Date code confirmation

[Bill_qaz]

Am I reading this correctly 9th month 1962 ?

20260117_132648.jpg (995.1 KiB) Viewed 33297 times

[svenedin]

Yes I think that's correct. Mine says 12 68, car built March 1969 so that fits. For those not familiar this is a Lucas DR3A wiper motor.

I notice the plated finish has gone on that top plate. It did on mine too and it rusted so I painted it silver. Looks OK I think.

Stephen

IMG_1524.jpeg (2.28 MiB) Viewed 33275 times

[Bill_qaz]

Yes I think that's correct. Mine says 12 68, car built March 1969 so that fits. For those not familiar this is a Lucas DR3A wiper motor.

Stephen

Thanks Stephen I've read online if 4 digit its week year and three digit is month year but was looking for confirmation from the wise.
Too much Ai bs online

I believe build date of car to be October 1962 so it would tally if OE

Just trying to confirm is it week 9 or month 9??

[geoberni]

From what I've worked out, it's both.....
Earlier Lucas items were month/year, but later they changed to Week/Year

I've got several bits from early -mid 60s, Dynamo, Starter, RB106, relays etc and they are all single digit plus year. I guess I just haven't got anything made in Nov/Dec.
But I've another RB106 that is 38/80 and a Coil that's 24/70.

This discussion on a Triumph Forum seems to bear out my thoughts, with some accuracy. I've added as a screen shot, should a link stop working in months/years to come.

Lucas dates.JPG (205.95 KiB) Viewed 33241 times

[Bill_qaz]

From what I've worked out, it's both.....
Earlier Lucas items were month/year, but later they changed to Week/Year

I've got several bits from early -mid 60s, Dynamo, Starter, RB106, relays etc and they are all single digit plus year. I guess I just haven't got anything made in Nov/Dec.
But I've another RB106 that is 38/80 and a Coil that's 24/70.

This discussion on a Triumph Forum seems to bear out my thoughts, with some accuracy. I've added as a screen shot, should a link stop working in months/years to come.
Lucas dates.JPG

So do you agree Berni, that my motor pictured is September 1962?

[geoberni]

From what I've worked out, it's both.....
Earlier Lucas items were month/year, but later they changed to Week/Year

I've got several bits from early -mid 60s, Dynamo, Starter, RB106, relays etc and they are all single digit plus year. I guess I just haven't got anything made in Nov/Dec.
But I've another RB106 that is 38/80 and a Coil that's 24/70.

This discussion on a Triumph Forum seems to bear out my thoughts, with some accuracy. I've added as a screen shot, should a link stop working in months/years to come.
Lucas dates.JPG

So do you agree Berni, that my motor pictured is September 1962?

I concur.

[svenedin]

Interesting Berni,

I knew there was a move to week/year rather than month/year but I didn't know it was around 1969. I will have a look at my horde of stuff in the garage tomorrow and investigate further. I think I do have some Lucas items later than 1969/1970. It is much easier for me to look through things at the moment as there is no car in the garage at the moment.

Stephen

[ndevans]

My wiper motor is stamped 11/68, which I've always assumed meant Nov 68. The car was first registered in Jan 1969, so Nov 68 seems reasonable to me.
(I was first registered 2 months later.....)

[Bill_qaz]

My wiper motor is stamped 11/68, which I've always assumed meant Nov 68. The car was first registered in Jan 1969, so Nov 68 seems reasonable to me.
(I was first registered 2 months later.....)

so yours is later than mine and 4 digit date code, so is yours week and year or still month and year ?
I'm going to try and find it on my regulator next, which despite alternator conversion is still there.

[svenedin]

My wiper motor is stamped 11/68, which I've always assumed meant Nov 68. The car was first registered in Jan 1969, so Nov 68 seems reasonable to me.
(I was first registered 2 months later.....)

so yours is later than mine and 4 digit date code, so is yours week and year or still month and year ?
I'm going to try and find it on my regulator next, which despite alternator conversion is still there.

I happen to have a regulator languishing on the sideboard. This one is marked 51 70 so we know it must be week 51

As Berni said, there seems to have been a change from month/year to week/year in around 1969/1970.

I will look at other Lucas parts which are in my garage tomorrow (dynamos, starter motors, more regulators)

Stephen

IMG_2917.jpeg (1.77 MiB) Viewed 33016 times

[svenedin]

As promised I have had a look at various Lucas parts in my garage.

Berni's information from the Triumph forum appears to be correct: in 1969 the date code format changed from month/year to week/year.

We can tell that a part is labelled in week/year, even with a low number because they started using two digits e.g. 03 for week 3.


Month/year type, pre-1969. When the number is below 10 there is no preceding 0


6 61 JUNE 1961

IMG_2923.jpeg (2.58 MiB) Viewed 32544 times

[svenedin]

Week/Year from 1969 onwards. Low numbers below 10 have a preceding 0

IMG_2920.jpeg (2.07 MiB) Viewed 32543 times

IMG_2918.jpeg (2.05 MiB) Viewed 32543 times

IMG_2922.jpeg (2.83 MiB) Viewed 32543 times

[Bill_qaz]

Thanks Berni and Stephen for confirming date code system.
My 9 62 is September 1962.
,

[svenedin]

But then, when all seems to make sense, here is an odd one out. This one has no date code at all. It appears to be an M35G type (removable brush access band) but it does not say M35G on it. I don't know what to make of this one. Maybe Lucas remanufactured? 25079 is a Lucas model number.

IMG_2924.jpeg (2.71 MiB) Viewed 32523 times

[Bill_qaz]

It could be a fake copy, no Y in a circle symbol?
When I worked for BL we once found batches of point on sale with Lucas stamped into them. Except at that time Lucas did not do that, the copy producers thought it would be more believeable with a logo

[svenedin]

It could be a fake copy,
When I worked for BL we once found batches of point on sale with Lucas stamped into them. Except at that time Lucas did not do that, the copy producers thought it would be more believeable with a logo

Yes the S is perhaps not quite right.......It does have an odd "N" stamped elsewhere. No Y in a circle symbol.....

Maybe you're right Bill and it's an old fake or perhaps it was made by Lucas but for a specific customer and so differs from the usual units.

I collect old clocks and watches. Everything was faked and a long time ago too, not just the very high end. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries Swiss manufacturers made movements to look as if they were English because at that time the most prestigious watches were English.

Stephen

IMG_2926.jpeg (1.87 MiB) Viewed 32464 times

[Bill_qaz]

Isn't the N for negative earth and the arrow direction of rotation?

Or is it irrelevant on starter.

[svenedin]

Yes the arrow is the direction of rotation but the polarity is irrelevant because there are no permanent magnets in a starter motor. It will turn the same way regardless of polarity.

Stephen

[Bill_qaz]

Yes just realised as i posted its polarity is unaffected, so whats the significance of the N
You have set a mystery to research now Stephen

[Bill_qaz]

Yes the arrow is the direction of rotation but the polarity is irrelevant because there are no permanent magnets in a starter motor. It will turn the same way regardless of polarity.

Stephen

Source: The MGA With An Attitude https://share.google/aqDq16nJH85jj0Rn8

You may find this useful