choreo, how long ago did you buy the billet tech?... I'm just wondering if it has been awhile and maybe they have made some advances since then that we are not aware of?... mine is pretty new but like I said I have had zero issues with it, no charge faults/revving to 2k/vibration/etc... if it matters at all my car is an 02z

 

I agree with you on many points on this topic. I also very much agree that for a $500 alternator, we should not have to beta test and figure out fixes for the weird quirks of the C5. BT should have further tested and perfected the unit before coming to market with it. This would be in a perfect world...

However, the fact that C5s are 10-15 years old, and the fact that not all C5s have the issue, I would imagine that BT probably didn't have multiple cars available for development and bug fixes...hence why they work with customers on a case by case basis to solve any issues.

In reality, the problem, is the quirky engineering and electronics of the C5... The technology was there, the engineering and quality were not.... That is why there is no less then 2 dozen "quirks" that most C5s exhibit both mechanically and electronically.

C6s do not have these issues with these BT alternators.


So for those of us with a lot of electric accessories and we can not live with the pitifully weak charging system and Valeo alternators, we have no other options other then to develop our on cars and make them better.



PS
My car is auto, I don't have the clutch on the alternator and I do not have any kind of vibrations.

 

Choreo, its not the alternator.. its the PCM.... the static algorithms that monitor the charging system would require a specific mapping of a specific alternator. Again as you know... Ive always tried to help here.. but as you know I've been beaten up way to many times for the amount of money I get paid to be here.,. and with these muggings come a level of disrespect that makes me old and grouchy... being sick has made me realize that, I don't owe anyone here a thing... my knowledge of this car is limited to certain areas... but in those areas, I am an expert.
BTW I was surprised to come back to this thread, and not come away without a black eye...
there is not way that you can make an alternator to "trick" the PCM, and still maintain the active fault system that monitors your charging system.

That's where you are so wrong, we made a car that was " too smart " .... and all the pseudo engineers have been trying for 15 years to be a hero on this forum with fixes... and their own brand of shade tree mechanics... If we made a dumb car, then all the dummies here would be happy.....but then we don't have any of them here.

 

BTW here is what the jumper plug looks like. Just run a 12v switched source to this wire and the alternator will self excite.



Billettech


Full electric load... (3 fans, big fuel pump, 2 amplifiers, fully heat soaked)



The same load/temp with the Valeo alternator was 12.8v at best, usually more like 12.3v. But hey, the Vette PCM and its vast technology knew what it was doing....

 

ET, everyone here, that has been here, knows you know what you're talking about on the C5.

I will reiterate that the DC Power unit works flawlessly with the C5 while still retaining the function of "charge system fault". I have a Powergate which has to actually excite my DC alt. and right on que I get the fault message which goes away as soon as the Powergate kicks in.

 

If you are tricking the PCM with a work around that will allow a max load of 175 amps, on a system design to see 110 amps or in later PCM with 145 amps. if you think a trick work around will protect your electronics if you get a ground fault or a back surge, the work around will not detect that.. OK IM doing what I use to do... try to appeal to logic..
sorry.. I'm out of here.. good luck with the work arounds, and your high output alternators.. enjoy that heavy sound.... ill never get use to it..

I do have to thank everyone for not taking cheap shots... Ive had enough of them over 15 years here. And I never got use to it...
Bill aka ET

 

I agree, the car had technological ideas that were ahead of its time, it was/is very complex with MULTIPLE electronic systems in place, unfortunately, the engineering, materials and production are sub par and do not match the ideals of the design, hence dozens of electronically related issues that arose with the C5 even when new...Let alone after a few years of use.

I'm not familiar with yourself or your postings, its apparent from other members you have first hand knowledge of C5 production or design, therefore I respect you for that.

I am one of the dummies that can not live with the short comings of the C5 once upgrades have been made to the car and the oem systems can not cope, so I diddle and fix stuff in my garage with my hammer and duct tape.

 

AS I've said hundreds of times here.. the c5 was Not designed to be a work platform for high end stereo systems.. the car was designed in a manner that reflected and maintained the American icon heritage... most of the money was allocated for the drive train, not the seats, not the radio, The plastic in the car was an absolute necessity.. the prime directive from Dave Hill was to make it light...any revision after the initial design has to be either a safety issue, or a revision to take weight off.. in an effort to beat the gas guzzler tax. Not only did we deliver a world class car, we did it for almost 40,000 less than its competition which came off the line in Stuttgart Germany.. we delivered it on time and within budget. if all those short comings were addressed, the car would weigh 1000 lbs more... and be so expensive most here would not be able to afford it.. the C5 was built with a cost to manufacture right around 42K. people bitching about tbis car don't realize, the thought process started in 1993, but actual hard design started in 1995...in two years we design 6,000 parts that for the most part fit together, and manufactured by a dozen 1st and 2nd tier manufacturers from all over the world, all coming together in BG, and we rolled almost 1/4 million off the line, with the first certified 200,000 mile bench marked motor design (LS1 ) in the world. With a frame that was almost 4 times stronger than its predecessor.
Poor engineering ? Hardly... tight budgets and time restraints ? absolutely...

 

WOW...Very interesting reply. Its cool to hear some real intel from the designer standpoint.

And you are correct, to have made the car with more amenities would have made it more heavy and more expensive for sure.... AKA the C7... However, the ground systems, components and reliability is just terrible....Overly complicated in design, yet with components that I feel were not up to the task... These cars are electrical/ground nightmares and I feel one of the main reasons for the lack of reliability.

