House battery choice

alahol2

alahol2

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 Apr 2004
Messages
6,129
Location
Portchester, Solent
www.troppo.co.uk
My house battery has finally given up the ghost and needs replacing. It is a Lucas LX31MF... https://advancedbatterysupplies.co.uk/product/lucas-lx31-mf/

This battery has given 7 seasons (well 6 1/2) of faultless service. Installed beginning of 2010, towards the end of 2016 there was a noticeable loss of capacity.

I am torn between replacing like for like or going for this ABS L110 which will fit in the same space... https://advancedbatterysupplies.co.uk/product/abs-110-ampere/

This battery is some 3.5kg heavier (good?) and is not fully sealed (good?) though it is supposedly maintenance free. Lower CCA (not really relevant, it would still be ample to start my small Beta). Has a shorter guarantee (2 years as opposed to 4) but is described as deep cycle and not 'dual purpose'(good?).

Just to forestall the inevitable recommendations, I have toyed with the idea of a pair of Trojans but I just haven't the space and couldn't honestly justify the price.

28ft boat used mainly for 3 day weekends with the odd week/fortnight thrown in, swinging mooring. Just installed a 30W solar panel.

So, which would you go with?
 
For my set up the deciding factor would be the lucas has two sets of terminals (posts and screws) whereas the ABS just has posts.
 
The phrase "deep cycle" used with either of these batteries is nonsense. I would go with the Lucas, i cannot see a single advantage ( the fact it is not sealed is an arguable advantage, but you got 7 years out of the last Lucas) with the cheaper one and the 4 year warranty is worth having.
 
Last edited:
It's a toss up really but probably I would go for the L110.
Weight and topupability are in its favour, also if - big if! - the claimed figures are correct, the difference in CCA is considerable in that the Lucas claims 1000A CCA whereas the L110 claims 750A marine CCA. CCA is at -18 deg C, marine CCA is at 0 deg C, has quite an effect. Lower CCA may well mean thicker plates and/or heavier separators, both good for house battery application.
Guarantee? Not normally worth the paper it's written on - if you can find the terms on paper.
Lucas is just a name, same batteries as Numax with a different label. Brands owned by Manbat Ltd. Made by heaven knows who. Not worth a premium.
Anyway the fact your Lucas lasted so long shows you are not giving it a hard life.
As someone else said, it's ridiculous to call either of these deep cycle.

Hankook is one of many labels of AtlasBX, large Korean producer, previously sold by Batt Mega under the Alphaline name. http://www.atlasbx.co.kr/en/index.jsp
I went for Alphaline partly because it was just about the only economy brand that I could link to a known manufacturer of some substance.
 
Plevier... you have laid out the logic that I followed precisely, which is why I was leaning toward the L110. But then I thought that 7 years isn't a bad return on investment so why change?

Both yourself and PaulRainbow deprecate the use of the term deep cycle and I held the same view. However, I had a look at Trojan specs eg http://www.trojanbattery.com/products/27TMH12V.aspx

The Trojan battery is marginally smaller but in all other respects (weight, Ah capacity, Marine CCA but not price) they are near enough the same as the L110. Now I may be being naïve but what, from the specifications, proves the L110 is not a deep cycle battery?
 
I bought three ABS own branded 110Ah batteries from Advanced Battery Supplies in 2011 - I'm not good with batteries, but they were the worst and shortest lived batteries I have ever owned. I currently have 4 x Trojan T105s and they are by far the best batteries I have ever owned.

I've no scientific explanation why the ABS were crap, why Varta Hobby batteries were good, and why Trojans are the best... it's just my perceptions based on experience:

Buy what you know, and what has lasted you 7 years!!
 
alahol2 said:
Now I may be being naïve but what, from the specifications, proves the L110 is not a deep cycle battery?
Click to expand...

If a battery has a CCA of any kind quoted, it isnt a deep cycle battery, and 750A is a good level for a starter battery.

I think the Trojans may have similar weight to these cheaper batteries, but the plates are almost certainly much thicker, (thus very low surface area, and no good at providing high Amps - CCA).
 
Richard10002 said:
If a battery has a CCA of any kind quoted, it isnt a deep cycle battery, and 750A is a good level for a starter battery.

I think the Trojans may have similar weight to these cheaper batteries, but the plates are almost certainly much thicker, (thus very low surface area, and no good at providing high Amps - CCA).
Click to expand...

