has many early 64 parts on it from the factory including the shifter my carbs were just rebuilt and they were original untouched from the factory I will see if I can get the numbers off them.
I will try to remove the alt and see if there is a ink mark anywhere on it, when I do ,, I will post my findings.

[John V.]

Maybe this was discovered in an earlier thread, but I found a listing for '65 Oldsmobile alternators.

http://442.com/tech/oldsv8altsbyapp.html

It looks like the 1100704 was originally intended for the Olds application. Likewise for the 1100699. I did compare others, but I bet there are others that were originally designated for Olds that also came to see usage in the Pontiac.

Seems like it may have been discovered that the 1100704 was a direct interchange for Pontiac's 1100729 and Pontiac eventually switched to the 1100704.

There seemed to be enough evidence to show that the 1100704 was actually original to some '65 Tempests in lieu of the 1100729.

Not clear if Pontiac interchanged them all year long or only at some mid year point.

Unfortunately, the evidence of very early date coded 1100704 in '65 (Sept '64 dates for example) only proves that Delco was producing this alt which is now obvious since they would have been common in early '65 Cutlass builds.

There is no way to know if any early '65 Tempests got the 1100704.

Looking at the Olds list, I see no crossover for '64 in terms of common usage by p/n. So it should be no surprise that Delco issued unique p/ns again in '65 for both Divs, but apparently it was discovered that despite the unique p/ns, they were eventually considered interchangeable and/or Pontiac liked the Olds clocking better (if there was a difference).

Just something for you '65 numbers guys to pull your hair out about.