You can search this forum back to the early years and read about the problems owners were having with the C5 back when the car was new and its astonishing. I still feel that the ideas were great, but the follow through was not on a lot of systems on the car....heck just look at the column lock issue...LOL

 

Ok ET, we'll just keep tweaking until we get these C5's where they need to be.

Hey, you didn't happen to be an engineer on the design team for the '83 also were you???

 

Is this a test? Myself and all of the 83 design engineers took a year off in the South of France eating cracked crab, and
drinking Dom. Forget what you have read... I just told you the real story......

 

Are you still with GM?

I recently made the pilgrimage to BG and took the tour of the vette plant and was amazed by the assembly, quality and overall design of the C7... I almost caught the bug...almost.

 

It has been about 3 years and BT was very good about issuing a full refund.

Mine is a 2001 Coupe Auto. As I understand the early C5 Autos had solid alternator pulleys (as did the manuals) on the stock alternators, but due to repeated customer complaints about the drive belt causing vibration when putting the car into gear, GM decided to swap out the solid pulleys for the decoupler pulleys (i.e. pulley with a sort of clutch mechanism) on all automatics after a short period of time. By the time I bought my 2001 auto, all autos had decouplers and the vibration problem was solved.

When I installed the BT, it felt like the car was falling apart when I put it in gear (from Park) most of the time - there is no way that could be easy on the belt system and the tensioner was going crazy trying to compensate.

When I bought the BT, I was not really too concerned about the additional power output (although that would have been a plus), I was mainly looking for a high quality "reliable" alternator for "my" car and made the incorrect assumption that it would naturally be "compatible" as the C5 had been out for years with plenty of time to test them. I did not see any complaints with BT in the C5 in my research, and even called them in advance prior to placing the order to confirm that they had tested it in C5 Autos. Following my nightmare, I was never able to locate another C5 Auto owner that could confirm that the were able to get it to work.

I finally resorted to installing three different O'Reilly's stock replacements of which only one proved to be compatible, but the case cracked 6 months afterward. The other two were causing the DiC to light up like a Christmas Tree upon installation. In desperation (since this is my DD) I did a Hail Mary and ordered a Tough-One from Auto-Zone (cheapest of the bunch) - it fired right up and used it every day for 3 years without ANY issues (yet). I kept my stock Valeo with the burned out decoupler, but after several phone calls to various alternator "experts" none of them were very convincing to me that they really would be reliable in rebuilding my unit and ALL of them insisted on rebuilding with a solid pulley.

My current alternator - not nearly as "pretty" as the BT, but it not only works, but I have had consistent dash voltage readings above 14V for 3 years now and I did not even get that consistency out of the 2 stock Valeos I had!

 

Choreo, a Decoupler and be added to any C5 alternator, or removed.

 

I have been on the forum for far fewer years and less posting than ajrothm...
I too, had seen some of your post in the past and searched for some threads that I knew you had addressed specifically...
I however have NOT seen a better, more logical, informative, honest, non confrontational, to the point post from you.
THIS post is an AH HA moment for me... I will no doubt temper most of my thoughts about the issues inherent in the C5, with a clearer understanding of the dynamics that were involved in it's evolution.
Most of us aren't engineers, or designers. We haven't been involved with the enormous task of building an American Icon. Well, at least I haven't...
SO, to have someone layout the big picture is VERY helpful for someone like myself to begin to understand the How's, Why's, and What's... that I tend to ask about the C5.
Even though you may have had to say it hundreds of times... thanks for taking the time to say it ONE more time in a palatable, simple to digest way.

 

To Bill and others,
So, what alternatives do I have to fix my voltage problems with a high end stereo system? No, taking the stereo out is not an option, lol. I've already done the "big 3" with 0-gauge wire and also use 0-gauge wire to the three amplifiers. I also have a 15 Farad capacitor. I'm willing to chuck out the $600 for a BT hi amp output but only if it works like a stock would.
Thanks for your time.

 

I went on line earlier today to see a couple dozen places that specifically state that they can put a 175 or 250 amp in a C5 corvette and guarantee it... but I can tell you this, if the pcm see a duty cycle above the parameters set in the PCM, it will fault. If these guys are somehow tricking the PCM, then your whole electrical system is at risk, because any poor ground, or back surge will cost you not only a lot of money but a lot of heartache.

the alternatives are out there, just go and buy one...everyone on this forum knows how to do a search...this issue has been around since people opened this can of worms... 12 years ago...

 

So your saying, in-other-words, don't upgrade the alternator with any aftermarket cause it will f*&^ up my electrical system? To me, that's not worh the risk

 

there a dozens of shops who offer these upgraded alternators...they guarantee them.,.. Ive been retired from GM since I came here 15 years ago... if we can put a man on the moon we should be able to put a HO alternator in a C5..... after all most of the engineers at GM are hacks... just read over the thousands of posts and threads in this forum over the last 15 years, and you will be in good company with this opinion.

 

As stated. I was not in need of an argument. Didn't need the "been there done that or the here we go again comments".
I am very greatful for all the information I get from this forum. That is why I decided to become an annual member instead of a lifetime member. So o can contribute yearly and not just once. I don't get paid to be here. But people like myself asking these dumb questions keep this forum alive.
No harm was aimed at anyone. I do want to thank those who posted pictures of the product. As well as solutions.
Solutions are needed, and who cares about the moon. Jk.
I'm still waiting for my MGW shifter.
Might help with what I'm looking for might not. But I will share as many times as it takes to let others know what the product presents. Good or bad.