ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1970 Mustang => Topic started by: ng8264723 on December 24, 2020, 09:26:58 PM
-
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1970-1971-Mustang-Voltage-Regulator-Autolite-38-42-45-55A-AMK/124367155706?hash=item1cf4dc31fa:g:HCkAAOSwhnNfe1VU
-
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1970-1971-Mustang-Voltage-Regulator-Autolite-38-42-45-55A-AMK/124367155706?hash=item1cf4dc31fa:g:HCkAAOSwhnNfe1VU
I don't have any service specifacations manuals for 1970 but on a 69 the 55 amp regulator would bear a C8TF opposed to the C8AF for the lower amp alternator. I am not sure for a 1970 but would guess it would follow suit. Instead of a D0AF it would be a D0TF is why I would say check the 1970 service specifications manual to verify. If you don't have one it is a wise investment along with a shop manual . They are available reproduction by all major Mustang vendors. Assemblyline manuals help if putting a car together or knowing where parts go.
-
Virginia Mustang has nice repros with electronic internals, made in the US, and cheaper than the AMK on eBay.
https://www.virginiaclassicmustang.com/Search.aspx?s=Name+ASC&ps=48&k=voltage+regulator&c=998
FWIW, my '70 SCJ had a C8AF in it when I bought it. Not saying it is definitely original, but it had been in there so long the silver print was completely faded and only visible from certain angles and lighting.
-
FYI, This is what Jack sells and he states C8AF is correct for non-AC cars until 4/1970. C8TF-10316-A Yellow ink stamped heavy duty voltage regulator was only on AC equipped cars and was also sold as a fits everything service replacement. 5/70 is when the changeover to D0AF occurred.
https://www.deadnutson.com/1970-428-cobra-jet-alternators-parts/
-
FYI, This is what Jack sells and he states C8AF is correct for non-AC cars until 4/1970. C8TF-10316-A Yellow ink stamped heavy duty voltage regulator was only on AC equipped cars and was also sold as a fits everything service replacement. 5/70 is when the changeover to D0AF occurred.
https://www.deadnutson.com/1970-428-cobra-jet-alternators-parts/
You are misinformed if you think the C8TF was only used on A/C cars. Check the Ford documents please.It just so happens that AC cars typically upgraded to a 55 amp alternator which is why the AC cars got the heavy duty regulator. It is alternator output that typically dictates which regulator and not the A/C accessory status.There are other instances where a 55 amp alternator was used without AC that got the C8TF which is confirmed by the Ford documents. In the instance of the OP ,the D0AF regulator my be the correct one after 1970 which is why I suggested referring to the Ford service specifications manual for confirmation which typically list what regulator goes with which alternator.Yes if you bought a regulator from Ford over the counter back in the day the C8TF was what you got regardless of application.
-
Unfortunately build sheets don't indicate the voltage regulators installed in certain cars only battery size and alternator or we could used those as reference points. Autoilite manuals of the period will list what the suggested replacement was not what was originally installed in every application. Those manual;s and such all refer to the same replacement for all sized engines and applications (6 cyl - 429) Just helped reduce the need for multiple ones and reduced inventory/stocking needs. Even in the 1970 Announcement listing of parts
Looking at the 70 buildsheets I have for CJs, they all show "5C" for the alternator on 428CJ cars with and without AC. Also, all with the same sized battery
-
You are misinformed if you think the C8TF was only used on A/C cars. Check the Ford documents please.It just so happens that AC cars typically upgraded to a 55 amp alternator which is why the AC cars got the heavy duty regulator. It is alternator output that typically dictates which regulator and not the A/C accessory status.There are other instances where a 55 amp alternator was used without AC that got the C8TF which is confirmed by the Ford documents. In the instance of the OP ,the D0AF regulator my be the correct one after 1970 which is why I suggested referring to the Ford service specifications manual for confirmation which typically list what regulator goes with which alternator.Yes if you bought a regulator from Ford over the counter back in the day the C8TF was what you got regardless of application.
