Alternator hunting and how-to?

petropower

Thanks for all the good answers which I have read, as of yesterday. Please forgive for my not getting back sooner. Since I am also in a bit of a tangle with the diagnosing repair shop, it has taken more time than expected. Maybe I misread…but one or more posts have seemed to suggest my initial questions were perhaps less than sincere (?). I apologize if any thing made it seem that way, but there is nothing un-genuine about my request for help—really.

I have been preparing a more comprehensive answer for the one post--I think it was PetroPower--which asked for more information and detail about the fault/failure—so you guys might get a better idea about the cause and remedies. Since a dealer repair shop is "part of the problem," I am still working on a post that fully describes the problem (failure, failure mode, and diagnostic finding thus far). I think you will find it interesting in more ways than one. but it will take a just a little more time.

In the meantime—and this also deals with selection and modification (if needed) of a replacement alternator—or selection of one which requires minimum alteration to interface and run properly in respect of my engine and battery. I will state it in the form of a hypothetical assertion (right or wrong); I would like your admonishments as to the validity or invalidity of my inexpert line of reasoning. So here goes.

Apart from the regulated output, it seems to me that the drive-pulley sheave size would have a significant impact on unregulated output…and, hence, on regulated output over the range of driving (alternator speed) conditions. In other words, suppose I found a, say, nominal 65A unit with pulley sheave, and with mounting frame attachments and connectors clocking exactly as the original (removed) alternator. The only different is that the "new" unit's pulley sheave is larger diameter (the Motorcraft rebuilt by ValueCraft must have come from a different kind of Ford). In order to retain factory fit (my current belt and belt adjustment bracket), it seem to me that I might have to mount my old—smaller—pulley sheave on the new unit. However—and this is where I'm guessing—if a smaller sheave is used to drive the new alternator, I will have turned it (downgraded it) from a nom. 65A alternator into a smaller-nominal-output alternator. (The alternator hub will turn slower at all engine speeds, so that the AC output will increase slower with engine RPM; the rate of batt recharge will be more dependent on increased engine speed (especially at curb idle)). (My conjecture also assumes—rightly or wrongly?—that neither the engine (subsystem) control nor integrated alternator regulation will compensate for this "built-in" alternator RPM.)

If this is technically valid, and I must swap to my smaller pulley sheave, is there a calculation based on pulley sheave size difference for determining the minimum "new" alternator output increase needed to give similar charge characteristics, and similar compatibility with my new battery, as was obtained from the old alternator? Thanks you…and for the very informative insights up to now.

Hello Guest - haven't had time to digest all your post, but noticed you said In order to retain factory fit (my current belt and belt adjustment bracket), it seem to me that I might have to mount my old—smaller—pulley sheave on the new unit. However—and this is where I'm guessing—if a smaller sheave is used to drive the new alternator, I will have turned it (downgraded it) from a nom. 65A alternator into a smaller-nominal-output alternator. (The alternator hub will turn slower at all engine speeds, so that the AC output will increase slower with engine RPM)

This is the wrong way round. A smaller pulley on the alternator gives higher speed (as does a bigger crankshaft pulley) and thus potentially higher alternator output. My guess would be fit the smaller pulley as that is related to your existing crankshaft pulley. But if for some reason you can't I'd be surprised if you noticed a difference under anything like normal conditions.

Cheers.....Codey

The ac output ? You mean heat / air fan speed I think. Yes it might be a bit slower if the 'draw' from everything else already exceeds the amps of the alternator and the battery is already discharged somewhat. THink of it this way. If the 'draw' from the system is 100 amps for a long time.. and the alternator only puts out 90 amps, this means the battery is having to make up the differnce of 10amps which actually is draining the battery slightly (this used to happen occasionally with older smal alts when headlights and heater fan were on for long trips at night ). IN THAT case the ac output would increase "slower" *( a slower rate of increase) with engine rpm higher.

Otherwise on a fully charged battery there should be no 'noticeable differerence in ac /heat fan speed with engine rpm since the battery has massive power to give out relative to alt power.

Thanks, Codemaster, you and others are exactly right; I should have said upgraded (by faster alternator turning relative relative to fixed engine PTO pulley sheave size--whether on original-vehicle's or my own vehicle's engine). But I'll take the corrections to also mean that the question was conceptually correct. And I will also suppose that a formula could be derived for calculating alternator turn-rate change, whether up or down, and, hence, the alternator's nominal current output increase or decrease, as the case might be. Perhaps--and I'll grant this is probably only a diversion--the "coefficient" derived might be something like:

[(1/2)(A_b)/(1/2)(dia.E)] / [(1/2)(A_a)/(1/2)(dia.E)] _^x E

where:

1. A_b is alternator pulley sheave diameter before sheave change.
2. a is after alternator pulley sheave change.
3. E is adjustment constant for alternator electronics.

