Barry:
In general, I tend to agree ... much of the doo-dads are just that ... fluff. However, in reference to the starter type I suggested above, what I suggested is simply an inexpensive resource for GM/Delco OE replacement late starter. Compared to OE C3 starter, it is "new" ... but I know GM's been installing them in OE serial production for at least last 10 years ... seems they may've appeared in mid-production C4. Two known examples of reliability: my 97 Sonoma w/ what's right at 9.1:1CR vortec 4.3 ... nearly 200K miles and only one minor bendix issue. My bud's 96 Z71 w/ what's right at 9.1:1CR vortec 5.7 ... also nearly 200K miles but never an issue. In addition to the two PU examples ... I know many regional circle trackers running GM/Delco PM starters ... because they don't heat soak & because they're light & because they're reliable ... those motors have high CR & run HOT ... many w/ locked ignition advance. Also, another friend (retired certified pro auto, aviation & marine engine builder ... same retiree I got my flowbench & dist machine from) ... he had recurring heat soak in his 33 hiboy roadster w/ sbc ... he'd tried everything & this gent sure ain't no dummy nor tightwad ... I sent him to local alt/starter shop that sells the GM/Delco PM starters for $80 ... that solved his problem. GM/Delco PM starters are not true "gear reduction" in the mopar sense ... instead they have an internal true "planetary reduction" which is generally very stable & quiet ... not like the stack of gears at drive end we see on typical race car minis. Suggest newer manufacturing techniques permit lower-cost permanent magnet production while GM sought weight reduction. Every now & then something comes along that's a real improvement over tried & true ... and, like the Rochester 4 barrel the Qjet replaced ... GM/Delco's permanent magnet starter w/ planetary is such. If you're pleased w/ the OE C3 starter then there's no sense changing ... but an OE-type late GM/Delco PM should be considered if you find yourself trying to solve a heat soak or reliability or header-fit problem.

 

Original starters work just fine for years, however with adding headers alot of us like the additional room, less heat soak, and the weight loss (7.5 lbs. vs. the original starter weight) not to mention the ease of removing the new mini starters....

 

After about 8 years of DD use, the starter failed on my '89 truck block roller 355 engine in my '72 here....so I swapped out for another staggered bolt starter at Auto Zone.....it had problems engaging.....out it came and I sprung for the mini starter, LT1? style.....bolted it in, and works fine.....

 

Ecklers list a mini starter for the 81 but is the 4 speed the same gearing as the automatic?