Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Sniper] #3040088
05/05/22 08:36 PM
05/05/22 08:36 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
T
TJP Offline
I Live Here
TJP  Offline
I Live Here
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
Originally Posted by Sniper
the reason they fail is that there is a small fusible link inside that pops. I've replaced them with a strand of copper wiring and they work. Had the MP one years ago do that to me and that's how I figured out what was wrong.


up

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: SomeCarGuy] #3040090
05/05/22 08:42 PM
05/05/22 08:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
T
TJP Offline
I Live Here
TJP  Offline
I Live Here
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
Originally Posted by SomeCarGuy
Originally Posted by TJP
Originally Posted by 6PAX
"Bolt it on your car & try it, if it smokes up it was electronic."

"The electronics one will also fail shortly thereafter."


So, is it not a good idea to use an electronic regulator?


I have installed MANY electronic versions on my own and customers cars with no problems over the last 25 years (knock on wood). Wonder if wiring / ground issues could be causing the failures ?

Back in the day Direct connection offered a version as it was recommended with the ignition upgrade THOSE were definitely known to fail. At that time, the parts store ones were all mechanical. Somewhere in the mid to late 80's the parts store electronic versions started appearing. Can't remember ever having a problem with one shruggy twocents beer


If you know of a good 69 down electronic on the market today, post it up. Mine failed this past fall, no grounding issue, sanded back of mount and even a dedicated ground wire to it. Look alike of a mechanical old school one. Ran for maybe two hours total. I’d like a good electronic one to put on the car and stop the bouncing on the gauge. I just don’t care for that while I’m driving and could use that as my spare to carry.

Even had the 70 up style one fail quickly as a resto look one about 12 years ago. Replaced with an ancient parts store one I had in my stash and that one was still living when I sold the car a couple years later. Didn’t have the detailed look I wanted, but it worked where modern garbage couldn’t cut it.


I have good luck with wells in the past part # 1V1067. used to be able to swap the lids so it looked OE wink Also Standard ignition

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: TJP] #3040162
05/06/22 12:07 AM
05/06/22 12:07 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,179
Someplace you aren't
S
SomeCarGuy Offline
I Live Here
SomeCarGuy  Offline
I Live Here
S

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,179
Someplace you aren't
Thanks guys. I’ll check into the wells one and will look for the fusible link on next one that craps out.


I want my fair share
Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Sniper] #3040260
05/06/22 10:41 AM
05/06/22 10:41 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,243
north of coder
moparx Offline
"Butt Crack Bob"
moparx  Offline
"Butt Crack Bob"

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,243
north of coder
Originally Posted by Sniper
the reason they fail is that there is a small fusible link inside that pops. I've replaced them with a strand of copper wiring and they work. Had the MP one years ago do that to me and that's how I figured out what was wrong.




you don't perhaps have a picture that points out that fusible link ?
beer

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: moparx] #3040263
05/06/22 10:46 AM
05/06/22 10:46 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 21,808
Kirkland, Washington
Pacnorthcuda Offline
Too Many Posts
Pacnorthcuda  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 21,808
Kirkland, Washington
Originally Posted by moparx
Originally Posted by Sniper
the reason they fail is that there is a small fusible link inside that pops. I've replaced them with a strand of copper wiring and they work. Had the MP one years ago do that to me and that's how I figured out what was wrong.




you don't perhaps have a picture that points out that fusible link ?
beer


It’s discussed in this Abody thread and there is a good pic/diagram
https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/blowing-voltage-regulators.439032/

Last edited by Pacnorthcuda; 05/06/22 10:46 AM.
Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Pacnorthcuda] #3040274
05/06/22 11:11 AM
05/06/22 11:11 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,243
north of coder
moparx Offline
"Butt Crack Bob"
moparx  Offline
"Butt Crack Bob"

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,243
north of coder
It’s discussed in this Abody thread and there is a good pic/diagram
https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/blowing-voltage-regulators.439032/


thanks Pac ! very informative read. up bow
beer

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: moparx] #3040288
05/06/22 11:55 AM
05/06/22 11:55 AM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,176
nowhere
S
Sniper Offline
master
Sniper  Offline
master
S

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,176
nowhere
Originally Posted by moparx
Originally Posted by Sniper
the reason they fail is that there is a small fusible link inside that pops. I've replaced them with a strand of copper wiring and they work. Had the MP one years ago do that to me and that's how I figured out what was wrong.




you don't perhaps have a picture that points out that fusible link ?
beer


Sorry no I don't. That was back in the early 90's. Fortunately someone else steed up, lol. I was worried I would have to drag the 65 Cuda out of storage and pop the cover off it's regulator to take a picture. And yes, for those that wonder, the mechanical regulator clicks on/off and the headlights show it at night. I don't have dim lights at idle, just bright/brighter as the regulator cycles.