But maybe that's an exercise for another day...or maybe there's an automotive engineer around who can provide the formula or table. And, having now measured (not just mentally eyeballed) the sheave sizes, I now see that the replacement alternator candidate's sheave is actually smaller, but radius 1/4-inch--that, irrespective of the engine it came from, the output will probably be at least as high, possibly even higher, than the alternator's advertised nominal output. That's good. 'Sides that, any change is probably not significant except at the marginal limits of alternator performance, I would guess.

Alternators are built to withstand high revs, but their full output is achieved much earlier than Dynamos, and it is controlled correctly, hence we only have alternators today.

My friend, you are getting too scientific here. Follow the KISS rule. Keep It Simple Stupid. (I'm not calling you stupid, just decoding this popular industry utilised acronym).

Smaller pulley on the alternator will turn it faster (better) but be careful to not exceed the rated RPM as it may fly apart centrifugally. Finding the rated RM may prove difficult. Since engines run at wildly different speeds, and pulleys vary so much, I'd guess that alternator is OK for quite a wide range of RPM.

Once again, the alternator amp rating did not have anything to do with your fried wires. It is a coincidence and easy to blame the 'big thing' that changed rather than looking at physics. The new alternator likely had a much more dynamic voltage response (better regulator and strong heavy duty diodes due to high amp rating) and ability to sustain the short circuit and it 'professionally' fried your wires WITH SUSTAINED VOLTAGE driving the short more efficiently that a dead alternator and dead battery can do before. The old alternator was likely trying to feed a totally dead battery (dead from a short in the wiring) and therefore couldn't really produce much energy outside of a dead battery sucking every available volt and blowing up the regulator) to professionally feed your short and totally fry your wires. I'm wondering how you started the truck without the wires beginning to fry as soon as you connected a topped up battery. It also can be you crossed an alternator control wire somehow so the battery voltage didn't back feed the short, but once you had a rotating alternator maybe an alternator circuit, now producing voltage, went to ground internally and begin the death spiral of a fried harness. It only takes one small wire to go to ground and the heat melts the others nearby and you have 20 wires all dead shorting to each other or ground. I suspect you computer is kaput now also.

You may have also jump started this to get it going the first time and criss - crossed the jumper cables positive to negative for a split second (especially if you had a friend doing that and you were inside the truck ready to start it . . . I've found that when the 'friends' make this momentary mistake they correct it after the first sparks fly but don't tell me they did that to avoid embarrassment and just watch it really fry when it starts up with a blown computer or toasted wires . . . really).

What a lot of people (generally not just on CR4) make a mistake about with regard to replacing an alternator with one of a "POTENTIALLY" (pun intended!) higher current output, is to make the mistake in thinking that this will have any negative (pun intended!) effects.

The voltages available in the system, provided the new Alternator is in a good condition and correctly connected ARE THE SAME AS BEFORE!!! No change in voltage means that an accessory, which drew say 10 amps from the old Alternator/Battery will still draw only 10 amps with the new Alternator......as its resistance cannot have changed. Simple Ohm's Law!!! Not even Physics 101, more like School 2nd Grade or similar!!

It will have no unwanted effect PROVIDED that the connecting wires are in a good condition and able, if required, to take the new POSSIBLE higher amps from the alternator to the Battery only.

The rest of the vehicles wiring, does not need to be upgraded for any reason, provided it is a good condition as any Battery can supply many, many more amps that any normal Alternator can!!

All that happens with having a better Alternator is:-

a) The battery gets recharged a little quicker which will not harm the battery

b) if you switch on all lights and other power usage items, the new Alternator can now handle more of the load than before and the battery will probably not ever be required to assist, or very rarely!!!

Both of which are nice to have!!!

Only if there is a fault or faults in the electrical system (typically before a fuse or fuses), that should have been found and fixed first, will something happen that should not!

IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE POTENTIALLY (again pun intended!) HIGHER AMPS OF THE NEW ALTERNATOR, thinking that is simply B******T!!! It is just not a good working practise to blindly replace a broken item, without checking fully why it broke in the first place!!

These sorts of problems are usually a case of old, loose or damaged wiring going from the battery/alternator to the fuse box!!! As any high current drawn through a fuse, should when a fault happens, cause the fuse to blow not wiring to burn!!!

Of course, it has happened that fuses have been replaced with the wrong amp fuse or wrapped in foil or even a live .22 bullet was once used (according to Myth-busters anyway) and then the wiring is the next fuse!!!! Smelly!!! and of course a heavy risk of causing a vehicle fire too!!!!

