"Enhanced" flooded starting batteries for stop start auto

[landyacht318]

Many modern Autos intentionally keep the battery discharged to the point that when the driver lets off the gas, or hits the brakes, the battery can then accept higher amps when the voltage regulator commands 14.5+ volts. This acts as a poor regenerative braking MPG enhancer and a battery that basically is Never fully charged

This results in the continuous partial state of charge cycling of starter batteries, and short lifespans and not long after, whining customers demanding new batteries under warranty which then eats into profits.

Looks like the marketing departments saw something to peck at and perhaps there is some engineering following suit to keep the beancounters from screaming too loud.

Looks like the carbon additive to the plate paste in some modern deep cycle batteries is working its way into the Automotive starting battery world.

For those who do not want to click the below links:

Increased dynamic charge current acceptance over standard wet-flooded batteries (+170%), due to improved design including special Carbon additives and high charge acceptance envelope type separators
Increased cyclic durability over standard wet-flooded batteries (+100%)
Sealed tip/tilt double lid with integrated flame arrestor

Exide invented the first EFB battery in 2008, helping European car manufacturers to reduce fuel consumption and emissions for small to mid-sized cars. Our technology is now considered the most advanced in the industry. The latest-generation EFB battery offers significantly improved charge acceptance and cycle life, a result of key breakthroughs in lead alloys and unique carbon additives that came from our R&D efforts. Exide’s Start-Stop EFB batteries enable Start-Stop, regenerative braking and other powerful fuel-saving features.

https://www.yuasa.co.uk/info/technical/agm-efb-explained/#efb

http://www2.exide.com/gb/en/product-solutions/transportation/product/exide-start-stop-efb.aspx

If this leads to batteries that are more resistant to hardened capacity destroying sulfation from chronic undercharging, the bane of all lead acid batteries, well mo bettah for us intetionally deep cycling the lead acid beasts and have systems designed for charging this medium.

Argue away.......

[free_radical]

Fwiw

https://youtu.be/L7524u5w4ZE

[MEXICOWANDERER]

You can do things the American Way. Don't buy something absurd. If it's a politician **** can it the next election. Battery life is not a stable commodity. Hot climates like southern Florida eat batteries. So do cars that take 8 seconds of cranking rather than three and then run to the store 5 minutes, hairdresser 2 minutes, gossip eight minutes, the mall six minutes then back home. AGM is still a very minor player in the engine starting battery world.

Back in the day an ambulance company owner asked me about the short life of his E350 batteries. I reduced acid density from 1.285 to 1.265 for his replacements (tropical blend) -- ambulances are left running at scene. I lost track because his purchases were reduced from around 2 years to four years plus. I have no idea how much plus. Summers there were commonly 110F.

What I do know is when my radiator fan quit waiting in line at the border and I had to use dozens of restarts, my fuel economy was a catastrophe. I wonder what would happen if I demanded a White Paper with proven statistics? My BS sniffer is pretty sophisticated and I smell long-haired and bearded collusion between OEM and Kumbayah in this..

Long term infrastructure public utilities applications take decades to run their course. From zoning to funding to environmental impact reports. Where is the evidence trail of this in California? There isn't any. You folks are being sold a load of krap. Hundreds of Gigawatts of new energy sources and PG&E is being broken up.

[road-runner]

I would stand up and agree that the auto makers are doing undesirable things to eek out the minor MPG gains. The second generation Honda Fit used a new nonstandard tire size. When ours suffered an unrepairable tire puncture at the age of 2 weeks, the only tire source was the dealer, special order of course. When replacement time came I switched to a standard tire size which I assume is costing a tenth or two in reduced MPG. We've seen the change from real spare tires to the "silly spares", and now some new cars don't ship with any spare at all. The Fit also has a ridiculously small battery that looks like a motorcycle battery to me. Then I go and erase all of the weight savings by carrying 30 or 40 pounds of tools. I often stop the engine when waiting for a train, and occasionally at a red light that I know has a really long cycle time. Yet intuitively, the automatic stop-start seems like a dumb idea to me that will lead to accelerated failure of some things, the battery being one of them. Sometimes I get surprised that my intuition is wrong, and I suspect the elder who came up with the 5 minute charge replacement was going on intuition. Over the years, all but one of my cars has needed a new battery every 4 or 5 years, approximately. I just replaced the battery in the exception vehicle after 17 years. Makes me think there's a way to make them last longer if the manufacturers really wanted to.