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Sniper] #3040292
05/06/22 12:13 PM
05/06/22 12:13 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
T
TJP Offline
I Live Here
TJP  Offline
I Live Here
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
Originally Posted by Sniper
the reason they fail is that there is a small fusible link inside that pops. I've replaced them with a strand of copper wiring and they work. Had the MP one years ago do that to me and that's how I figured out what was wrong.



Are you referring to the mechanical or electronic version in the above statement ? beer

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: TJP] #3040299
05/06/22 12:21 PM
05/06/22 12:21 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,176
nowhere
S
Sniper Offline
master
Sniper  Offline
master
S

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,176
nowhere
Originally Posted by TJP
Originally Posted by Sniper
the reason they fail is that there is a small fusible link inside that pops. I've replaced them with a strand of copper wiring and they work. Had the MP one years ago do that to me and that's how I figured out what was wrong.



Are you referring to the mechanical or electronic version in the above statement ? beer


I was responding to your commenting on the mechanical ones failing. All I can recall is mechanical ones failing, I don;t recall the last time I used an electronic version of one of those regulators. I usually end up going to the later OEM electronic regulator and related alternator. Did that on my 51, the Cuda still runs it's original system because it works.

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: moparx] #3040422
05/06/22 07:55 PM
05/06/22 07:55 PM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
Mattax Offline
top fuel
Mattax  Offline
top fuel

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
Originally Posted by moparx
It’s discussed in this Abody thread and there is a good pic/diagram
https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/blowing-voltage-regulators.439032/


thanks Pac ! very informative read. up bow
beer


Let me add something I've been discovering more recently.
Many replacement alternators and 'rebuilts' have replacement rotors with lower resistance.
As a result they draw more current, almost twice the current spec'd in the shop manuals.
This is not an absolute, just some clues to what seems to be a trend.

from the '73 FSM. Slip ring to slip ring the rotor resistance should be 3 to 4 ohms at room temperature.
Measured NOS late 60s rotor: 3.7 Ohms
Measured Rotor in a rebuilt '70-71 alternator bought from junkyard 22 years ago: 3.5 ohms

In contrast, the rotor in a 10 year old Carquest 7024 sq back measured 1.7 ohms!
This drew 5.6 amps at 12.5 Volts when field current was tested on the car per FSM.

Whereas the rotor in a very used 1973 'square back' measured 3.5 ohms. That's in spec per FSM.
It drew 3.0 amps at 13.8 Volts in a field current check on the bench. (At 12.5 V it would have drawn a little less)

Measured rotor in a Tuff Stuff Revised Sq back: 1.7 Ohms
I noticed an increased rate of VR failures when using this alternator in my '67.
I dont think that's a coincidence.
I *think* when the revised squareback was introduced, the voltage regulators must have been made to handle the load.

My suggestion for those with a multimeter that can handle up to 10 amps is to make the field current test on any non-factory alternator to see if its in spec for the system.


Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Mattax] #3040434
05/06/22 08:41 PM
05/06/22 08:41 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
T
TJP Offline
I Live Here
TJP  Offline
I Live Here
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
Originally Posted by Mattax
Originally Posted by moparx
It’s discussed in this Abody thread and there is a good pic/diagram
https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/blowing-voltage-regulators.439032/


thanks Pac ! very informative read. up bow
beer


Let me add something I've been discovering more recently.
Many replacement alternators and 'rebuilts' have replacement rotors with lower resistance.
As a result they draw more current, almost twice the current spec'd in the shop manuals.
This is not an absolute, just some clues to what seems to be a trend.

from the '73 FSM. Slip ring to slip ring the rotor resistance should be 3 to 4 ohms at room temperature.
Measured NOS late 60s rotor: 3.7 Ohms
Measured Rotor in a rebuilt '70-71 alternator bought from junkyard 22 years ago: 3.5 ohms

In contrast, the rotor in a 10 year old Carquest 7024 sq back measured 1.7 ohms!
This drew 5.6 amps at 12.5 Volts when field current was tested on the car per FSM.

Whereas the rotor in a very used 1973 'square back' measured 3.5 ohms. That's in spec per FSM.
It drew 3.0 amps at 13.8 Volts in a field current check on the bench. (At 12.5 V it would have drawn a little less)

Measured rotor in a Tuff Stuff Revised Sq back: 1.7 Ohms
I noticed an increased rate of VR failures when using this alternator in my '67.
I dont think that's a coincidence.
I *think* when the revised squareback was introduced, the voltage regulators must have been made to handle the load.

My suggestion for those with a multimeter that can handle up to 10 amps is to make the field current test on any non-factory alternator to see if its in spec for the system.



