Topic: '67 289 alternator harness connection

[196667Bob]

Jeff : Although possible, highly unlikely. I can only say for sure that it hasn't since my Dad bought it in 1981. When I next talk with the original owner again (probably next week), I'll see if I can fill in the gap from 1967-81. He already told me that the car never was in a wreck, never changed the wheels (if you'll remember from a previous Post, I have 3-5" and 2-6"), and that the Wide Ovals were the worst tires he's ever had on any vehicle - "only got 12,000 miles out of them" he said. If when I removed the Alternator in July is any indication, I'd say it had never been removed. Can't tell you how long I rapped on the long bolt with the impact on high, shot it with PB, etc. before it finally broke loose. I thought I was going to shear it.

Isn't that little bracket/ support just taped to the harness ? My old harness sure had no indications that something had been there.

By the way, did you come up with any answers to the questions in my "Reply" that I Posted on October 14 ?

Thanks,

Bob

[J_Speegle]

Well have know my fair share of original owners that either didn't remember or didn't know their car had been touched up (exterior paint) or other changes but in this situation would like to see more untouched car without the detail before I'd feel comfortable - even if it was my car

By the way, did you come up with any answers to the questions in my "Reply" that I Posted on October 14 ?
"Do you know the build date on "172" ?"

Not the real date - Door tag showed Ford guessed it was going to be 21st of January 67

[196667Bob]

Jeff : Agree with you 100%. That's why I'm hoping we get more replies here to see what may be correct. Not only in regard to the bracket/ support, but for the rest of the harness. That was the original purpose of this Post, I believe.

Thanks as always for your input.

Bob

[Bob Gaines]

Jeff : Although possible, highly unlikely. I can only say for sure that it hasn't since my Dad bought it in 1981. When I next talk with the original owner again (probably next week), I'll see if I can fill in the gap from 1967-81. He already told me that the car never was in a wreck, never changed the wheels (if you'll remember from a previous Post, I have 3-5" and 2-6"), and that the Wide Ovals were the worst tires he's ever had on any vehicle - "only got 12,000 miles out of them" he said. If when I removed the Alternator in July is any indication, I'd say it had never been removed. Can't tell you how long I rapped on the long bolt with the impact on high, shot it with PB, etc. before it finally broke loose. I thought I was going to shear it.

Isn't that little bracket/ support just taped to the harness ? My old harness sure had no indications that something had been there.

By the way, did you come up with any answers to the questions in my "Reply" that I Posted on October 14 ?

Thanks,

Bob

12,000 was typical for bias ply tires back in the 60's I remember going through 2 sets on my 69 Mach back in 70-73 when I owned it.

[ruppstang]

12,000 was typical for bias ply tires back in the 60's I remember going through 2 sets on my 69 Mach back in 70-73 when I owned it.

They just never seem to last very long when they are regularly over heated! And you were how old in 70? 

[67gtasanjose]

They just never seem to last very long when they are regularly over heated!... 

This  was a common practice of the day, to help keep the rear tires from getting "out of round", and was regularly followed imediately after the manufacturer's suggested "tire rotation" guideline found in the owner's manual,, to compliment the definition of "tire rotation", since there was little effort required in getting them to "rotate".

[Bob Gaines]

This  was a common practice of the day, to help keep the rear tires from getting "out of round", and was regularly followed imediately after the manufacturer's suggested "tire rotation" guideline found in the owner's manual,, to compliment the definition of "tire rotation", since there was little effort required in getting them to "rotate".

That was my rational too. I felt obligated to be in factory suggested compliance.  I rotated mine often of course just to be on the safe side. My way is more fun but I suspect however my technique wasn't what Ford had in mind .

[Bossbill]

I dragged out some wiring and see that my alternator wiring had been neglected.
Car in question is my March 67 SJ Tach car.
[Note that the Motorcraft alternator was just what I had available that wasn't just a mountain of empty cases.]

Here it is installed on an alternator. [pics are: far away to see all and a closer view]
Both this bundle and another Tach harness I have utilize a plastic channel-clip that firmly anchors the wiring bundle to the alternator ground. [third pic is a reverse view of clip on another harness]
The last pic shows the battery wire eyelet's rounded plastic. All of the repops use a square plastic on this battery wire.

[edit to replace pic with version actually in focus]

[Bob Gaines]

I dragged out some wiring and see that my alternator wiring had been neglected.
Car in question is my March 67 SJ Tach car.
[Note that the Motorcraft alternator was just what I had available that wasn't just a mountain of empty cases.]

Here it is installed on an alternator. [pics are: far away to see all and a closer view]
Both this bundle and another Tach harness I have utilize a plastic channel-clip that firmly anchors the wiring bundle to the alternator ground. [third pic is a reverse view of clip on another harness]
The last pic shows the battery wire eyelet's rounded plastic. All of the repops use a square plastic on this battery wire.

[edit to replace pic with version actually in focus]

You have the harness clocked and wired incorrectly (ground). Look in the charging section of the 1967 shop manual for correct orientation and mounting of connections.

[Bossbill]

I placed the wires on the alternator in the direction POs have bent them. They just fell into place in that orientation.
I can't find my manual right now to validate how to do this correctly. but I moved the plastic tie down to the GRD stud nearest BAT. The ground wire stayed put. I think this is what you meant, Bob, and I will post another picture later to correct the pics above after I find my manual.