[landyacht318]

I've learned a lot of things on this forum over the last 11 years, and I also unlearned a lot of things I misunderstood, or incorrect things I was told by people I thought knew more than me.

I was once told by an elder, who I thought knew their stuff, that it took no less than 5 minutes for the alternator to replace that which was required to start the engine, I believed it. Seemed perfectly reasonable and I had no way to disprove it.

When I had the tools and ability to easily check this figure myself, with a chock full healthy AGM that hits the 0.0x amp wall at absorption voltage when fully charged, i did so, and it took 45 seconds or less for the amps to taper back to 0.0x at 14.7v.

So for years and years, I believed that which was untrue, untested, and even repeated it myself to others who likely thought I knew my Stuff.

But reality, and employing measurement tools far more than accurate enough for this test, proved, that at least my manually controlled alternator, can return to my battery, what My starter used to start my engine, and just how long it took, and that that 5 minute figure was off by more tha a factor of 5. Data, reality. Period.

Now not every vehicle seeks 14.7v right after starting the engine, nor does every vehicle have 108 amps available to reach that 14.7, nor cabling which can pass that much current, or a battery which can accept that much current.

But I can say without doubt, that my starter motor uses such a tiny portion of battery capacity to start my easy to start engine in a mild climate, that my quite capable and well above average charging system can replace it quickly. At least when the battery was newer and healthier.

Currently, it takes much longer for amps to taper at absorption voltage, no matter what charging source I use on this well aged and used battery. I've not bothered watching my shunted ammeter lately with the engine running, nor timed it to see just how long it now takes for amps to retaper to what the battery was accepting before the engine start. No need, though curiosity is rising again in response to being called out on it by an apparennt cloud yeller.

I pretty much never drive for less than 3 minutes when I start the engine, so returning what I used to start the egine is never a concern as I know 3 minutes is at least 2 minutes longer than is required. So I don't bust out the timer and watch the shunted ammmeter each and every engine start anymore. There is No point.

I Do watch how low the voltage falls during engine cranking viewing it as a personal load test for comparison, how high the dashboard hall effect ammeter goes once started, and how quickly it tapers after starting the engine, mostly to guestimate the state of charge, as I can dial in any dang voltage I dang well choose, and how many amps are flowing into a battery at absorption voltage is extremely revealing not only to battery state of charge but to state of health as well. Especially once one is familiar with one specific battery, and also has a recently reset battery monitor saying how many amp hours from full it is. how fast amps into my taper at absorption voltage is incredibly enlightening, and I do it every time i drive, as i have more than accurate enough gauges right there.


What was once a concern of mine, was being able to insure that the well depleted battery was charging as fast as it possibly could every time the engine was running, and NOW, as long as I am turning 2000 rpm, I can insure that, and the tools which allow me to see that, and the wiring and manual voltage regulation which allow me to command my alternator to do my bidding, also allow me to see just how long it takes amps to taper to the same level as before I started my engine.



But in fairness, not every vehicle will seek high 14's after engine starting, and some of these modern vehicles can care not one whit less about battery longevity. Perhaps 5 minutes is accurate with stock wiring and a voltage regulator only seeking to achieve and hold 13.6 and an engine which cranks for several seconds. Perhaps with timid voltage regulation 5 minutes is quite generous. But I qualified my claims with 14.7v.

Mine starts in 1.5 seconds or less when overnight cold, I have 108 amps available to seek and hold 14.7v, 15.5v if I command it with a flick of the wrist, and the time it takes for amps to taper back to the same point it was at before engine starting was measured at the same voltage was less than 45 seconds. No BS, no wildash claim, no wildly inaccurate measurment tools making this observation invalid or me a BS artist. So F. U !!!

Having BS called on this is insulting, and I recall the guy who once told me that it takes no less than 5 minutes for the alternator to return that which the starter used, and just how wrong he was. That guy is still my friend, well my senior, still respected, but when he postulates theory with no data, states opinion as absolute irrefutable fact, or repeats something someone else told him with no supporting data, I ignore it/ him, on that topic, and that's precisely where GTE is in my mind on this specific topic.

But I still got a lot to learn, and can admit that.

I started this thread to hopefully learn more by discussing the possible improvement in lead acid batteries, now that it can hurt the bottom line of Automakers, since some of them are now intentionally seeking to cycle engine starting battery to eek out minor MPG gains, put higher MPG estimations on the new car windows, get more market share, fool the consumer......

