Factory original Chrysler ammeter-based Charging System and additional loading. Load placement matters!

[72RoadrunnerGTX]

So once i by pass the bulkhead terminals would i need a bigger amp alternator with the factory A/C,lights ,radio all running at once or would the standard alternator be sufficient.As those options would be on the correct side of the charging system.Also I'm wanting the car to look factory correct could i pass the straight run wires through the bulkhead plug so it looks standard i was thinking drilling the hole larger on the bulk head plug so the wire passes through cleanly ? also do i need a fusable wire going through the bulkhead or better to have a 50amp circuit breaker under the dash would that be okay ? sorry for the million questions

Need? No, not really. The advantage of running a higher than stock capacity alternator with stock loads is the higher output at idle engine speeds. Where the idle performance of stock rated alternators is quite low and not capable of keeping up with multiple stock loads at the same time at idle. Current is then drawn from the battery (discharge), contributing to more unnecessary current stress to the charging system wiring and components.

 

[72RoadrunnerGTX]

Also I'm wanting the car to look factory correct could i pass the straight run wires through the bulkhead plug so it looks standard i was thinking drilling the hole larger on the bulk head plug so the wire passes through cleanly ? also do i need a fusable wire going through the bulkhead or better to have a 50amp circuit breaker under the dash would that be okay ? sorry for the million questions

That’s how we did it back in the day, remove the terminals from the bulkhead, splice (a quality splice) in a section of wire, run a drill bit the size of the wire through the cavities, splice again on the inside. Looks completely stock. Don’t add any more fusible links, no need and never install a fusible link inside the passenger compartment. When they blow, they can generate some smoke, there is the potential of cutting off driver visibility if the vehicle is in motion.

 

[RT SE 440]

Need? No, not really. The advantage of running a higher than stock capacity alternator with stock loads is the higher output at idle engine speeds. Where the idle performance of stock rated alternators is quite low and not capable of keeping up with multiple stock loads at the same time. Current is then drawn from the battery (discharge), contributing to more unnecessary current stress to the charging system wiring and components.

NO Not really stock won't be enough ? i get it's better to take as much load off as possible but how much is okay a/c running no lights ? sorry for asking dumb questions I'm sure you don't have the answer for every question but i thought you may have run tests to see what is sufficient load as i don't have the ability to run these tests as the car isn't running as yet thanks for your replys

 

[Nacho-RT74]

In my own experience if you get an alt able to provide 45/50 amps at iddle you are on the safe side for most of the loads still at iddle. This guarantees very small ammount of discharge stages. When, for example you get the A/C at max speed, car geared and giving brakes at a traffic lights on the night (so, headlights one, which implies also all the parking lights on)… and the stock radio

Thing become harder if rains on that stage, where wipers sucks also a lot.

The A/C compressor and the transmission geared with brakes makes get a slower engine speed too soooo, that’s a forced situation. Sure better get the transmission in N at traffic light. Also depending on convertor stall speed or specs of course

Plus the brakes light itself.

But tipically down the rain at night you get the A/C not at max speed, but maybe low speed, so it helps.

Good Wiper blades also in good conditions, also helps for a better wiper motor performance so less load to move the wipers.

Now, at day, max A/C speed and regular traffic stage, the amm will barely sense any load unbalance so won’t notice a needle flickering… just maybe when turning lights, due the speed the flasher sucking load where the regulator gets a slower response to that load request to compensate from the alt.

Once again, is what I have personally experienced on my car which has been a REALLY DAILY DRIVER IN A TROPICAL COUNTRY. Not a show car or quite often driver… REALLY DAILY DRIVER.

I restored my Charger to REALLY ENJOY IT DAILY. Like living into the 70s

 

[RT SE 440]

I was looking at my loom and really didn't want to modify it but i do understand that taking the load off the red will stop it from melting but without stepping up on my alternator to do the job correctly which I'm not real keen on doing at the moment since i just had my alt rebuilt.So what i was thinking as i had an extra port in the bulkhead plug if i added an extra red wire to share the load from the relay to the amp meter would this stop the melt down or am i wasting my time

 

[Nacho-RT74]

Any load conection share helps as far you make it right. Sure there are better methods than others. But also depends on your goal.

I’m not getting at this moment what you have in mind thought.

Anyway the alt power upgrade is IMHO a MUST thought, even more if you plan on use the car and not being a show car. No matter the kind of wiring upgrade and EVEN ON THE STOCK wiring without upgrade, the alt upgrade is a must. If factory had a better alt output option, maybe 60% of the bulkheads melts could have been saved or maybe get longer to happen. The rest is on owners/mechs faults with incorrect adds on along the years.

 

[RT SE 440]

Any load conection share helps as far you make it right. Sure there are better methods than others. But also depends on your goal.