Meanwhile, does anyone sell the red, black and brown rubber stud insulators alone?

[On Edit -- I found the non-tach version of the alternator wire routing in the Osborne Electrical Manual, so I deleted some of the above. Interesting that the Osborne shows the molded battery/field wires with caps. Still working on finding my shop manual.]

[196667Bob]

Just so there is no confusion of those who might be reading this Topic "down the road", and since the Topic is noted "67 289  alternator harness connection", it should be noted that the pictures shown in Bossbill's Reply of February 5, are of a 390 (S Code), not a 289. The 1967, Mustang 390's were the only ones using an Alternator Harness with three rubber boots. The 289;s and 6 Cylinders both only had two rubber boots.

Bob

[Bossbill]

Just as I was ready to go cleanup some parts...
196667Bob -- The Osborne Electrical Manual, on page 33, shows '8 cyl 289 CID RPO 2-060' as having molded rubber. (one piece connector). The Osborne also shows the 390 with the molded one piece connector.

My 'Tach' (SJ Shelby) harness has been with the car for well over 30 years and has 3 rubber caps. Another harness from a 289 (coupe) w/Tach I parted out also has the 3 rubber caps.

Other than the one piece connector,  if the harness has only two rubber caps, then it is a non-Tach harness and does not have a wire going to stator (STA). The Tach harness has to have the connectors to BAT, FLD and STA.

Using the Osborne nets me this (view pic)

[Bob Gaines]

Just as I was ready to go cleanup some parts...
196667Bob -- The Osborne Electrical Manual, on page 33, shows '8 cyl 289 CID RPO 2-060' as having molded rubber. (one piece connector). The Osborne also shows the 390 with the molded one piece connector.

My 'Tach' (SJ Shelby) harness has been with the car for well over 30 years and has 3 rubber caps. Another harness from a 289 (coupe) w/Tach I parted out also has the 3 rubber caps.

If the harness has only two rubber caps, then it is a non-Tach harness and does not have a wire going to stator (STA). The Tach harness has to have the connectors to BAT, FLD and STA.

Using the Osborne nets me this (view pic)

The picture looks like you have them clocked correctly now. That is the way I have seen them on the 67 GT 350/500 .  I am not aware of anyone that just sells the boots. If you choose to reuse the old harness and want new boots you will have to get them from another donor harness.

[196667Bob]

Just as I was ready to go cleanup some parts...
196667Bob -- The Osborne Electrical Manual, on page 33, shows '8 cyl 289 CID RPO 2-060' as having molded rubber. (one piece connector). The Osborne also shows the 390 with the molded one piece connector.

My 'Tach' (SJ Shelby) harness has been with the car for well over 30 years and has 3 rubber caps. Another harness from a 289 (coupe) w/Tach I parted out also has the 3 rubber caps.

If the harness has only two rubber caps, then it is a non-Tach harness and does not have a wire going to stator (STA). The Tach harness has to have the connectors to BAT, FLD and STA.

Using the Osborne nets me this (view pic)

Bill : I had obviously forgotten all of the research I had done on this when I started this thread almost 4 years ago. The Osborne Manual does show what you have noted, however neither it nor the Shop Manual distinguish the "with tach Option". Having the Stator connection makes sense for the tach option. In addition, both John's (67gta289) and my car are early (his December San Jose, and mine January Dearborn), and both, without the tach option, had the individual rubber boot harness as opposed to the one-piece connector.
I need to go back and revise my earlier post from today to reflect the earlier versions having the non-one piece connector.

The above being said and noted, your last comment before the picture throws me ; shouldn't it say "other than the one piece connector" since yours has the 3 individual boots ?
Then, since the Osborne AM doesn't show the "with tach Option", was the later one piece connection then accompanied with a single boot connection for the Stator ?

It would be nice to get all of these major Variances straightened out so we could make a meaningful summary. Of course the question still remains ; when did the change from individual boots to the one piece connector occur ? Right now, it appears that yours is the latest with individual boots, at 3/2/67.

Bob

[Bob Gaines]

Bill : I had obviously forgotten all of the research I had done on this when I started this thread almost 4 years ago. The Osborne Manual does show what you have noted, however neither it nor the Shop Manual distinguish the "with tach Option". Having the Stator connection makes sense for the tach option. In addition, both John's (67gta289) and my car are early (his December San Jose, and mine January Dearborn), and both, without the tach option, had the individual rubber boot harness as opposed to the one-piece connector.
I need to go back and revise my earlier post from today to reflect the earlier versions having the non-one piece connector.

The above being said and noted, your last comment before the picture throws me ; shouldn't it say "other than the one piece connector" since yours has the 3 individual boots ?
Then, since the Osborne AM doesn't show the "with tach Option", was the later one piece connection then accompanied with a single boot connection for the Stator ?

It would be nice to get all of these major Variances straightened out so we could make a meaningful summary. Of course the question still remains ; when did the change from individual boots to the one piece connector occur ? Right now, it appears that yours is the latest with individual boots, at 3/2/67.

Bob

I believe it must be in late 67 production that the individual boots changed because every 67 Shelby that I have observed over the passed 40 + years that still had original wiring had the individual boots. That would seem to indicate the changed happened at least on SJ cars sometime in July 67 or after.