When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I recently removed the transmission for a rebuild. I also decided to replace the starter because it appeared to be the original and the car has 92K on it. When I got it back together I noticed that the new starter bendix only moves the starter gear over enough to cover half the flywheel teeth. I removed the flywheel to inspect the rear oil seal but I put it back on with the side that says "engine side" facing the engine so I know I have it on correct.
I got another starter from same place and compared it to the one I purchased and it apprears to be identical.
Is the starter gear only suppose to contact half the teeth on the flywheel?
I recently removed the transmission for a rebuild. I also decided to replace the starter because it appeared to be the original and the car has 92K on it. When I got it back together I noticed that the new starter bendix only moves the starter gear over enough to cover half the flywheel teeth. I removed the flywheel to inspect the rear oil seal but I put it back on with the side that says "engine side" facing the engine so I know I have it on correct.
I got another starter from same place and compared it to the one I purchased and it apprears to be identical.
Is the starter gear only suppose to contact half the teeth on the flywheel?
If not any ideas?
Thanks
looking at the wear patterns on flywheel and starter, which are minimal, that seems to be how it has been running.
I think that is due to the operation I've done since I put it back together. It was not wanting to engage right when I first tried it. While I was working on it I noticed that it only went across half the width of the flywheel teeth.
I think that is due to the operation I've done since I put it back together. It was not wanting to engage right when I first tried it. While I was working on it I noticed that it only went across half the width of the flywheel teeth.
from memory of 35 yrs back, I recall that the bendix engages most of the wheel. will check my 91 fsm shortly to see if this is addressed. have not worked on one of the denzo starters. what yr?
It's a 91. I looked a FSM and didn't find anything that addresses this. But maybe I wasn't looking in the right section.
nothing there. they do use shims to space bendix to wheel teeth, but looks like no adjustment on fore /aft. the marks I see have been a long time in the making, not a few times. agree? so, maybe this is normal. but then why is the flywheel ring so thick if not used? as hard as the teeth are they may not require more engegement.
no slop in the bolt holes, as I recall, and bolts used to be knurled. someone on here will know. sorry, no help.
When I replace the starter on my 91 I f thought I had the same problem. What ended up happening was the wear on the flywheel was letting the teeth from the start go about half way, but the starter sat just a hair too close in. So, when it tried to engage, it would stop on the less worn area.
Basically, It wasn't able to fully extend. Is that actually the max extension for the starter drive? Take it off and see if you can pull it out any further. Flathead screwdriver helps, just don't start jabbing at it. If the starter gear comes out further than this, just put a hair shim in it to drop the starter down.
When I replace the starter on my 91 I f thought I had the same problem. What ended up happening was the wear on the flywheel was letting the teeth from the start go about half way, but the starter sat just a hair too close in. So, when it tried to engage, it would stop on the less worn area.
Basically, It wasn't able to fully extend. Is that actually the max extension for the starter drive? Take it off and see if you can pull it out any further. Flathead screwdriver helps, just don't start jabbing at it. If the starter gear comes out further than this, just put a hair shim in it to drop the starter down.
or, he could drop it one bolt turn or so to see if the sm gear comes further into the wheel, right? does not appear to be the ridge to which you refer, but I understand you.
I would like to know if someone else could actully verify this. Both the starters I looked at, the replacement and then another replacement, are identical. I just thought it unusual that it didn't engage all the way across the ring gear.
I went thru this exact problem, only worse, years ago on my 89.
The flexplate on mine had three areas that were chewed up to the point the starter gear would just catch and engage. I dropped the transmission to change the flexplate, and while checking the gear to flexplate gap, I noticed the same condition you have. There was no way I was going to take the chance of another flexplate getting screwed up because of a starter gear only engaging half way into the teeth of flexplate.
I tried several starters from different sources, all the same.
I drove down to The Last Detail, a Corvette part supplier, and was talking to them. We put the car on the rack and installed a new AC Delco starter #10455709. Full engagement into the flexplate!
Price was a little high, over $200.00, but it was a NEW starter not re-built.
On a most web sites they list this starter for 1992-1996 I"m thinking. But a lot of web sites also list the same number for 1988 thru 1996.
Regardless, this is what is on mine and it works perfect.
I did take a lot of time to shim it properly, as with any starter I install.
I re read the posts. you checked another replacement, not the original starter.
any chance it is still around, if so you can verify the wear/burnish marks on the bendix?
hard to believe that replacement starters are not closely built to original.
can you take a closeup of the flywheel teeth wear pattern. may be the parallax but it does appear that the bendix is 3/4 engaged.
I already checked to see if they still had the core I turned in (old starter) but they had already shipped it out.
I've got to drop off my company truck at the local Chevy dealer to get it serviced tomorrow morning. They are suppose to have a good corvette mechanic. I'll ask him what he thinks.
In 89 or 90 GM went to the Denso instead of the big (huge) Delco starter. The denso is more like a mini and it has a good reputation. More expensive but it fits the same application as the delco on
L98 and into LT yrs.
In 89 or 90 GM went to the Denso instead of the big (huge) Delco starter. The denso is more like a mini and it has a good reputation. More expensive but it fits the same application as the delco on
L98 and into LT yrs.
cshuman, I decided to pull the access cover from the trans in my 91. (its a rainy day, nothing better to do.)
far as I know the starter is original, a denso. did not totally remove the cover -think it is looped about the starter- but got some good looks at the bendix and the ring.
no wear, but a pattern on the teeth, a burnish rather than wear. the shiny part only went across the ring 3/4 or so.
from a functional viewpoint, I can see an advantage in this type of gear meshing where more is not better, since it takes time to engage and disengage. I know what the mechanic said, but....most people never pay close attention to it
joel didn't say if his experience was a denso or the old Delco. the curious question is: what does this starter -yours- fit if not the 91 vette? I checked Corvette Central and they show the denso and the delco, also a lightweght denso for 92-96.
my pics didn't show much, old Mavica too big to get a position, but you can see the teeth are not tapered from bendix wear, after 100K. a view that was too dark showed a "glancing" look, rather than straight on, with the shiny part "less that full across."