1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.

It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.

It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?

Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
doohicky said the cells were at 75%.

---

OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
makes it kind of pointless given the expense.

Or I will give up and just get a car.

 

I would suspect the battery cables. Especially the ground to the
chassis. The dealer actually found mine. The ground had nearly
disintegrated. You don't normally see this because it is under
everything. This is a common failure point for JGC's.

----

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:09:06 GMT, Steve Kraus
<screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:

>1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
>It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
>what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
>about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
>cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
>and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
>something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
>vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
>engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.
>
>It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
>today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
>for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
>putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
>sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
>from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
>charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
>the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
>Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?
>
>Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
>after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
>maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
>great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
>doohicky said the cells were at 75%.
>
>---
>
>OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
>years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
>find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
>that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
>makes it kind of pointless given the expense.
>
>Or I will give up and just get a car.

 

I would suspect the battery cables. Especially the ground to the
chassis. The dealer actually found mine. The ground had nearly
disintegrated. You don't normally see this because it is under
everything. This is a common failure point for JGC's.

----

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:09:06 GMT, Steve Kraus
<screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:

>1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
>It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
>what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
>about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
>cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
>and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
>something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
>vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
>engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.
>
>It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
>today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
>for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
>putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
>sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
>from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
>charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
>the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
>Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?
>
>Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
>after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
>maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
>great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
>doohicky said the cells were at 75%.
>
>---
>
>OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
>years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
>find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
>that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
>makes it kind of pointless given the expense.
>
>Or I will give up and just get a car.

 

I would suspect the battery cables. Especially the ground to the
chassis. The dealer actually found mine. The ground had nearly
disintegrated. You don't normally see this because it is under
everything. This is a common failure point for JGC's.

----

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:09:06 GMT, Steve Kraus
<screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:

>1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
>It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
>what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
>about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
>cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
>and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
>something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
>vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
>engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.
>
>It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
>today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
>for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
>putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
>sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
>from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
>charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
>the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
>Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?
>
>Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
>after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
>maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
>great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
>doohicky said the cells were at 75%.
>
>---
>
>OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
>years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
>find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
>that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
>makes it kind of pointless given the expense.
>
>Or I will give up and just get a car.

 

Steve Kraus proclaimed:

[groups trimmed in response, could probably be trimmed more]

> 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
> It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
> what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
> about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
> cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
> and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
> something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
> vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
> engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.

14 is about right with the engine running, so the alternator MAY be off
the list of suspects.

Cable materials tend to corrode, when shining up cables, do the one from
the alternator to the body as well, and also the ones to the solenoid
and starter.

Cold battery voltage depends on the temperature, but should only be
checked after doing something like turning on the lights for few
minutes, then measure with them on and off. Avoids reading a surface
charge.

Wherever you bought the battery should have not only load tested the
battery but also checked your charging system before giving you a new
one.


>
> It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
> today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
> for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
> putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
> sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
> from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
> charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
> the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
> Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?


>
> Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
> after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
> maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
> great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
> doohicky said the cells were at 75%.

Yes. Is called surface charge. I've also seen it on a leaky or open
diode on an alternator, which is easy to check.

The specific gravity of a charged battery is 1.235 temp corrected.

What brand and load battery are you using? If you have a big bad fully
charged Optima or Die Hard, it probably isn't the battery...but check.

Did this happen suddenly or slowly become worse?

Open circuit voltage test is:

Turn on headlights for 15 seconds, then turn them off and wait 5 minutes.

Remove battery cables and measure open circuit.

Fully charged is 12.6 volts
75% is 12.4 anything less means something is royally wrong.

Check voltage drop on cables: Pull the auto shutdown relay from the box
on the passenger side under hood near battery. Should be marked. If
manual, you'll need to jumper the clutch switch or have someone push it
down.

With battery connected:

Measure from the battery post to the cable terminal with ignition in
start position. Use a low scale. No voltage drop or cable is dirty,
defective.

Measure from positive battery post with switch in start to stud on
solenoid. Max 0.2 volts and 0.2 volts is not that good.

Measure from battery negative post and a clean spot on the engine block
with switch in start. Max 0.2 volts and 0.2 isn't that good.

Measure from starter housing with switch in start to battery negative
terminal. Max 0.2 volts and you know the rest.

Starters can start dragging, new ones aren't that shabby but make sure
you get the right one for your year and engine.

I'd probably bribe a shop to check the alternator and starter before
springing for either.

>
> ---
>
> OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
> years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
> find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
> that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
> makes it kind of pointless given the expense.

A well tuned 1995 ZJ should easily give 20 mpg at 75 mph cruise, with
very little difference up and down hill or moderate load. Presuming you
don't have a lead foot or a nervous foot and change speeds regularly.
21-22 is doable with nice clean air cleaners and a cat back.

