If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
Tegger wrote: > > Larry W > wrote in > : > > > KC wrote: > >> Was able to replace it. Thanks for the suggestions everyone. > >> > >> I'd like to know the answer to Tegger's question, too. I've heard > >> opinions about side terminals ranging from it was purely a money grab > >> by GM to side mount connections seal the battery-to-cable connection > >> better than top post connections. > > > > With over 30 years in the car repair business, I've probably had less > > than 5 cars that wouldn't start because of a problem with a side > > terminal. > > > > In contrast, conventional top terminals have made me a good chunk of > > money over the years. > > > > Top Side terminals can be a pain to jump but they are much more > > reliable. > > > > Now, why would this be so? What would be the specific technical reason side > terminals would be more reliable than top terminals? > > I'm not being snarky here, I'm genuinely curious. I cannot think of a > reason one would be a better electrical connection than the other. He didn't say one made a better electrical connection. He said one is more reliable. I don't know for sure why but I would agree the observation is correct. Assuming a battery lives long enough eventually the connection will fail on any battery due to corrosion. The side mount probably are better at keeping out the moisture and battery fumes that cause corrosion. -jim > > -- > Tegger ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
jim wrote:
> > Tegger wrote: > >>Larry W > wrote in : >> >> >>>KC wrote: >>> >>>>Was able to replace it. Thanks for the suggestions everyone. >>>> >>>>I'd like to know the answer to Tegger's question, too. I've heard >>>>opinions about side terminals ranging from it was purely a money grab >>>>by GM to side mount connections seal the battery-to-cable connection >>>>better than top post connections. >>> >>>With over 30 years in the car repair business, I've probably had less >>>than 5 cars that wouldn't start because of a problem with a side >>>terminal. >>> >>>In contrast, conventional top terminals have made me a good chunk of >>>money over the years. >>> >>>Top Side terminals can be a pain to jump but they are much more >>>reliable. >>> >> >>Now, why would this be so? What would be the specific technical reason side >>terminals would be more reliable than top terminals? >> >>I'm not being snarky here, I'm genuinely curious. I cannot think of a >>reason one would be a better electrical connection than the other. > > > He didn't say one made a better electrical connection. He said one is more > reliable. I don't know for sure why but I would agree the observation is > correct. Assuming a battery lives long enough eventually the connection will > fail on any battery due to corrosion. The side mount probably are better at > keeping out the moisture and battery fumes that cause corrosion. One would think the side mounts would actually be more likely to leak, being below the level of the acid. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message > One would think the side mounts would actually be more likely to leak, > being below the level of the acid. > > nate IMO, the side terminals are no more likely to leak than the top terminals. BUT GM often combines three cables into that side terminals...And if the terminal corrodes (which they do), one or more of these cables may suffer. Been there, done that. It is not a conjecture...it is a real problem. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
Nate Nagel wrote: > > > > He didn't say one made a better electrical connection. He said one is more > > reliable. I don't know for sure why but I would agree the observation is > > correct. Assuming a battery lives long enough eventually the connection will > > fail on any battery due to corrosion. The side mount probably are better at > > keeping out the moisture and battery fumes that cause corrosion. > > One would think the side mounts would actually be more likely to leak, > being below the level of the acid. Well yes. I suppose if the battery casing starts to leak out its contents your screwed either way. But the issue of maintaining a good connection for the life of the battery is usually about keeping stuff from the environment around the connection from getting in. If a side mount is properly installed it has an air tight seal which is more effective than the top post variety. -jim ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
"Steve Austin" > wrote in message news:4858fbc0$0$4069 > > I usually grease my top posts (when the crap box I'm driving has them) up > with trans gel or spray high tack gasket cement on them. I use Vaseline on mine, and it works well. Doesnt melt and run away as one might expect. I dont find any particular advantage for one type of terminal over the other. Neither lasts forever; either with reasonable maintenance works fine. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
