All this is why, when my convertible was done, I simply went to GM and bought a new totally incorrect side post battery!!!!
Gotta love those Olds guys. More good info. Looks like R89S it is. Think we could get one from Delco for the $50.95 list??:laugh:
Guys, I gave the battery part numbers to David Walker to see if he could cross-reference them. He has all kinds of info from his days as a GM parts counter guy. I am hoping he has info with both application codes and part numbers. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with. Duane
That will be great if David can find a cross reference. I had no such luck last night looking through a couple of old parts-counter catalogs. For the 198xxxx GM part numbers mentioned earlier in this thread, I found no listing in a 1976-issue price list (which is sorted by part number). The corresponding 1976-issue Oldsmobile Parts Catalog skips right over the group for batteries (which I forgot to write down, but I think is Group 2.332). Every other battery-related item (trays, clamps, cables, etc) is listed, but no batteries. I guess the parts counter used the Delco catalog instead. Moving on to a 1982-issue Olds Parts Catalog, I found listings for batteries, but in place of the 7-digit GM part number, they simply listed the Delco application codes, like R69. One reason I have such an interest in this topic is the misinformation and confusion out there about which batteries are correct for 1970 Olds. For years, Year One's catalog has said that an R59 is correct for 442s. Antique Auto Battery's own website says the same. So that's what you see in most '70 442s at car shows -- the incorrect R59. But the Delco catalogs make it clear the 442 used the larger R71S. The Olds assembly manual shows a different GM part number for the 442 battery, and use of a larger tray. But I've never seen a cross reference betwen GM and Delco numbers. Hopefully you'll have more luck with your Buick parts catalogs.
Brian, the battery companies try and sell us Buick guys the R59 as well but it is just correct for small block not 455. Thanks for the good research everyone. Maybe David Walker will have more good info.
Felt like dragging this post out of Mothballs. I recently got hold of a build sheet from a 71 GS 455 dated April 5, 1971. Clearly printed on the sheet are R69 battery and the codes for top pst cables. It is a Fremont car but someone was still using the spring rings this late.
Ron, looks like the change occured sometime in mid April at least to some extent. Your car is Flint and build sheet is Fremont so changeover is still fuzzy from plant to plant but it narrows it.
Dave, You can't use plant to plant to narrow this because you are talking about Flint which was run by Buick vs Fremont that was run by GMAD. The assembly manuals we use were developed by Buick, not GMAD and portray what the Flint plant was doing. They did make "suggestions" for the other plants, however GMAD could care less what Flint wanted on their cars as long as they had suitable substitutes. Therefore you can't assume that what was done at a GMAD plant was also done at Flint or vise-versa. You can tell what the GMAD plants were doing at appxomimately the same time (within reason) by looking at the buildsheets, but not what Buick was doing at Flint at the same time without looking at the parts on the actual cars because the parts you are wondering about are not spelled out on the Flint Buildsheets. I also say "within reason" because as an example, early 70 Fremont production was still using 69 suspension parts, while Flint and Framingham had both changed over to 70 pieces. So you need to be careful and cross check everything before making assumptions or your research will be faulty. Duane PS. Here is another thing to think about. Just because the "Engineers" specified how they wanted the cars to be built in no way dictates how they were actually put together. From decoding buildsheets and looking at original cars, I have found many instances where specified parts were not used. That is why when I decode a sheet for someone I tell them their car may not have been assembled exactly like the "sheet" states. This also makes it tougher to judge cars on the show field.
Good Points Duane, But I have at least narrowed the cables down to change over in Flint somewhere between 03B and 04C(Ron's car). Later than the Feb 22, 1971 notes in the assembly manual.
Also Duane any thoughts on changeovers happening in groups? Such as battery cables, throttle solenoid sensor etc? My car has all the early stuff and it is 03D.
"....................I have at least narrowed the cables down to change over in Flint somewhere between 03B and 04C(Ron's car). Later than the Feb 22, 1971 notes in the assembly manual." The 2/22/71 date is the date the drawing was done, not the date the change took place at the factory...........................ou: Sometimes the changes matched the drawing dates and sometimes they didn't, it all depended on who was pushing the buttons (ie Federal Government, as in recalls/safety issues etc) and when the current inventory was exhausted. I mean there was no way GM would have thrown away good parts, or taken them off the assembly lines unless ordered to by government mandate.......................and even then I would bet the "left-over" parts (unless unsafe) probably made it over to the "parts division" to be made into the most beloved pieces (by some) known as NOS parts.:spank: :spank: :laugh: :laugh: As far as changeovers happening in groups, yes it did occur sometimes, especially for changes that were intertwined, like when the manual dashpot was changed to the electric one. The decals, wiring, brackets, etc all went with the change, or it would have made for problems..................... but sometimes these changes created other problems that needed fixed, like when the + side terminal cable ended up too short, so the routing was changed to "fix" this. (This is also called out in the assembly manual, so it would give you a better indication of when the actual battery/cable change took place because it shows when the found a problem due to an earlier "fix". My point here is I would not think the actual battery/cable changeover took place until after the + cable "fix" drawing was developed. Otherwise it would have led to problems at the plant. Duane
Gotcha, If I remember correctly they took the side post negative cable out of the clip which is dated in March in the later assembly manual so change of cables would have happend after that date listed in manual.
The note for changing the routing of the negative side post was 3/19/71 so I guess it makes sense changeover happend at least a couple of weeks later if not more. Make sense?
