TE Connectivity 1-1355470-5 MQS Housing: Harness Handoff Guide
Summary: A connector record is most useful when it helps the next team ask the right questions. This guide uses the published TE Connectivity 1-1355470-5 catalogue page as a controlled starting point for a wire-harness documentation handoff. It does not approve a terminal, a mating part, a crimp process, a seal, or an application.
Start with the catalogue identity
The live listing identifies 1-1355470-5 as a TE Connectivity housing for male terminals in the MQS family. It also displays wire-to-wire wording, two positions, a 2.54 mm centerline, cable-mount/free-hanging wording, and black colour. These are useful search and review anchors. They are not a released build instruction: a page label does not by itself establish the exact terminal, counterpart, wire, tooling, electrical use, environmental use, or approved assembly.
What a handoff should preserve
Record the complete part number exactly as received, the revision or date of the source record, the product-page URL, and the project reference that triggered the request. Preserve the observed fields separately from assumptions. For example, write “two positions shown on catalogue page” rather than turning that observation into a circuit assignment. This small distinction keeps purchasing, engineering, quality, and production teams aligned when later evidence changes.
Build an evidence packet before selection
Use a short packet instead of a loose collection of screenshots. Include the target page, the relevant drawing or manufacturer document supplied by the project, any connector-system reference, and the application constraints that are actually known. The site also lists the independent TE 1473247-1 connector cover and TE 1-968849-1 terminal records. They can help locate catalogue information, but this article makes no claim that either item mates with, fits, or is approved for 1-1355470-5. Treat each page as an independent record until controlled documents establish a relationship.
Questions that remain open
- Which exact terminal part number and plating are approved for the application?
- What is the approved counterpart, cavity map, and keying requirement?
- Which wire range, crimp tooling, crimp-height target, and inspection method apply?
- Are secondary locks, seals, backshells, covers, or strain-relief items required?
- Which drawings, test requirements, and change controls govern release?
None of these questions should be filled in from a similarly named connector, an image, or a prior build. They need project-controlled evidence.
Use naming carefully across teams
“MQS,” “housing,” “two position,” and “wire-to-wire” are useful retrieval terms, not a substitute for a complete engineering definition. In a BOM or RFQ, pair the manufacturer name and full part number with the document revision, quantity basis, desired delivery evidence, and any confirmed project constraint. Avoid using a family name alone to request substitutions. If a different record is being considered, open a separate review that compares controlled data point by point.
FAQ for the receiving team
Can the product page release the assembly?
No. It supports identification and enquiry. Release needs the project’s approved drawings, terminal and counterpart information, process controls, and any required validation evidence.
Does cable-mount/free-hanging wording define the installation?
No. It is catalogue wording worth recording, but it does not define routing, retention, strain relief, service access, or installation approval for a particular harness.
Can a related catalogue item be ordered as an accessory?
Not from this article. Verify the relationship with the applicable controlled documents and the responsible engineering or quality process.
Close the handoff with an actionable request
Send the evidence packet with a list of unanswered questions, then ask the owner to confirm the exact connector system, approved parts, and release documents. For help locating the published record or preparing a part-number enquiry, contact Lianxinlian Electronics. A clear request is more valuable than an unverified compatibility statement.
Practical intake checklist
Before the request moves forward, check that the packet has a readable manufacturer and part number, a stable product URL, a named document owner, and an explicit list of missing evidence. State whether the request is for identification, quotation, sourcing review, engineering review, or production release; those are different decisions. Keep photographs useful for visual identification, but do not elevate them to dimensional or compatibility proof. If the team has a sample, label its source and condition, then compare it only against the controlled record selected for the project. This intake discipline reduces repeated questions while leaving technical approval with the people and documents that own it.