Bob, I’m just quoting what Jack (dead nuts on) has on his web page “Jacks comments” for voltage regulators. He references his information was confirmed correct by Bob Perkins and Ed Myers......
Personally, I’m just trying to improve my knowledge.
-
Bob, I’m just quoting what Jack (dead nuts on) has on his web page “Jacks comments” for voltage regulators. He references his information was confirmed correct by Bob Perkins and Ed Myers......
Personally, I’m just trying to improve my knowledge.
If trying to improve your knowledge consider this,Jack also posts the C8AF is for 38/42 alternators which contradicts it being used on 55 amp non AC cars . I am aware of the C8AF use on some Boss 9 and BOSS 302 applications which is the context of the BP and Ed M confirmation I believe. That is contradictory but I think the use in those cases is anomalous to those cars for some reason given the Ford documentation to the contrary which besides being the company that engineered the set up also seems more logical .You may want to ask yourself why Ford would use a heavy duty 55 amp regulator for a 55 amp alternator on a A/C equipped car and a lower capacity 38/42 amp regulator on a 55 amp non A/C car. Not to say that Ford has never made a mistake in there documents but mistakes are typically isolated and and stand out as wrong . The Ford documents are hard to dispute in this case and it wouldn't be prudent to dismissed what is published in all of the Ford technical literature.
-
I am aware of the C8AF use on some Boss 9 and BOSS 302 applications which is the context of the BP and Ed M confirmation I believe. That is contradictory but I think the use in those cases is anomalous to those cars for some reason given the Ford documentation to the contrary which besides being the company that engineered the set up also seems more logical .You may want to ask yourself why Ford would use a heavy duty 55 amp regulator for a 55 amp alternator on a A/C equipped car and a lower capacity 38/42 amp regulator on a 55 amp non A/C car.
Bob,
thanks but the context from BP seems very clear in posts where his opinion was sought over on the CJ site as well. That is why I am pursuing. Here is a link to that main discussion(hope that’s ok to do!)
https://www.428cobrajet.org/forum/index.php?topic=8988.msg51566#msg51566
From an electrical perspective, without AC there is significantly lower load on the system, regardless of alternator charging capacity, so I can see how a 42A regulator would suffice.....
As previously stated the build sheet did not include this information, the MPC revision I have at home does not describe what was installed at the factory, only what parts were available to be used for maintenance and even the MCA judging sheets only call out a “blue Autolite” regulator...
-
Bob,
thanks but the context from BP seems very clear in posts where his opinion was sought over on the CJ site as well. That is why I am pursuing. Here is a link to that main discussion(hope that’s ok to do!)
https://www.428cobrajet.org/forum/index.php?topic=8988.msg51566#msg51566
From an electrical perspective, without AC there is significantly lower load on the system, regardless of alternator charging capacity, so I can see how a 42A regulator would suffice.....
As previously stated the build sheet did not include this information, the MPC revision I have at home does not describe what was installed at the factory, only what parts were available to be used for maintenance and even the MCA judging sheets only call out a “blue Autolite” regulator...
Maybe you are not aware but the load and the alternator are directly related. In your theory you only talk about regulator and not alternator. You are neglecting to take into account the many non A/C equipped cars also have 38/42 amp alternators and consequently don't need a higher rated regulator. A non AC car typically gets a 38/42 amp alternator because of less load. The AC car gets upgraded to a 55 amp alternator because of more load. A non ac car can get upgraded to a 55 amp alternator typically if ordered or if it automatically was specified to come with the heavy duty Battery. ;) It doesn't make sense to put a lower capacity 42 amp capacity regulator with a 55 amp capacity alternator. Again the pairing is backed up by the Ford technical documents and is only logical. If the relationship to amps wasn't important then it wouldn't be used as a measurement for the component.Thank you for posting the link to the other site.The understanding that I have had in the past with BP and ED M on the subject was a Boss context which is the reason for my statement. I too have owned a lot of CJ cars (GT 500's) and studied many others especially survivor cars . I can't speak to the Boss cars but can to the many CJ GT500's I have owned and studied which support my point of view that is corroborated by the Ford technical documents. I don't know why some BOSS cars came with the lower capacity regulator yet had a 55 amp alternator which is why they are a anomaly for some reason.