Great INFO up and definitely could cause the VR Failures

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Mattax] #3040501
05/07/22 06:28 AM
05/07/22 06:28 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,089
Valencia, España
NachoRT74 Offline
master
NachoRT74  Offline
master

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,089
Valencia, España
Originally Posted by Mattax
Originally Posted by moparx
It’s discussed in this Abody thread and there is a good pic/diagram
https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/blowing-voltage-regulators.439032/


thanks Pac ! very informative read. up bow
beer


Let me add something I've been discovering more recently.
Many replacement alternators and 'rebuilts' have replacement rotors with lower resistance.
As a result they draw more current, almost twice the current spec'd in the shop manuals.
This is not an absolute, just some clues to what seems to be a trend.

from the '73 FSM. Slip ring to slip ring the rotor resistance should be 3 to 4 ohms at room temperature.
Measured NOS late 60s rotor: 3.7 Ohms
Measured Rotor in a rebuilt '70-71 alternator bought from junkyard 22 years ago: 3.5 ohms

In contrast, the rotor in a 10 year old Carquest 7024 sq back measured 1.7 ohms!
This drew 5.6 amps at 12.5 Volts when field current was tested on the car per FSM.

Whereas the rotor in a very used 1973 'square back' measured 3.5 ohms. That's in spec per FSM.
It drew 3.0 amps at 13.8 Volts in a field current check on the bench. (At 12.5 V it would have drawn a little less)

Measured rotor in a Tuff Stuff Revised Sq back: 1.7 Ohms
I noticed an increased rate of VR failures when using this alternator in my '67.
I dont think that's a coincidence.
I *think* when the revised squareback was introduced, the voltage regulators must have been made to handle the load.

My suggestion for those with a multimeter that can handle up to 10 amps is to make the field current test on any non-factory alternator to see if its in spec for the system.



I think the one on my car is around 4.5 or 5 ohms. It's a stock piece Out of its Mopar box, the laters squareback one.

I measured between brushes thought, not at slip ring

Interesting about the Tuff Stuff value.


With a Charger born in Chrysler assembly plant in Valencia, Venezuela
Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: NachoRT74] #3040580
05/07/22 02:35 PM
05/07/22 02:35 PM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
Mattax Offline
top fuel
Mattax  Offline
top fuel

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
The brushes add to the resistance. My measurements were inconsistant so thought best to just show the slip ring to slip ring measurements.
I don't know enough about carbon brushes to explain why they noticibly add to the measurement with a multimeter.

Looking at the alternator test sheet you posted several years back for a 7509 - 78 amp, the field current draw was 6.8 amps.
7024 and 7509 are 'Lester numbers' which many manufactures use - so it seems to be sortof an unofficial standard.
Just looked at the Tuff Stuff box. It is also a 7509. So maybe 7509s are revised square backs.

I have scans of some back pages of the electrical chapter from a 1976 shop manual.
Field current draw for all alternators (except the 100 amp) was 4.5 to 6.5 amps at 12 Volts

this may raise more questions than answers.
It certainly far more current than was pulled by the earlier alternator rotors. Was this just a change in rotor or was it introduced with the revised squareback design?

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Mattax] #3040672
05/07/22 09:00 PM
05/07/22 09:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
T
TJP Offline
I Live Here
TJP  Offline
I Live Here
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
Originally Posted by Mattax
The brushes add to the resistance. My measurements were inconsistant so thought best to just show the slip ring to slip ring measurements.
I don't know enough about carbon brushes to explain why they noticibly add to the measurement with a multimeter.

You were correct in your assumption, measuring through the brushes is equivalent to trying to measure a resistor in circuit, can't be done accurately unless it is the only device in the circuit and it's a real SHORT circuit biggrin LOL ( sorry had to throw that in)

Quote
Jim Phipps
, Power Systems Engineer
Updated 2 years ago · Author has 1.7K answers and 3.6M answer views Carbon in graphite form is used extensively in commutators in DC machines and slip ring circuits like alternators. It is not as conductive as a metal like copper or aluminum but it is conductive.
When electrons flow through two pieces of moving metal that are in contact with each other, they will tend to weld themselves together at the contact points. To eliminate the welding action, carbon to metal is used as the transition junction.
Compared to copper, carbon (graphite) has a resistivity of approximately 150x greater.


