Yeah the one thing I've learned is Chrysler changed very little when
it came to the small block engines. Hell, there's a ton of articles
in Mopar Muscle where they put magnum heads on LA engines, and the
internals are about the same.
So them using one starter for everything.... sure. I mean, look at
all the Chrysler, and dodge cars from the mid 90's to early 2000's...
the door handles are exactly the same and theres probably 100 more
common parts. So why design and produce 10 different starters when
you can just use one?
Gary
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:39 PM, <jon@dakota-truck.net> wrote:
>
> Gary Hedlin <superdak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I did some research into it, and the new lightweight starters for the
>> older cars are nothing but stockers on what the newer engines have, so
>> physicly bolting one in isn't going to be a problem.
>
>
> Its been a while since I did my research on this, but I believe
> you are correct on that. Given that, one oddity that I came across
> was that the Mopar Performance lightweight starter (which seems to be
> nothing more than what comes stock on the late model stuff) was
> cheaper than walking into Autozone and purchasing a replacement late
> model starter from a Dak or a Ram or something. I don't know if that
> is still the case or not, but that confused me a bit!
>
> On a related note, have you noticed how every Chrysler product
> seems to sound the same when they are cranking? I wouldn't be
> surprised if that same starter is being used in just about everything.
> :-)
>
>
> --
> -Jon-
>
> .- Jon Steiger -- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -.
> | '96 Kolb Firefly, '96 Suzuki Intruder, Miscellaneous Mopars |
> `-------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
>
>
-- Gary Hedlin Show Car Signs by Hedlin Designs www.showcarsign.com--Many talk about those who died, but too few talk about those who survived... THANK A VET!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 01 2010 - 10:47:29 EDT