I’m not getting at this moment what you have in mind thought.

Anyway the alt power upgrade is IMHO a MUST thought, even more if you plan on use the car and not being a show car. No matter the kind of wiring upgrade and EVEN ON THE STOCK wiring without upgrade, the alt upgrade is a must. If factory had a better alt output option, maybe 60% of the bulkheads melts could have been saved or maybe get longer to happen. The rest is on owners/mechs faults with incorrect adds on along the years.

I'm thinking without doing any major modifications would adding another red cable & retaining the original red cable in it's original position. Would this stop the bulkhead plug from melting as that's what seems to melt once the system is overloaded, not that i intend to add any extra loads apart from the factory options

 

[72RoadrunnerGTX]

I'm thinking without doing any major modifications would adding another red cable & retaining the original red cable in it's original position. Would this stop the bulkhead plug from melting as that's what seems to melt once the system is overloaded, not that i intend to add any extra loads apart from the factory options

If not wanting to modify the stock wiring and run something parallel I wouldn’t focus on the ammeter to battery run first, red wire cavity 16. The splice 1 to alternator (black wire) Packard terminal in cavity 18 is subjected to more current under normal circumstances, more so on high optioned cars. Will show more heat damage typically. Consider the C-body recall of the mid-seventies (diagrammed in post #14 of this thread). Basically, a parallel 12ga black wire from the alternator stud following the engine harness, through the firewall (for the recall it was the clutch pedal rod plug) to the fuse box BATT terminal. Could double up on the black wire ammeter stud optionally. Either way there would be no alterations to the stock wiring.

 

[RT SE 440]

If not wanting to modify the stock wiring and run something parallel I wouldn’t focus on the ammeter to battery run first, red wire cavity 16. The splice 1 to alternator (black wire) Packard terminal in cavity 18 is subjected to more current under normal circumstances, more so on high optioned cars. Will show more heat damage typically. Consider the C-body recall of the mid-seventies (diagrammed in post #14 of this thread). Basically, a parallel 12ga black wire from the alternator stud following the engine harness, through the firewall (for the recall it was the clutch pedal rod plug) to the fuse box BATT terminal. Could double up on the black wire ammeter stud optionally. Either way there would be no alterations to the stock wiring.

Yes i was looking at the recall for the c body's and was wondering why they ran a parallel wire for the alternator but then realized they did that because they had bumped up the alternator as well .Mine seems to have heat damage to cavity 16 red wire that's why i was thinking of running a parallel wire through the bulk head plug to relieve the load , as i have a spare cavity. But what your saying the damage is normally on cavity 18 which mine has no damage at all.That's very strange as my car is a high optioned car

 

[72RoadrunnerGTX]

The C-body recall had nothing to do with higher output alternators, factory recognition that the bulkhead terminals in the charge circuit are under current rated for the application and were suffering very high failure rates at the time, especially the alternator feed side. The C-bodies have considerably more factory loads than the other platforms in general. Under normal operating conditions with the alternator keeping up with the loads, the black wire in cavity 18 carries battery charging and all vehicle load current from the alternator while the red wire-cavity 16 should only see battery charging current. Should the alternator fail or not keep up with the loads, load current will be drawn from the battery at which time the red-cavity 16 Packards will be current stressed as well. Mis-placed add-on loads connected at the battery draw their current from alternator though both bulkhead charge circuit Packard terminals, placing both of them at more risk of generating even more heat and voltage drop.

There could be any number of abnormal conditions that would explain your observation of more heat damage on the red -#16 terminal cavity but under normal conditions there is more current on the Black-#18 terminal set while in operation. By-pass both of them.

 

[Axemaster24]

I rewired under the hood of my 65 dodge completely,
Following the information in this thread. I am at a crossroads now with the 12ga fusible link and how to connect it to the 8ga wire. Is it ok use a standard uninsulated seemless butt connector to crimp together or do I need a crimp sleeve? I’m thinking solder would be a no go since it would probably melt if the link were to be tasked to do its job. If I do need a crimp sleeve of sorts where could I get one locally?
I am literally 1 connection away from turning the ignition key and testing for power(or lack there of).

 

[72RoadrunnerGTX]

A good quality uninsulated (or a common standard butt connector-plastic insulator removed) crimped and soldered with heat shrink tubing works and looks the best.

 

[BigFlo]

Agree with the above. Another acceptable method is to strip both ends of the wires, twist them together properly, solder and cover with adhesive lined heat shrink tubing. For under hood applications, adhesive lined heavy duty heat shrink tubing is best. The glue seals out oxygen which can corrode the connection over time.

 

[Axemaster24]

Thanks! I did the butt connector, solder, heat shrink
Method. I was just unsure if a standard uninsulated connector would have been ok.

Now to cross my fingers and see if I get spark where I need it and no spark where I don’t!