Will the possible pressure by Automakers fearing their bottom line when havng to warranty rematurely failed batteries indirectly lead to improvement in the lead acid battery?

Apparently no one here wants to discuss that possibility, and would rather yell at clouds.

The deep cycle battery market has been a tiny market share, compared to the Automotive starting batteries in the worldwide new car market. Many Modern vehicles are intentionally cycling the starting battery much deeper than before, and batteries are failing quicker than usual because of it.

Shakes fist at sky an apoplectic fit. How dare things change!!!

[BFL13]

LY, we have a new Salvo including his famous "measurement error". 🙂
Happy to see it's your turn in the barrel instead of mine!

In fact I did learn many useful things from Salvo nevertheless. Same with the new one. Too bad Salvo went missing. It would be "interesting" to watch the inevitable duel. Popcorn time!

[MrWizard]

i don't have, and never had have, one of these start stop engine cars

but i think there is too much barking at an empty tree

i think under high temp a/c LOADS the engine is staying on, to drive the A/C
NOT turning on & off, NOT cycling the battery

too much ADO , about nothing

[theoldwizard1]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Thank god I am on the way out. I can tolerate just so much "stupid". People would rather spend four hours commuting solo in a ton and a half vehicle than spend a third that time riding in a 1st class mass transit system.

While I was working, my longest commute was less than 45 minutes. Most of my career it was about 20 minute. Same for the wife.

Where I lived and worked, there was NO MASS TRANSIT that would get me from here to there that would not require several miles of walking.

[theoldwizard1]

2oldman wrote:
Flooded batteries are on their way out.

Not anytime soon !

[Boon_Docker]

Play nice now children. :B

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Scenario me this..............................

Southern California LA, Aridzona Phoenix, Texas Houston, Florida Miami.

Rush hour late. Lights on. A/C on

With the car starting and stalling how is any of this supposed to help anything? Economy? Emissions? Braking?

I related a CalTrans story about a 12,000 watt generator that was as useless as **** on a boar hog.

Determining how much energy is wasted is intelligent?

This issue is about as intelligent as arguing about estimating the number of fleas on a Mexican hound. Sorry but this is like trying to interpret the logic of Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland.

What
Is
The
Point
?
?
?

[landyacht318]

Ok so The same ammeter which read 0.0 amps at 14.7v before engine starting, tapering to 0.0 amps at 14.7v within 45 seconds of starting the engine is pegging your BS meter.

Your grasping at straws.

[Gdetrailer]

My comments in red..

landyacht318 wrote:
GTE,





Both of these ammeters read within 3 amps of each other upto that 100 amps and my clamp on ammeter also is within that range.

There IS an "error" or discrepancy" when readings between two instruments are 3A DIFFERENT. You cannot make accurate "scientific" statements when you have this amount of error, period. The company I work for sends all measuring instruments out to a firm that CALIBRATES them to a known standard. IF the device does not calibrate to that known standard IT MUST BE REPLACED WITH NEW INSTRUMENT.

I too was surprised when the chock full healthy AGM battery's amps tapered back to 0.0 amps in 45 seconds or less. The ammeter starts up in the 70's, and within a 3 seconds in in the 40's and tapers quickly from there when I have set the voltage at 14.7v.

I am not supprised, you already have stated that you have an difference of 3 amps between two Ammeters. Why are you not supprised?

I was so in belief at this actual data, that I kept the battery full overnight on my Meanwell, and took video The next day, showing the battery accepting 0.0 amps at 14.7v, then stating the engine, and witching back and forth between dashboard and battery monitor in the rear.

The fact remains, and I could prove it, that the amps into the battery after startung the engine, tapered back to 0.0x in less than 45 seconds.

You cannot "prove" anything when you are using FAULTY INSTRUMENTS to measure with, therefor your "discovery" is faulty..


So instead of calling BS on actual data perhaps you should go collect data of your own, rather than relying on theory, as this is one of those times where perceived what should happen, is not happening in actual life. Makes me question most everything I read concerning the opinions by self described experts.

My "theory" IS sound, it is your "proof" which is skewed by measuring instruments which do not agree.

Because of the difference in measurements it is highly likely you never could see that current being returned to the battery.

And as far as the voltage control of Newer vehicles, My elderly parents have 2014 or newer GM vehicles, and when I do drive them, I have the dashboard set to display the voltage. Crusiing ad accellerating the voltage is in the 12.7 to 12.8 range, take my foot off the gas and this shoots up into the 14's.