-
Bob,
Thanks. I understand your logical approach. I am also fully aware of the relationship between all aspects of an electrical load, voltage regulators and alternators. My first (of 3) engineering degrees is in electrical & electronics. EG your assumption that a 1970s vintage 55a alternator was designed to output full rated power on a particular engine/ pulley configuration may not be true. The alternator may be intentionally under driven (limited) on a high rpm engine to protect the machine from damage, so necessitating a higher theoretical output. So in this case a 55A rated alt may actually be operating at a lower max power output on its curve at high rpms and adequate output at idle(under driven) which means a 42A voltage regulator is more than adequate. Today, modern designs of alternators have an output curve that is near flat at all speeds, but older designs had a much more linear output in relation to their speed.
Which Ford documents are you referencing?
-
Bob,
Thanks. I understand your logical approach. I am also fully aware of the relationship between all aspects of an electrical load, voltage regulators and alternators. My first (of 3) engineering degrees is in electrical & electronics. EG your assumption that a 1970s vintage 55a alternator was designed to output full rated power on a particular engine/ pulley configuration may not be true. The alternator may be intentionally under driven (limited) on a high rpm engine to protect the machine from damage, so necessitating a higher theoretical output. So in this case a 55A rated alt may actually be operating at a lower max power output on its curve at high rpms and adequate output at idle(under driven) which means a 42A voltage regulator is more than adequate. Today, modern designs of alternators have an output curve that is near flat at all speeds, but older designs had a much more linear output in relation to their speed.
Which Ford documents are you referencing?
Ford typically used a larger pulley to underdrive the alternator on many high revving performance engines. It is commonly referred to as a hipo pulley. If your theory is correct then the Ford technical documents would reflect that which they do not . As mentioned in several of my posts the Service Specifications manual. That manual is part of the 69 Shop manual set . In this case page 14-2 . FYI similar information is in the 65,66,67,68 service specification manuals which makes a oversight by Ford even less of a possibility.
-
Bob,
Thanks. I understand your logical approach. I am also fully aware of the relationship between all aspects of an electrical load, voltage regulators and alternators. My first (of 3) engineering degrees is in electrical & electronics. EG your assumption that a 1970s vintage 55a alternator was designed to output full rated power on a particular engine/ pulley configuration may not be true. The alternator may be intentionally under driven (limited) on a high rpm engine to protect the machine from damage, so necessitating a higher theoretical output. So in this case a 55A rated alt may actually be operating at a lower max power output on its curve at high rpms and adequate output at idle(under driven) which means a 42A voltage regulator is more than adequate. Today, modern designs of alternators have an output curve that is near flat at all speeds, but older designs had a much more linear output in relation to their speed.
Which Ford documents are you referencing?
It has been a few days so I posted a copy of the page out of the 69 specification manual that is relevant to the conversation about 69 applications in case it has been hard to find. The C8TF identified with a yellow stamp is for 55 amp alternator .There is no additional designation for A/C only. The C8AF identified with a silver stamp is for 38/42 amp alternator. There is no additional designation for 55 amp without AC . This same information is in other year specification manuals as well so a isolated mistake would be unlikely. The Boss application information although known to be different is not mentioned.
-
Just FYI, I've been researching (and hoarding parts) for 70 CJ's for years..... all 70 CJ's (AC or not) and SCJ's got 55 amp alternators. I've documented a bunch of non AC original cars and they all used the C8TF (yellow stamp ) regulator. I haven't found any post 4/70 cars that I'm convinced were unrestored originals so I've never seen a D0TF/D0ZF original regulator on a CJ ( a majority of 70 CJ's were built earlier in the model year)
I have some evidence that contradicts the current thinking on what alternator the CJ's with AC got in 70, but that discussion is for another day .....