In low speed traffic down to about 15 if lots of lights. On moderate
speed traffic without too many lights, much closer to 18-19 if you drive
to get up to speed moderately quickly and get the torque convertor
locked up. Worst thing you can do is slooooowly bring it up, as the
longer you are in lower gears the poorer the mileage. Hot rodding is
also bad.

The CR mileage reports are about as valid as the government ones.

> Or I will give up and just get a car.

Want an RX-7? My 85 ZJ gets better mileage under any condition.

 

Steve Kraus proclaimed:

[groups trimmed in response, could probably be trimmed more]

> 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
> It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
> what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
> about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
> cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
> and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
> something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
> vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
> engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.

14 is about right with the engine running, so the alternator MAY be off
the list of suspects.

Cable materials tend to corrode, when shining up cables, do the one from
the alternator to the body as well, and also the ones to the solenoid
and starter.

Cold battery voltage depends on the temperature, but should only be
checked after doing something like turning on the lights for few
minutes, then measure with them on and off. Avoids reading a surface
charge.

Wherever you bought the battery should have not only load tested the
battery but also checked your charging system before giving you a new
one.


>
> It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
> today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
> for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
> putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
> sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
> from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
> charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
> the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
> Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?


>
> Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
> after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
> maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
> great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
> doohicky said the cells were at 75%.

Yes. Is called surface charge. I've also seen it on a leaky or open
diode on an alternator, which is easy to check.

The specific gravity of a charged battery is 1.235 temp corrected.

What brand and load battery are you using? If you have a big bad fully
charged Optima or Die Hard, it probably isn't the battery...but check.

Did this happen suddenly or slowly become worse?

Open circuit voltage test is:

Turn on headlights for 15 seconds, then turn them off and wait 5 minutes.

Remove battery cables and measure open circuit.

Fully charged is 12.6 volts
75% is 12.4 anything less means something is royally wrong.

Check voltage drop on cables: Pull the auto shutdown relay from the box
on the passenger side under hood near battery. Should be marked. If
manual, you'll need to jumper the clutch switch or have someone push it
down.

With battery connected:

Measure from the battery post to the cable terminal with ignition in
start position. Use a low scale. No voltage drop or cable is dirty,
defective.

Measure from positive battery post with switch in start to stud on
solenoid. Max 0.2 volts and 0.2 volts is not that good.

Measure from battery negative post and a clean spot on the engine block
with switch in start. Max 0.2 volts and 0.2 isn't that good.

Measure from starter housing with switch in start to battery negative
terminal. Max 0.2 volts and you know the rest.

Starters can start dragging, new ones aren't that shabby but make sure
you get the right one for your year and engine.

I'd probably bribe a shop to check the alternator and starter before
springing for either.

>
> ---
>
> OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
> years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
> find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
> that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
> makes it kind of pointless given the expense.

A well tuned 1995 ZJ should easily give 20 mpg at 75 mph cruise, with
very little difference up and down hill or moderate load. Presuming you
don't have a lead foot or a nervous foot and change speeds regularly.
21-22 is doable with nice clean air cleaners and a cat back.

In low speed traffic down to about 15 if lots of lights. On moderate
speed traffic without too many lights, much closer to 18-19 if you drive
to get up to speed moderately quickly and get the torque convertor
locked up. Worst thing you can do is slooooowly bring it up, as the
longer you are in lower gears the poorer the mileage. Hot rodding is
also bad.

The CR mileage reports are about as valid as the government ones.

> Or I will give up and just get a car.

Want an RX-7? My 85 ZJ gets better mileage under any condition.

 

Steve Kraus proclaimed:

[groups trimmed in response, could probably be trimmed more]

> 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
> It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
> what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
> about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
> cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
> and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
> something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
> vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
> engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.

14 is about right with the engine running, so the alternator MAY be off
the list of suspects.

Cable materials tend to corrode, when shining up cables, do the one from
the alternator to the body as well, and also the ones to the solenoid
and starter.

Cold battery voltage depends on the temperature, but should only be
checked after doing something like turning on the lights for few
minutes, then measure with them on and off. Avoids reading a surface
charge.

Wherever you bought the battery should have not only load tested the
battery but also checked your charging system before giving you a new
one.


>
> It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
> today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
> for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
> putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
> sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
> from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
> charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
> the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
> Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?


>
> Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
> after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
> maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
> great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
> doohicky said the cells were at 75%.

Yes. Is called surface charge. I've also seen it on a leaky or open
diode on an alternator, which is easy to check.

The specific gravity of a charged battery is 1.235 temp corrected.

What brand and load battery are you using? If you have a big bad fully
charged Optima or Die Hard, it probably isn't the battery...but check.

Did this happen suddenly or slowly become worse?

Open circuit voltage test is:

Turn on headlights for 15 seconds, then turn them off and wait 5 minutes.

Remove battery cables and measure open circuit.