Again, actual observations.

Using vehicle "dashboard gauges" to measure voltages is also futile, these are DUMMY gauges, GM has been well known for inaccurate gauges along with many other manufacturers.. They are there simply as a REFERENCE to let you know if there is a major malfunction.

I remember some 1970s GM fuel gauges which would drop to empty when going up hill then rapidly jumping to a full tank going down hill..

Only one of those GM vehicles has the stop start, and the first few times drivving it, the stalling when stopped alarmed me, and I was asking my dad how do I turn of this freaking stupid asinine feature, but as quick as I could move my foot from brake to gas pedal the engine was already started and ready to accellerate.

GM is not the only manufacturer offering this silly ICE stop/start "feature", in fact it is available on a lot of vehicles which have a "GREEN ECO" button.

On some newer vehicles this "feature" IS AUTOMATICALLY enabled EVERY TIME YOU START THE VEHICLE. On these vehicles this "feature" is DIFFICULT TO DISABLE and these vehicles DO COME WITH AN EXTRA HEAVY DUTY EXPENSIVE BATTERY AND ALTERNATOR.

I HAVE coworkers which HAVE these systems and they HAVE had ISSUES with the batteries not lasting long.. They certainly don't have a reason to lie to me, I never asked them, just conversation across the lunch table..

BS meter is pegged and I am a bit disappointed in the direction you are heading.. I used to think you were one that was aware of things a bit better..

[landyacht318]

GTE,

I have only one battery for both house and engine, my alternator is rated at 120 amps, and I control the voltage it is told to seek and hold manually. Thanks again Mex.

I also have two ammeters, one shunted, and one with a hall effect sensor whose ring is on my (+) battery cable, the 500 amp deltec shunt is obviously on the ground. The rear ammeter has a voltmeter too, and my dashboard has two voltmeters, 3 wire ones with the third wire being for voltage sense. 2 voltmeters there as I use to have a 2 batteries, but now the engine battery voltmeter just taps into a nearby (+).

Now the refresh rates of these ammeters are likely 2 times a second for each, and the shunted meter, when I have looked at it during engine cranking was 128 amps, and my hall effect meter is rated for only 100 amps, and during cold starts will read ---, meaning it is over 100 amps.

Both of these ammeters read within 3 amps of each other upto that 100 amps and my clamp on ammeter also is within that range.

I too was surprised when the chock full healthy AGM battery's amps tapered back to 0.0 amps in 45 seconds or less. The ammeter starts up in the 70's, and within a 3 seconds in in the 40's and tapers quickly from there when I have set the voltage at 14.7v.

I was so in belief at this actual data, that I kept the battery full overnight on my Meanwell, and took video The next day, showing the battery accepting 0.0 amps at 14.7v, then stating the engine, and witching back and forth between dashboard and battery monitor in the rear.

The fact remains, and I could prove it, that the amps into the battery after startung the engine, tapered back to 0.0x in less than 45 seconds.

So instead of calling BS on actual data perhaps you should go collect data of your own, rather than relying on theory, as this is one of those times where perceived what should happen, is not happening in actual life. Makes me question most everything I read concerning the opinions by self described experts.

And as far as the voltage control of Newer vehicles, My elderly parents have 2014 or newer GM vehicles, and when I do drive them, I have the dashboard set to display the voltage. Crusiing ad accellerating the voltage is in the 12.7 to 12.8 range, take my foot off the gas and this shoots up into the 14's.

Again, actual observations.

Only one of those GM vehicles has the stop start, and the first few times drivving it, the stalling when stopped alarmed me, and I was asking my dad how do I turn of this freaking stupid asinine feature, but as quick as I could move my foot from brake to gas pedal the engine was already started and ready to accellerate. It can be turned off, My dad did so in thebeginning, but then said F it. and I also got used to it stalling when stopped, and it does not restart unnoticeably, and when the Aircon is on, it will restart when still stopped, which seems a bit pointless from a fuel savings scenario. I do not bother going through the process to turn off the stop start feature. perhaps if it were my vehicle and I planned on keeping it for 200K+ miles I would permanently disable it, but it is a lease.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Sorry but no matter how I couldn't take the subject seriously. The concept in it's entirety sounds like a California Hookah smoothie.