HLS wrote: > > "Steve Austin" > wrote in message news:4858fbc0$0$4069 > > > > I usually grease my top posts (when the crap box I'm driving has them) up > > with trans gel or spray high tack gasket cement on them. > > I use Vaseline on mine, and it works well. Doesnt melt and run away as one > might > expect. > > I dont find any particular advantage for one type of terminal over the > other. Neither > lasts forever; Lasting forever is not the question. I have taken apart side mounted terminals that have been installed for 3-5 years and found the sealed inner metal parts to be still like new. That doesn't happen with top posts. It doesn't matter if the top posts are sealed with a rubber boot or with vaseline or lacquer or whatever - Taking them apart after 3-5 years of service they never look like new. The simple fact that you feel the need to add sealant of some kind is an indication of the problem with top posts. Not that there aren't advantages to top post batteries, but they do on average require more maintenance. -jim either with reasonable maintenance works fine. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
KC wrote:
> Was able to replace it. Thanks for the suggestions everyone. > > I'd like to know the answer to Tegger's question, too. I've heard > opinions about side terminals ranging from it was purely a money grab > by GM to side mount connections seal the battery-to-cable connection > better than top post connections. I've heard that it reduces corrosion, and I believe it. I also like the fact that you can't short the battery out on the hood if it's too tall. That said, jumping cars with sideposts is a PITA on a good day. Some cars it's like they go out of their way to bury the damn things so you can't get a jumper cable in there. Ray |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
"jim" > wrote in message ... > Lasting forever is not the question. I have taken apart side mounted > terminals that have been installed for 3-5 years and found the sealed > inner metal parts to be still like new. That doesn't happen with top > posts. It doesn't matter if the top posts are sealed with a rubber boot or > with vaseline or lacquer or whatever - Taking them apart after 3-5 years > of service they never look like new. The simple fact that you feel the > need to add sealant of some kind is an indication of the problem with top > posts. Not that there aren't advantages to top post batteries, but they do > on average require more maintenance. > > -jim I more or less agree. Side terminals would not be expected to go corrosed in 3-5 years, but as the car ages they sometimes DO become internally corroded,. leading to difficulties. Whether top or side posts, I maintain mine regularly and usually apply Vaseline to help offset corrosion. They require minimal maintainance to keep them working well. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
"Tegger" > wrote in message ... > "HLS" > wrote in news:W8u5k.5666$89.5244 > @nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com: > >> GM side terminals can be a PITA when they get corroded >> >> > > > What's the point of side-mount terminals? I'd bet the decision was a joint one between corrosion-proofing AND shipping. Ever notice at battery stores--not Sears, etc., but battery distributors--how they stack the side-post batteries several deep? Don't think they do so with the top posts. s |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal
sdlomi2 wrote:
> "Tegger" > wrote in message > ... >> "HLS" > wrote in news:W8u5k.5666$89.5244 >> @nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com: >> >>> GM side terminals can be a PITA when they get corroded >>> >>> >> >> What's the point of side-mount terminals? > > I'd bet the decision was a joint one between corrosion-proofing AND > shipping. Ever notice at battery stores--not Sears, etc., but battery > distributors--how they stack the side-post batteries several deep? Don't > think they do so with the top posts. s > > I asked an Exide rep about it once. he told me it was because of a few things. One was hood clearance related, another was that it reduces the stress on the cable and terminal and the last was that it was safety related (the side terminals are harder to short out with metal items). -- Steve W. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why you should remove the negative battery terminal before doing ANYTHING!!!! | Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B | Technology | 57 | November 19th 07 04:05 PM |
Battery terminal short | Paul | Technology | 6 | July 10th 06 05:39 PM |
Battery terminal bolt replacement | [email protected] | Chrysler | 5 | June 15th 06 11:43 PM |
How to change the battery terminal | Jonelle H via CarKB.com | Ford Explorer | 1 | September 5th 05 01:13 PM |
Water on positive battery terminal? | Leon van Dommelen | Mazda | 13 | August 2nd 05 05:10 PM |