But the Trojan spec I linked above gives a Cranking Amps at 32F (ie Marine CCA) of 760 Amps. Actually greater than the L110.
 
alahol2 said:
But the Trojan spec I linked above gives a Cranking Amps at 32F (ie Marine CCA) of 760 Amps. Actually greater than the L110.
Click to expand...

You're right... I had wrongly assumed that you were talking about Trojan T105 6v batteries, which I've never seen with a CCA quoted.

Either I've misled myself, or Trojan shouldn't be calling that one a deep cycle.. ??
 
Richard10002 said:
If a battery has a CCA of any kind quoted, it isnt a deep cycle battery...
Click to expand...

Whilst that's generally true in practice, it's by no means inherently so. Clearly all deep-cycle lead acid batteries have a CCA (i.e. can produce amps at 0F and/or 32F), but in the applications for which deep-cycle batteries are commonly used, CCA is irrelevant.

As you wrote, Trojan don't quote a CCA for the T105, but they do state that they are perfectly capable of starting an engine, which is good to know when they might be used as back-up.

I suspect that one of the main differences between deep cycle Trojans and the other batteries under discussion, is that Trojans use led-antimony plates whereas the others are lead-calcium. Antimony is associated with better deep-cycle performance, at the cost (amongst other things) of higher levels of self-discharge and a greater proneness to gassing. So battery weight, although a useful guide, is far from the full story. Plevier can explain all this with much more authority than I.
 
alahol2 said:
Plevier... you have laid out the logic that I followed precisely, which is why I was leaning toward the L110. But then I thought that 7 years isn't a bad return on investment so why change?

Both yourself and PaulRainbow deprecate the use of the term deep cycle and I held the same view. However, I had a look at Trojan specs eg http://www.trojanbattery.com/products/27TMH12V.aspx

The Trojan battery is marginally smaller but in all other respects (weight, Ah capacity, Marine CCA but not price) they are near enough the same as the L110. Now I may be being naïve but what, from the specifications, proves the L110 is not a deep cycle battery?
Click to expand...

That is a very fair question!
When you say Trojan everyone automatically thinks of the T105. Thick plates, lead antimony not lead calcium, some other features but those are the killers, very definitely built for decent cycling performance.
The Trojan model you are pointing at is not the same sort of animal. Thinner plates, lead calcium, and (from memory) I think Trojan only claim about half the cycle life for them that they do for T105s.
I'm quite prepared to believe it will be better than the others you have mentioned because of better materials and manufacturing quality but I wouldn't like to say how much.
 
Last edited:
ghostlymoron said:
After extensive research I bought a Hankook from battery megastore.
Click to expand...

I've got 2 hankooks on mine as well plus both cars have them. Never had a problem so far. I'm not sure it's worth spending way over the top on batteries as they only seem to live for a set time no matter how much they were in the first place.
 
Just buy the one that fits the battery box with the least amount of mucking about. Unless you have recently fitted a new heavy electrical load (Radar perhaps), why change? I have an 85Ah Exide, merely because to was the biggest capacity battery that fitted my box. I've been replacing lamps with leds so the load is reducing, but i still need a fair whomp tom power the 'pc.
 
Plevier said:
The OP might like to read the section about Trojan, quite near the end. He is rather blunter than me!
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems a quality name doesn't necessarily mean that all the products sold under that name are equal.
The more I read and investigate around this question the more confusing it becomes. The LX31/XV31/DC31 battery case design seems to be used by every 'name' of battery and has all sorts of specifications. Some names (eg Numax) have 2 or 3 different specs in the same case so it's impossible to compare across names because you don't know what is like for like.

I think I am going to go for the Lucas LX31 again because I at least know what to expect.

Many thanks to all who have assisted my thinking.
 
alahol2 said:
.
I think I am going to go for the Lucas LX31 again because I at least know what to expect.
.
Click to expand...
Ah! the name takes me back over 50 years when I spent a week or two in the Lucas battery factory, now long-gone. I hope quality control is better now than then.
It wasn't unknown for a stacker truck to drop a pallet-load of dry-charged plates onto the floor, a goodly amount of the paste would fall out of the grids. But never mind, they all still went into the casings.
Incidentally, I read that the Lucas brand-name is now owned by ZF, makers of Hurth gearboxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top