A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Unable to Tighten GM Side Mount Battery Terminal



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 18th 08, 01:56 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 190
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 01:58 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Nate Nagel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,686
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 02:05 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
HLS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,418
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 12:55 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 546
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 01:44 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
HLS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,418
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 03:31 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 546
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 04:29 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 276
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 06:11 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
HLS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,418
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 06:25 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
sdlomi2[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default 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  
Old June 18th 08, 07:32 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
Steve W.[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:05 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.