Inclined parking killed battery?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Hootbro
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Kira

All the while the Big Three owned ~1/3 of each of the Japanese companies.


Did they really? I know today they all have their hands in each others pockets (never would have guessed at the joint GM-Ford transmission venture!) but didn't expect it back then.


At one time Ford owned a 33% stake in Mazda, Chrysler 34% in Mitsubishi Motors and GM owned a 20% stake in Subaru's parent company.

In Japan, all of these companies are absolutely tiny compared to Toyota. About 19 out of 20 vehicles there are Toyota.
 
Originally Posted By: aualtima3.5
I replaced the battery on my partner's truck in May with a Costco battery.

All was well, until he parked it on a hill for over a week. Probably 30* incline, nose down for reference.

Went to start it - dead. It jumped off and was OK but wouldn't start later... diagnostic was dead cell.

Was the hill parking for a long time the root cause? I have parked on hills but only for a short amount of time. There was some water leaking out of the battery upon replacement from the covers.



Yes this is possible, and I'll explain why.

As batteries get old, oxidized plate debris sloughs off the plates and gathers at the bottom. Sufficient room there is made for it to gather up for the expected life of the battery. Once enough gathers up to reach the bottom of the plates, it shorts out the plates, and the battery is done. Tilting the battery makes that happen sooner. That is why all wet cells have instructions to keep upright.

So, YES, it is possible for an OLD battery to die a little sooner by parking it on an extreme grade.

One might say "why don't they design the batteries with deeper bottoms/shorter plates"? Well, they would produce less current (shorter plates are smaller plates with less surface area, for any given standard size), have less reserve, and be guaranteed to fail in some other fashion. Current wet cell battery design is well balanced, and pretty much guarantees that the plates will be exhausted at about the same time the debris hits the bottom of the plates.
 
Originally Posted By: Hootbro
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Kira

All the while the Big Three owned ~1/3 of each of the Japanese companies.


Did they really? I know today they all have their hands in each others pockets (never would have guessed at the joint GM-Ford transmission venture!) but didn't expect it back then.


At one time Ford owned a 33% stake in Mazda, Chrysler 34% in Mitsubishi Motors and GM owned a 20% stake in Subaru's parent company. The rest of the Japanese brands may have had a smattering of investment percentage from the Detroit brands but only Mazda with Ford's big stake had any controlling input from Ford in day to day operations and long term marketing. Detroit mainly used their investments in the Japanese companies as leverage for joint development and production programs.

When the 2008 recession hit, those percentages dropped to pittance amounts when the Detroit Big 3 where looking to gain liquidity.
I'm old enough to remember Ford selling rebadged Mazda B1600 trucks as Ford Couriers (MY72 - c. MY76?), Chrysler selling rebadged Mitsus as Dodge Colts and Plymouth Crickets (again, about MY72 on), and, I think later, GM selling Isuzu trucks as Chevy LUVs. I think perhaps the LUVs were not sold in Canada. I don't know if those deals implied a large ownership stake or merely reflected a partnership.
 
Don't forget the Ford Festiva. A Mazda 121 made by Kia and sold in North America by Ford.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top