Growing up doesn't have to suck
- Thread starter iamdub
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
2019-2023 GM Alternator 13536552 | OEM GM Parts
2019-2023 GM part # 13536552 - Alternator
www.gmpartsoutlet.net
is that the correct one you're using?
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
2019-2023 GM Alternator 13536552 | OEM GM Parts
2019-2023 GM part # 13536552 - Alternator
is that the correct one you're using?
Yes. It appears, per @mikez71's experience to be the same as part #13536552, to give you more search options.
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
I half-assed threw the caliper on 'em at one point but didn't record the measurement since, fortunately, it's the same as what's been used for 25+ years. 5.5" sounds about right.
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
You already know I thought about it. My original alt was still working just fine and there's plenty of room on that side of the engine. I have plate steel, pulleys and hardware. But, no need, time or care for multiple alts. If I add extra pulleys to the front drive, they're gonna be spinning helical rotors inside the intake manifold.
mikez71
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2023
- Posts
- 3,225
- Reaction score
- 3,993
These *should* all be the same..
Part Number: 13534128Supersession(s): 13527173; 13531751; 13536552
ha.. that's funny. until you said 25 years I had forgotten I had an old one off my 96 on a shelf incase I wanted to rebuild it to a higher spec and they had the same 5.5in but the diesel one turned out to be perfect so I never did.
grabbed it and the spacer to test fit on the larger 6in spread corvette mounts and it fits. just ordered the one off summit for 140$. we shall see what I get.
thanks.
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
I knew it was that same pattern cuz the DR44 was a bolt-on upgrade for my '02 S10 (Vortec V6). Those have had the same mount design since at least 1996. Actually, I'm working on seeing if I can make the DR44 work on my buddy's '95 Silverado. Bolting up isn't the question, it's the wiring. That '96 alt might have the 56mm pulley, if you're interested in swapping them.
I'll see what I need for a pulley size. I've got a few laying around too. looks like I'll need a longer belt with my setup but no big deal.
I'm going to try and pulley it where it's happy but not to much extra since it does see a lot of high rpm. I've got an under drive crank pulley on it now and have over driven the alt to get it back up to just a bit faster than stock.
I'm going to try and pulley it where it's happy but not to much extra since it does see a lot of high rpm. I've got an under drive crank pulley on it now and have over driven the alt to get it back up to just a bit faster than stock.
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
I forget yours is a "special case" involving a Corvette.
I wouldn't consider mine to be overdriven. Comparing this alt to the incorrect one I was sent, they're the same, just with different cases for their respective mounting configurations. That wrong alt is the same as what's on the turbo'ed I4 engines in the Cadillac CT4 and CT5. Those turn 6,300+ RPM and the pulley is 54mm. Mine is set to shift at 6,000 but has hit near 6,300 and the pulley I put on is 56mm, so I'd say it's safe.
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
Since installing that smaller alternator pulley that I painted, the center of the idler has been bothering me. So I painted it. It'll match better once it gets some dust on it.
Before:
After:
Before:
After:
Yeah that bothered the sht out of me, thanks for taking care of that. >salute< carry on...
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
Left the house with the DIC displaying "27 MILES TO EMPTY" to go to the nearest source of E85- a RaceTrac 22 miles away. Grabbed $30 worth which was 11.721 gallons at 2.559/gallon. Went for a steady cruise in the opposite direction, away from town, to avoid traffic lights, etc. to let the fuel composition relearning get its stuff together as quickly and accurately as possible. I don't know if that's even necessary with the physical sensor. But, whatever. Made a U-turn and went home, totaling about 36 miles of mostly cruising after the refueling.
I noted an average of 18 MPG at 70 on my test course home:
That's pretty good MPG if there's any decent amount of Ethanol in this load. I pulled into the shop and realized my RH headlight was out. Popped the hood to get a fuel sample and gave the headlight a slap and it lit up. Collected the sample and saw that the headlight didn't come on when I turned the key on. I removed the air filter box to replace the bulb. Just used a stock one from a spare headlight housing. Cleaned the air filter and reassembled it all. Threw the Autel on it to see what the PCM had the alcohol content at then closed up shop.
