Trevor -
I disagree (a little, anyway). The GM alternators were clearly
"designed to spec", as were the Lucas. However, the closer one runs any
component to it's maximum output, the sooner it fails. The GM
alternator gets the nod in terms of reliability not so much because of
American jingoism (though there may be some of that), but because its
rated output is about 70% higher than the comparably sized Lucas unit,
and it's an easy conversion. If you're running a component at a level
further from its limit, it will most likely be more reliable, all other
things being equal.
That being said, I'm still running a Lucas alternator in my Midget,
after swapping the diode pack and cleaning the commutator and replacing
the brushes. Why? It seemed the logical thing to do at the time.
Chris K.
Trevor Boicey wrote:
> Your points ring true, but I don't quite understand
> the conclusion becoming "throw in a GM alternator".
>
> It's not like GM doesn't have the same mass of tradeoffs
> between perfection and economics that LUCAS does. Or
> should I say "whoever made that alternator for GM and
> won the contract based on competitive price-based
> bidding".
>
<snip>
>
> Onto a more hostile topic...
<snip>
>
> A thousand times over, an alternator is such a smaller
> deal than an engine, so this is more a random speech than
> attempt to be relevent to the current car situation. However,
> it still smacks of "Foreign is junk, get some good
> 'mericun stuff in there", which is a bit hard to take. ;>
>
> --
> Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
> Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
> ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
> "Homer, the ceiling is not a safe place for a baby!" - Marge
|