Another tidbit:
Quote
It is an OK conductor compared to the mix of properties of materials. Graphite is a form of carbon historically used for the brushes that conduct electricity to the armature of DC motors. It is chosen not because it is such a great conductor, but for its resistance to frictional wear. It has far better wear resistance relative to the superior conductivity of various metals. It also is self-lubricating so it imposes minimum wear on the copper parts of the armature.
You can’t always get everything you want.


beer

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: TJP] #3040683
05/07/22 09:55 PM
05/07/22 09:55 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,117
Mesa, Arizona
D
dart4forte Offline
I Live Here
dart4forte  Offline
I Live Here
D

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,117
Mesa, Arizona
There was a member selling the old VRs converted to electronic.


“So if it’s on the internet it must be true”

Abe Lincoln
Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: TJP] #3040749
05/08/22 11:44 AM
05/08/22 11:44 AM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,176
nowhere
S
Sniper Offline
master
Sniper  Offline
master
S

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,176
nowhere
Originally Posted by TJP
Originally Posted by Mattax
The brushes add to the resistance. My measurements were inconsistant so thought best to just show the slip ring to slip ring measurements.
I don't know enough about carbon brushes to explain why they noticibly add to the measurement with a multimeter.

You were correct in your assumption, measuring through the brushes is equivalent to trying to measure a resistor in circuit, can't be done accurately unless it is the only device in the circuit and it's a real SHORT circuit biggrin LOL ( sorry had to throw that in)

Quote
Jim Phipps
, Power Systems Engineer
Updated 2 years ago · Author has 1.7K answers and 3.6M answer views Carbon in graphite form is used extensively in commutators in DC machines and slip ring circuits like alternators. It is not as conductive as a metal like copper or aluminum but it is conductive.
When electrons flow through two pieces of moving metal that are in contact with each other, they will tend to weld themselves together at the contact points. To eliminate the welding action, carbon to metal is used as the transition junction.
Compared to copper, carbon (graphite) has a resistivity of approximately 150x greater.


Another tidbit:
Quote
It is an OK conductor compared to the mix of properties of materials. Graphite is a form of carbon historically used for the brushes that conduct electricity to the armature of DC motors. It is chosen not because it is such a great conductor, but for its resistance to frictional wear. It has far better wear resistance relative to the superior conductivity of various metals. It also is self-lubricating so it imposes minimum wear on the copper parts of the armature.
You can’t always get everything you want.


beer




Brushes are called brushes because originally they were made of wire and looked like a brush.

https://www.repcoinc.com/about/blog/What-is-a-carbon-brush-bd.html

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Sniper] #3040847
05/08/22 09:29 PM
05/08/22 09:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
T
TJP Offline
I Live Here
TJP  Offline
I Live Here
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
Originally Posted by Sniper
Originally Posted by TJP
Originally Posted by Mattax
The brushes add to the resistance. My measurements were inconsistant so thought best to just show the slip ring to slip ring measurements.
I don't know enough about carbon brushes to explain why they noticibly add to the measurement with a multimeter.

You were correct in your assumption, measuring through the brushes is equivalent to trying to measure a resistor in circuit, can't be done accurately unless it is the only device in the circuit and it's a real SHORT circuit biggrin LOL ( sorry had to throw that in)

Quote
Jim Phipps
, Power Systems Engineer
Updated 2 years ago · Author has 1.7K answers and 3.6M answer views Carbon in graphite form is used extensively in commutators in DC machines and slip ring circuits like alternators. It is not as conductive as a metal like copper or aluminum but it is conductive.
When electrons flow through two pieces of moving metal that are in contact with each other, they will tend to weld themselves together at the contact points. To eliminate the welding action, carbon to metal is used as the transition junction.
Compared to copper, carbon (graphite) has a resistivity of approximately 150x greater.


Another tidbit:
Quote
It is an OK conductor compared to the mix of properties of materials. Graphite is a form of carbon historically used for the brushes that conduct electricity to the armature of DC motors. It is chosen not because it is such a great conductor, but for its resistance to frictional wear. It has far better wear resistance relative to the superior conductivity of various metals. It also is self-lubricating so it imposes minimum wear on the copper parts of the armature.
You can’t always get everything you want.


beer




Brushes are called brushes because originally they were made of wire and looked like a brush.

https://www.repcoinc.com/about/blog/What-is-a-carbon-brush-bd.html


up That's what I like about coming here. We all (for the most part) learn and help each other beer

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: TJP] #3040922
05/09/22 09:12 AM
05/09/22 09:12 AM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
Mattax Offline
top fuel
Mattax  Offline
top fuel

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
TJP. Thank you!
beer

Sniper. Neat! Love the word history/

Re: Voltage regulator questions [Re: Mattax] #3040951
05/09/22 12:04 PM
05/09/22 12:04 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
T
TJP Offline
I Live Here
TJP  Offline
I Live Here
T

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,197
Omaha Ne
Originally Posted by Mattax
TJP. Thank you!
beer

Sniper. Neat! Love the word history/


upup beer

Page 2 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1