JMHO, John
-
All b9s used c8af regulators and had the 4'' alt pulley. I have never seen or heard of a dotf or a dozf only the doaf showing up on later 70 and 71 cars with the d2af showing up on the motorcraft regulators. What i am trying to document is when and why the 15V started showing up stamped in front of the C8 eng # below the autolite stamp.
-
All b9s used c8af regulators and had the 4'' alt pulley. I have never seen or heard of a dotf or a dozf only the doaf showing up on later 70 and 71 cars with the d2af showing up on the motorcraft regulators. What i am trying to document is when and why the 15V started showing up stamped in front of the C8 eng # below the autolite stamp.
Ed ,I suspect that the reason that the B9 and the Boss 302 used the C8AF silver stamped regulators instead of the typical C8TF for the 55 amp was because of the 4 inch hipo pulley they both used. The alternator was under driven. The larger diameter pulley decreased the speed that the alternator turned so it could not reach its maximum designed output there by only requiring the the lower capacity C8AF regulator typically coupled with a 38/42 amp alternators. At least that is the most logical explanation I can think of. It is strange that Ford didn't note the exception but I suppose the relative small number of those cars must have had something to do with the decision.
-
Bob,
Thanks. I understand your logical approach. I am also fully aware of the relationship between all aspects of an electrical load, voltage regulators and alternators. My first (of 3) engineering degrees is in electrical & electronics. EG your assumption that a 1970s vintage 55a alternator was designed to output full rated power on a particular engine/ pulley configuration may not be true. The alternator may be intentionally under driven (limited) on a high rpm engine to protect the machine from damage, so necessitating a higher theoretical output. So in this case a 55A rated alt may actually be operating at a lower max power output on its curve at high rpms and adequate output at idle(under driven) which means a 42A voltage regulator is more than adequate. Today, modern designs of alternators have an output curve that is near flat at all speeds, but older designs had a much more linear output in relation to their speed.
Which Ford documents are you referencing?
The load/charging current does not pass through these types of regulators. The regulators themselves do not have a current rating. Well, they do to some degree of course, but not load related to the first order.
-
The load/charging current does not pass through these types of regulators. The regulators themselves do not have a current rating. Well, they do to some degree of course, but not load related to the first order.
I use the designation in the same way Ford lists them as being paired to the alternators. It makes for a better understandable comparison for purposes of discussion even if not technically accurate to a regulator.
-
Ed ,I suspect that the reason that the B9 and the Boss 302 used the C8AF silver stamped regulators instead of the typical C8TF for the 55 amp was because of the 4 inch hipo pulley they both used. The alternator was under driven. The larger diameter pulley decreased the speed that the alternator turned so it could not reach its maximum designed output there by only requiring the the lower capacity C8AF regulator typically coupled with a 38/42 amp alternators. At least that is the most logical explanation I can think of. It is strange that Ford didn't note the exception but I suppose the relative small number of those cars must have had something to do with the decision.
The larger pulley will not lower the maximum output of the alternator. It will move it up in RPM but most are putting out full power at 2K engine RPM. The larger pulley reduces the RPMs that the alternator will see for a high revving engine but it won't reduce the maximum output power of the alternator.
-
289 hipo 427 boss 302 429 351 429cj scj 351 HO all use a big alt pulley.
-
The larger pulley will not lower the maximum output of the alternator. It will move it up in RPM but most are putting out full power at 2K engine RPM. The larger pulley reduces the RPMs that the alternator will see for a high revving engine but it won't reduce the maximum output power of the alternator.
Thank you for sharing your point of view. Your point may well be valid . The Boss 302 and Boss 429 have been observed on many occasions to use the C8AF regulator instead of the C8TF , that is a given . I find it strange that the C8AF regulator which is not typically paired with the 55 amp alternator as per Ford factory specifications in 69 as well as in other previous years specs yet the one common denominator in the electrical system on both cars is the pulley . That coincidence is the basis for my suspicion. It may or may not be related but it is strangely coincidentally non the less. Since it is typical for Ford to have a reason for everything that they do if the pulley reason does not have anything to do with the regulator difference given the Ford documents then why?