Fully charged is 12.6 volts
75% is 12.4 anything less means something is royally wrong.

Check voltage drop on cables: Pull the auto shutdown relay from the box
on the passenger side under hood near battery. Should be marked. If
manual, you'll need to jumper the clutch switch or have someone push it
down.

With battery connected:

Measure from the battery post to the cable terminal with ignition in
start position. Use a low scale. No voltage drop or cable is dirty,
defective.

Measure from positive battery post with switch in start to stud on
solenoid. Max 0.2 volts and 0.2 volts is not that good.

Measure from battery negative post and a clean spot on the engine block
with switch in start. Max 0.2 volts and 0.2 isn't that good.

Measure from starter housing with switch in start to battery negative
terminal. Max 0.2 volts and you know the rest.

Starters can start dragging, new ones aren't that shabby but make sure
you get the right one for your year and engine.

I'd probably bribe a shop to check the alternator and starter before
springing for either.

>
> ---
>
> OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
> years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
> find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
> that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
> makes it kind of pointless given the expense.

A well tuned 1995 ZJ should easily give 20 mpg at 75 mph cruise, with
very little difference up and down hill or moderate load. Presuming you
don't have a lead foot or a nervous foot and change speeds regularly.
21-22 is doable with nice clean air cleaners and a cat back.

In low speed traffic down to about 15 if lots of lights. On moderate
speed traffic without too many lights, much closer to 18-19 if you drive
to get up to speed moderately quickly and get the torque convertor
locked up. Worst thing you can do is slooooowly bring it up, as the
longer you are in lower gears the poorer the mileage. Hot rodding is
also bad.

The CR mileage reports are about as valid as the government ones.

> Or I will give up and just get a car.

Want an RX-7? My 85 ZJ gets better mileage under any condition.

 

Remember cables have two ends....

Check all the grounds on both ends also. Please note that the mesh ground
straps rot from the inside...


"Steve Kraus" <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:mlFrg.1673$vO.459@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
> It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
> what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
> about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
> cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
> and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
> something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
> vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
> engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.
>
> It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
> today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
> for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
> putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
> sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
> from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
> charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
> the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
> Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?
>
> Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
> after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
> maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
> great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
> doohicky said the cells were at 75%.
>
> ---
>
> OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
> years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
> find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
> that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
> makes it kind of pointless given the expense.
>
> Or I will give up and just get a car.

 

Remember cables have two ends....

Check all the grounds on both ends also. Please note that the mesh ground
straps rot from the inside...


"Steve Kraus" <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:mlFrg.1673$vO.459@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
> It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
> what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
> about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
> cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
> and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
> something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
> vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
> engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.
>
> It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
> today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
> for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
> putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
> sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
> from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
> charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
> the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
> Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?
>
> Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
> after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
> maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
> great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
> doohicky said the cells were at 75%.
>
> ---
>
> OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
> years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
> find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
> that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
> makes it kind of pointless given the expense.
>
> Or I will give up and just get a car.

 

Remember cables have two ends....

Check all the grounds on both ends also. Please note that the mesh ground
straps rot from the inside...


"Steve Kraus" <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:mlFrg.1673$vO.459@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I-6, close to 150K miles.
>
> It cranks sluggishly. It actually starts ok because it's firing up on
> what may be the first rev but it's really slow sounding. Battery was
> about 30 months old. Spec. gravity thingy with the floating ***** said
> cells were only at 75% charge. I checked system voltage with engine off
> and it was about 12 point something and with the engine running 13 point
> something to 14. Seemed better for awhile so I was been watching the
> vehicle's own voltmeter and it seems where it should be, near 14 with the
> engine running. I also removed and emery'd the posts and cable clamps.
>
> It started to seem sluggish turning over again in the last few days so
> today I checked the battery cells and this time 50% to 75%. Okay, time
> for a new battery so I got a pro-rated warranty replacement. After
> putting it in I was hoping to hear a vigorous start. But nope, still
> sluggish with the new battery. Of course the new battery, not coming
> from a place that keeps them on trickle charge, isn't really fully
> charged so I am hoping after it really gets charged it will in fact cure
> the sluggish crank but is there anything else I should be looking for?
> Do starters get "weak" or more likely just fail flat out?
>
> Also, is it normal to get oddly high battery voltage readings immediately
> after taking off charge, like in the 13's rather than 12 point something,
> maybe from "surface charge" or something? I'm not charging it at any
> great rate, just 3 or 4 amps....not much more than a trickle. SG
> doohicky said the cells were at 75%.
>
> ---
>
> OT but I'd gladly buy another new GC but I just can't see another 11
> years of 15-18 mpg. I'm looking at maybe the Mariner Hybrid (if I can
> find one to test drive). Toyota Highlander was in the running til I saw
> that Consumer Reports said their tests had it only getting 22 mpg which
> makes it kind of pointless given the expense.
>
> Or I will give up and just get a car.