Maybe I have spent too much time with batteries and alternators and a 15 horsepower hydraulic driven variable speed alternator test bench. When I contracted with CalTrans District 9 for six months, I encountered the first International 1310 6-wheel dump truck with electro dynamic braking. 3208 cat engine with a 6-speed allison because employees did not know how to shift. And the transmission eliminated the possibility of having an effective exhaust brake.

So, for a cost of $30,000 CalTrans fitted test trucks with 20 Kw AC generators, and massive fan cooled refrigerator size heating elements. The generators were driven by a cogged Gilmore belt. The first failure happened coming down CA 120 Tioga Pass. Thank god the truck was empty.

"It doesn't work good!" shouted Louis. "Then the thing started stinking and smoking". The nichrome resistor boxes were torched. The orange CalTrans was burned off. The guy who hired me was the district manager Jay Adams. Bluntly "Don't you dare touch anything to do with that system on that truck" he warned. The bigwigs in Sacramento issued bulletins apparently with skull and crossbones on the letterhead.

I drove one of the trucks -- unloaded. Energizing the system on the flat and unloaded it put a modest boost in braking. But brakes are used downhill with six yards in the bed. Even with twenty thousand watts loading the system, it was a total waste of money.

So when I heard environmental con-artists sold people on the idea of wearing out starter motors and cycling starting batteries, I saw red. Like too much of what is happening today, shysters are telling whoppers to get exclusivity when it comes to repairing the gizmos.

Let's drive to Albuquerque and save fifty cents per gallon, mentality.

Let's obey the Hippies and not thin the unholy thickets of live oak.


PG&E rates are going to soar. I was escorted out of the CDF offices in Santa Rosa after I lodged a protest about limbs being one and a half from 37 KV power lines all over Sonoma county. You can have it folks. I'm done with arguing with idiots.

[Gdetrailer]

I wasn't going to bother replying to this thread anymore but this has me really scratching my head wondering if you have been just pulling peoples chains or inhaling some funny smoke..

My comments in red below..

landyacht318 wrote:


My 89 with a 318 engine starter draws ~140 amps, but the engine always catches quickly.

Back when my AGm battery was newer I could hold it at 14.7 volts until my ampmeter read 0.0 amps. no doubt it was accepting somewhere around 0.025 amps or less, but that is not germain to this example.

When i would start the engine, and the alternator gets the battery back upto 14.7v, how long would it take for amps to taper back to 0.0? 0.0 amps would indicate the alternator has returned that which was used to start the engine.

So how long did it take for amps to retaper back to 0.0? under 45 seconds. Not 5 minutes, not an hour to replace that which was used to start the engine, but less than 45 seconds. So this chronic short trip driving never being able to return that which was used to start the engine is horse hockey, unless the tris were only 30 seconds long.

You need to rethink this, what you are in effect saying you drew 140A for x amount of time and the battery was INSTANTLY and fully replenished to 100% charge in 45 Seconds!

Yeah, that smells real fishy, you conveniently and fully omitted the charge current information for that 45 seconds. You would have had to been charging well above 140A and we all know that that is not going to happen.

Takes TIME along with high voltage and charging current to put that discharge current fully back in.

Your Ammeter and voltmeter I suspect was highly inaccurate..


It is a fact that many modern cars, certainly not all, are intentionally cycling the batteries so that the battery is low enough that when the brakes are hit, the voltage regulars demands 14.5ish volts and the alternator must make 40+ amps to instantly bring the ~75% charged battery to 14.7v.

???

I call BS on this, this is called "dynamic braking" I have my doubts that any vehicle manufacturer is applying this to any NON EV OR NON HEV alternator..

It would take a MASSIVE alternator to even come close to "braking" any engine larger than a lawnmower.

For example using a 140A alternator at 14.7V that is 2058W of power.

2058 W = 2.759823 hp

Even your wimpy 70s 318 would NEVER notice a 2.76 HP drag let alone affect your stopping of even a 3,000 lb vehicle..

Say your 318 had 200 HP..

That is 200 hp = 149139.974400 W, that would be a pretty impressive alternator.

Can you name one manufacturer model that IS doing this (note, you cannot use a EV OR HEV for your example, it must be a STANDARD ICE vehicle only that is using dynamic braking with the vehicles one and only alternator).

On edit, I should also add that in the '70s most alternators were low amperage, as low as 30A and very rarely you would see much above 60A.. wasn't until we got into the 90s when most manufacturers upped the game to 100A and 120A alternators..