-
I checked out the link above where BP says all CJ w/o AC cars got the silver inked C8AF regulator and I'd have to disagree. As I've mentioned above, I've been researching and documenting 70 CJ cars since 1983 when I bought my first one and of all the 70 CJ's I've come across where I had a very high confidence they were unmolested originals, all had the Yellow stamped C8TF regulators, at least 2 dozen cars including 6 428/AC cars ( If it matters, probably 90% were Metuchen cars). It's also mentioned in multiple Ford parts books and even the 70 Shop Manual that silver stamped regulators were used on 38 and 42 amp alternators and yellow stamped regulators were used on 55 amp alternators.
From an engineering perspective, 55 amp alternators use both a different rotor and stator windings. The difference in the rotor may be just the shaft and bearing sizes (you can't tell because ford didn't service the rotor coil as a separate part) . I'd almost bet that the some or all of the 3 or 4 resistors in the regulator were optimized for the current requirements of the 55 amp alternator stator/rotor. (the 55 amp alternators probably needed more field (rotor) current, but again that's just a guess without reverse engineering a few regulators)
EDIT: Just found some schematics of a regulator, and it appears that they don't limit the current to the rotor when in full charge mode, so it kinda throws my resistor theory out the window ..... Maybe when I get a chance I'll tear a couple regulators apart and see whats different inside ......
Just more fuel for the Fire .... John
-
I checked out the link above where BP says all CJ w/o AC cars got the silver inked C8AF regulator and I'd have to disagree. As I've mentioned above, I've been researching and documenting 70 CJ cars since 1983 when I bought my first one and of all the 70 CJ's I've come across where I had a very high confidence they were unmolested originals, all had the Yellow stamped C8TF regulators, at least 2 dozen cars including 6 428/AC cars ( If it matters, probably 90% were Metuchen cars). It's also mentioned in multiple Ford parts books and even the 70 Shop Manual that silver stamped regulators were used on 38 and 42 amp alternators and yellow stamped regulators were used on 55 amp alternators.
From an engineering perspective, 55 amp alternators use both a different rotor and stator windings. The difference in the rotor may be just the shaft and bearing sizes (you can't tell because ford didn't service the rotor coil as a separate part) . I'd almost bet that the some or all of the 3 or 4 resistors in the regulator were optimized for the current requirements of the 55 amp alternator stator/rotor. (the 55 amp alternators probably needed more field (rotor) current, but again that's just a guess without reverse engineering a few regulators)
EDIT: Just found some schematics of a regulator, and it appears that they don't limit the current to the rotor when in full charge mode, so it kinda throws my resistor theory out the window ..... Maybe when I get a chance I'll tear a couple regulators apart and see whats different inside ......
Just more fuel for the Fire .... John
I suspect the only differences are the voltage settings. The pic Bob posted would seem to confirm that.
-
Interesting john (70cj428) about your research on 70 cjs having c8tf (yellow) v-regs and i dont remember now which v-reg i put on the 70 cjs i restored and worked on in the past but the red low mile 70 mach 1 cj i bought from canada original owner back 20 years ago was unmolested and i used that car for reference in the past and jeff s. has many photos of it also he uses in his post for 70 reference. So maybe jeff has a photo of the v-reg area as i dont know where my photos arent handy buried smewhere in the 1000s of reference photos i got since that was in late 90s when we bought that car out of canada. The 1970 mustang cars had a dozf altenator vs c9zf on 69s yet they used the same pulleys and the 70 cars had a totally different wiring setup and 70 cjs had many changes from 69 cjs including a rev-limiter on 4-speeds and dual point distributors. Also the dual altenator pulley used on 70 cjs with factory a/c is another factor to figure in.