Alcohol content is showing 62%:
It's been almost three years to the day that I've been running it with this seal. Actually over three years installed. Looks like it's still holding up 100%:
I noted an average of 18 MPG at 70 on my test course home:
That's pretty good MPG if there's any decent amount of Ethanol in this load. I pulled into the shop and realized my RH headlight was out. Popped the hood to get a fuel sample and gave the headlight a slap and it lit up. Collected the sample and saw that the headlight didn't come on when I turned the key on. I removed the air filter box to replace the bulb. Just used a stock one from a spare headlight housing. Cleaned the air filter and reassembled it all. Threw the Autel on it to see what the PCM had the alcohol content at then closed up shop.
Alcohol content is showing 62%:
It's been almost three years to the day that I've been running it with this seal. Actually over three years installed. Looks like it's still holding up 100%:
randeez
Full Access Member
whats up with the traction and abs lights?
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
Failed left rear wheel speed sensor. Well, it's the right rear now cuz I swapped 'em to diagnose. Just not a priority at the moment. Also kinda fun not having the traction nannies disciplining me.
randeez
Full Access Member
safety should be priority no.1
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
Absolutely, and I've been cinching my seatbelt down a little tighter lately. All good!
OP
OP
iamdub
Full Access Member
It takes almost 24 hours to finish separating in the tube. So, I checked it this evening:
The line is fuzzy. But, if it were the meniscus, it'd be just under 65%, like 62% to 63%. The sensor settled at 62% yesterday, so, I think it's doing great! It's only my second time testing it, but it was pretty much the same last time- within 2% of the water test. Due to the variables involved and the fact that it is consistent with reading that 2% differential, I'm gonna say it's pretty damned accurate. It's WAY better than the virtual sensor consistently calculating as much as ~30% low. Yeah, some new and different oxygen sensors might would've helped that. But, I did the physical sensor conversion for much less and I'm convinced my 23K-mile "wrong" O2 sensors are perfectly fine for their regular fueling duties.
Speaking of fueling, I'm gonna call this load E64. I was averaging 18 MPG on my test course yesterday. If E85 is 27% "weaker" than E0, then this E64 should only be 20% weaker than E0. Meaning, I should have a 20% drop in MPG from my norm with all other factors the same. My norm on E10 (I never bother with E0) is 22MPG at 70MPH. Drop that MPG by 20% and I'm at 17.6MPG. Considering that's actually E10 and not E0 I'm comparing to the E64, it's scaled down a tiny hair. So, it all checks out beautifully.
֎֎BONUS ROUND֍֍
If you wanna compare costs: 93 (E10, but actual % unknown) from that same station was $3.65 at the time of fueling. To break even with the reduction in MPG on E64, the price of the E64 would have to be 20% lower. At $2.55, it's 30% lower. More power at a lower cost = win.
The line is fuzzy. But, if it were the meniscus, it'd be just under 65%, like 62% to 63%. The sensor settled at 62% yesterday, so, I think it's doing great! It's only my second time testing it, but it was pretty much the same last time- within 2% of the water test. Due to the variables involved and the fact that it is consistent with reading that 2% differential, I'm gonna say it's pretty damned accurate. It's WAY better than the virtual sensor consistently calculating as much as ~30% low. Yeah, some new and different oxygen sensors might would've helped that. But, I did the physical sensor conversion for much less and I'm convinced my 23K-mile "wrong" O2 sensors are perfectly fine for their regular fueling duties.
Speaking of fueling, I'm gonna call this load E64. I was averaging 18 MPG on my test course yesterday. If E85 is 27% "weaker" than E0, then this E64 should only be 20% weaker than E0. Meaning, I should have a 20% drop in MPG from my norm with all other factors the same. My norm on E10 (I never bother with E0) is 22MPG at 70MPH. Drop that MPG by 20% and I'm at 17.6MPG. Considering that's actually E10 and not E0 I'm comparing to the E64, it's scaled down a tiny hair. So, it all checks out beautifully.
֎֎BONUS ROUND֍֍
If you wanna compare costs: 93 (E10, but actual % unknown) from that same station was $3.65 at the time of fueling. To break even with the reduction in MPG on E64, the price of the E64 would have to be 20% lower. At $2.55, it's 30% lower. More power at a lower cost = win.
