Dynamo on a serie 2 -69????

[Pex]

Finally got my cat delivered today and have it standing in my garage
Noticed one thing which I didn't thought about when I inspected it, it has a dynamo and not an alternator which surprised me since its a -69.
I have plans to do some upgrades on my Pexmobile but switching to a alternator wasn't one of them.
Can someone enlighten me if this is original or some kind of bad replacement...

[Mark Gordon]

Definitely not original. I can't think of a reason as to why anyone would replace an alternator with a dynamo unless they enjoyed poor charging issues. Many 3.8 owners, whose cars came with dynamos, have opted to upgrade to alternators. Those who have made the upgrade but prefer the original look of they dynamo have installed a modern unit (can't remember the manufacturer, others will chime in) that has an alternator housed in what looks just like a dynamo. Perhaps that is what your car has? All 4.2's and Series III's had alternators.

[Pex]

Looks like a dynamo to me, but I could be wrong...
The car is sold new in Belgium and have had one owner until the car dealer bought it and they haven't changed it, maybe the former owner changed engine or something.

[cactusman]

It is a dynamo. Unless it is a dynalite type alternator masquerading as a dynamo.. if it really is a C40 or similar dynamo somewhere will be an RB340 regulator box. However definitely not standard fitting by 1969...a mystery

[christopher storey]

The main casing is unquestionably that of a dynamo. However, the wiring looks more like that of an alternator ( a picture of the rear of it would help ) , the front looks to have a fan arrangement , and the belt and pulley looks more like an alternator belt than that of a dynamo, which usually has a thicker belt . Also, as others have stated, a dynamo would require an RB340 type control box, about 9cms long, 4 cms wide and 6 cms high , mounted somewhere near the battery. A further pointer would be that if the car has the standard S2 voltmeter which works, then this is most likely to be a "dynator"

[Pex]

It seems to me that there is a voltage regulator and that is really a dynamo. Why this is fitted on my -69 I can't say. Even if the engine was swapped they should have kept the alternator.

I haven't found the engine number above the oil filter or anywhere else, only number I've found is on the engine part (near oil stick) where engine meets the gearbox... "7147567 S" which isn't a recognizable engine number for an E-type so something have probably been changed.

[mgcjag]

Hi Peter 7Lxxxx is probably an xj6 engine.. Steve

[Pex]

Yes I suspected that, The former owner probably replaced it sometime since after all it's a 50 year old car...

[ralphr1780]

Odd that one would replace alternator with dynamo, usually the other way around.
This strap for the battery is certainly risky, maybe there because of the fitted battery dimensions, and should be replaced with a stronger fixing.
Is that the chassis nr which is on the left side of the picture frame just ahead of the dynamo?

[Pex]

Yes it is the chassinummer to the left... and there are some things that need to be fixed
I agree, I can’t understand how or why there is a dynamo on a -69.
If the car was damaged they still should have used the original parts and cable loom, the installation with voltage regulator looks original to me. I see that you are from Belgium, Maybe you can interpret the Belgian registration paper, as I understand it it says first registration 1969.

[ralphr1780]

Peter, all the cars i have seen, and of course the experts please correct me if wrong, have the chassis nr stamped on the right side of the picture frame.
Belgian registration would have been made based on import documentation, if it said 1969 then so be it. They have no expertise to determine right from wrong for an oldtimer and simply copy what was attested by the previous official party.

[ralphr1780]

Peter, your story needs closer concern. A Belgian registration document (pink colour) would show the date of first registration = the date at which the vehicle was first put on the road anywhere in the world, and that could be based on the simple import documents of the vehicle. There should be also another date of first registration in Belgium and that would correspond to the date at which the car received Belgian license plate and allowed officially on Begian roads. Finally, there would be a 3rd registration date which would correspond to the one of the last ownership.
If you wish that I have a closer look at your papers, drop me a pm.
What bothers me most is that the chassis nr is on the left side of the picture frame.
I do not want to worry you much, but you would better dig the matter further before you start the registration process in Sweden.

[Pex]

Thank you... I send you an PM with my email adress which you can use to contact me, I've had the original Belgien registration papers as an PDF file.

[Pex]

I have carefully examined the frame and I think I have an explanation why the chassis number is to the left and figures is read from the "front". The frame is mounted 180 degrees wrong, probably during the renovation.
It will fit in both directions and if it is turned, the figures will be read from the correct direction on the right. I can clearly see that some of the now not used holes on the frame has been used earlier by brackets when the frame was mounted correctly. I think this solves this mystery. Still doesn't explain the dynamo...
Seems like I have some work to do ahead.

[ralphr1780]

Indeed the picture frame can be mounted the other way around, and this could explain your case. The bonnet damper bracket would then mask one or two of the chassis nr.
The Belgian title you have shows a first date of registration as 27/10/1969, but this does not mean that this is the date it was first brought onto Belgium. To check the real story you need to apply for a JDHT certificate.
The last Belgian license plate under which it was last registered on 05/12/2011 (1OARxxx) has been radiated on 30/03/2016.

[Pex]

Thank you for looked in to this, I’ve applied for a JDHT certificate which will hopefully clear some of the questions.
Still I don’t understand how first registration date could be altered, in Sweden the registration is accurate regarding first registration. I mean if the car for some reason was brought in to Belgium later then the given date on the registration paper, why would they back date it? Or did I missunderstand you? I would be something else if the car was From -65 and was imported to Belgium in 69, then the first registration would reflect the import date, at least in Sweden.
// Peter

[ralphr1780]

Hi Peter,
Good that you have requested the JDHT certificate.
It may still be a bit confusing, so will try to clarify what you would see on a Belgian title:

Date of first registration = the first date at which the car was put on the road. If the car is sold in Belgium as new, then it would reflect the date at which it was first put on the road in Belgium. It the car was imported into Belgium as second hand from anywhere in the world, this info would be based on the latest title or certificate attesting the first date it was put on the road in its previous life.
In other words, when you have a date of first registration reading 27/10/1069 that does not automatically imply that this is the date it was first registered in Belgium. It could indeed well be the date at which it was first registered in Belgium, but it could also be the date it was first put on the road somewhere else in the world.

Date of last title (5/12/2011) = the date at which it was last registered in Belgium. This could simply be the first date at which it was ever put on the road in Belgium, or else the date at which it has changed ownership in Belgium.
If the car has had one owner from new, the date of first registration and the date of the title would simply match.

By checking on the DIV website (=department of vehicles registration), you can learn whether the license plate is still in use or not, and determine how long has the car been kept away from the roads = the license plate radiation date (=30/03/2016).

Hope to have been of service.

[Pex]

Finally got the certificate from the Jaguar Heritage Trust and it does match...
Delivered to Belgium Motor Company 19 Aug 1969, feels good to know that it wasn't a US car that had been rebuild...
// Peter

[ralphr1780]

Phew... congrats Peter that this aspect is now clear.