-
Interesting john (70cj428) about your research on 70 cjs having c8tf (yellow) v-regs and i don't remember now which v-reg i put on the 70 cjs i restored and worked on in the past but the red low mile 70 mach 1 cj i bought from canada original owner back 20 years ago was unmolested and i used that car for reference in the past and jeff s. has many photos of it also he uses in his post for 70 reference. So maybe jeff has a photo of the v-reg area as i don't know where my photos aren't handy buried somewhere in the 1000s of reference photos i got since that was in late 90s when we bought that car out of canada. The 1970 mustang cars had a dozf alternator vs c9zf on 69s yet they used the same pulleys and the 70 cars had a totally different wiring setup and 70 cjs had many changes from 69 cjs including a rev-limiter on 4-speeds and dual point distributors. Also the dual alternator pulley used on 70 cjs with factory a/c is another factor to figure in.
From the pics of that car it looks to me like yellow stamping. Interesting that Ford didn't use a large pulley on any of the 428CJs.
-
Question- Do we want to change the discussion to include non SCJ cars? All 70's or just expand it to all Cobra Jets?
Just asking before I collect what I can have and trying to stay between the lines :)
-
Question- Do we want to change the discussion to include non SCJ cars? All 70's or just expand it to all Cobra Jets?
Just asking before I collect what I can have and trying to stay between the lines :)
Well it would be nice to know for sure which ones came with what engines and options...
-
Well it would be nice to know for sure which ones came with what engines and options...
Here is what I have to offer to the discussion. Of course any of these could have been replaced but the condition appears to match the rest of the parts in these examples. Will list options and details of each as best I can. Sorry there are not more but keeping with SCJ and CJ Mustangs
As I usually try cars are listed by assembly plant grouping and in production order from earliest to last within those groups. Hope this helps
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
0F05R1188xx - silver markings. Options: SCJ engine/Drag Pak, 4 speed, P/Disc. Completed Oct 20 1969
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/6-130121161316.jpeg)
0F03R1230xx. Difficult to make out. Believe it might be a silver version only due to a possible lower outline from the ink stamp in the lower left in the picture of the cover. Options: Drum brakes, 421 eng code, automatic, PS, Calif emissions, power top.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/6-130121161333.jpeg)
0F05R1291xx - maybe yellow markings. Options: Unknown
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/6-130121161258.jpeg)
0F05R1631xx - yellow markings. Car that Ed was referring to and in the unrestored picture thread section of this site. Options: Automatic transmission, PS, Tach. Completed Feb 24 1970
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/6-130121161241.jpeg)
++++++++++++++++++++++
0T05R1362xx - appears to me a it's silver markings.Options: Automatic transmission, P/Disc, PS
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/6-130121161222.jpeg)
-
Last pic looks yellow to me :) Reality is that any of the regulators would work with any of the alternators. Perhaps there was an intended pattern but ended up being what was used was what was available.
-
I posted a picture of a 69 Service specifications (small book) previously which is part of the shop manual series of books. 65 Mustang on have them. I don't have a 70 version . Does anyone have one to see what is in the 70 manual on the subject?
-
Here's what the 1970 states.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/2313-130121203411.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/2313-130121203540.jpeg)
-
What does the 70 manual say about the electromechanical regulators? Same as the 69 manual I would imagine.
-
Here's the first page - missed this one.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/15/2313-140121181422.jpeg)
-
Unfortunately build sheets don't indicate the voltage regulators installed in certain cars only battery size and alternator or we could used those as reference points. Autoilite manuals of the period will list what the suggested replacement was not what was originally installed in every application. Those manual;s and such all refer to the same replacement for all sized engines and applications (6 cyl - 429) Just helped reduce the need for multiple ones and reduced inventory/stocking needs. Even in the 1970 Announcement listing of parts
Looking at the 70 buildsheets I have for CJs, they all show "5C" for the alternator on 428CJ cars with and without AC. Also, all with the same sized battery
Some 70 B2 build sheets I have show 4W and some show ZA for the alternator code. On other 70s I see 3B,4G,5A,5C. Do we know for sure what these codes mean?