Removing all fuses and checking for shorts is no big Brainer, it just takes a bit of time!! Some people, who have not got a meter, have been known to use a 12 volt bulb between the Battery +, and the + cable to the car. If the bulb lights, you may have a problem! Start undoing wires till you have extinguished the lamp.....using a spare fuse ( or ammeter) see how much current is being drawn approximately!! If the fuse is small and does not blow, its probably not a problem!

This method will not work in all cases as there are potentially connections in some modern cars that ALWAYS draw current when connected, then you need more sophisticated help!

Replacing or upgrading wiring that is not what it should be, or even placing extra inline fuses ( a simple procedure) if a circuit is thought to be at risk for some reason or where new circuits have been added, is not exactly higher level physics!!!

Two gauges which I always used to add to my cars (if not already supplied) when I was younger, was a Voltmeter, and an Ammeter, with center 0, so that I could see if the Dynamo was charging or the battery was being discharged!!! (I have forgotten just where we put the shunt for that effect!!)

In winter, with heated screen, headlights etc it was then possible to switch off other accessories, so that before the motor was switched off (especially on short journeys) that the battery would be in a condition to be able to restart the car when needed....

With modern alternators, that has all been forgotten, because they are so good and charge so well!!!

I did have a VW Sharan a few years ago that had a voltmeter, I never had electrical problems, but it was still good to see that the Alternator was charging, just by the slight increase in volts when the engine was running, to re-charge the battery! Being a Camper, using the cars batteries (it had 2!) for the caravan, and having a voltmeter is quite important!!

The charging circuit can be easily tested with just one gauge. Put a hand-held voltmeter across the battery terminals with the engine running. It should read +13 volts or more. If it reads +12 volts, the charging system isn't functioning. You don't need an ammeter to check this.

If it reads +12v there is no current being produced.

If your meter is accurate, you will see around or close to 14.5 volts across the battery when the engine is running and has had enough time to replace the starting current. Any more than 14.5 and you will "gas" the Battery, which will then require frequent top ups of distilled water....

If it really does go OTT, then the battery could even boil, dangerous for all and everything nearby!!!

If you see less than 13.2 volts, with a running engine and the engine has run long enough to replace the starting current, then you have a problem.....it could be either a bad battery (unlikely) or a bad alternator (most likely).

But do make sure that your voltmeter is accurate enough before making any rash judgements....

To: Andy Germany, Codemaster, eriew, Gordon Couger, Guests, LCAC32, ozzb, PetroPower, RF_guy, rstanley, Self Thinker, The Gregg, TRIPLEBATTERYLIFE, Yusef1

From Initial Post-er

Now that I've caught up, and this discussion has settled down, here's the more detailed problem description (up to this point) that you (I think it was PetroPower?) asked for. Opinions still welcome; I'll keep you advised of what happens later on...

This is a vehicle no-start problem—it has proven to be intermittent—and possible/pending dealer-service-dept. "repair" dispute (for diagnostics ineptitude, improper repair and charges and mgt malfeasance).

First let me admit that I would deserve to be chided for ever resorting blindly to a Dealer service dept. for TS&R (diagnosis and repair) of such a vehicle fault; but in this case I simply was not at liberty to do the work myself—and alternative, independent (read: competent) service shops were not timely available due to summer backlogs—and worker absence (i.e., technician no-shows with impunity…fairly common in a severely undermanned labor market). Now to the problem in search of wise technical opinions…

The problem started, although it was not known at the time, with two or three instances of hesitant engine starts—instead of immediate ignition and run, I would have to crank for a few seconds or crank a second and maybe third time. These were not so severe or troublesome as to be seen as anything but "normal" performance variation owing to weather, ECA recalibration…and the like.

Then one day, recently, (the vehicle had received full tune-up a few days before, so was in optimum ignition, air, and fuel delivery subsystems condition) the first crank resulted in momentary engine run and then stop. At second crank the engine turned partially, trying to ignite then stopped. At third crank, rattling of the starter relay/solenoid only followed by no starter system "life" at all. After about 15 minutes another attempt was a repeat of cranks two and three above.

A "next morning" commitment for start failure diagnostics on the 1987 Ranger 6 (2.9L) w/ AC was obtained and the vehicle was towed, forthwith, and parked on the dealer lot, first in queue for next morning's work. Later the next day, the service order taker/coordinator reported by phone as follows:

The diagnostics (they did not say what that consisted of or how it was performed) indicated that the battery "tested good," but that there was difficulty getting adequate current return to the battery cathode—to the point that they had had to jumper around the battery cable just to energize and actuate the starter (which they would later confirm as having also tested "Good," along with the solenoid). Asked what this means—whether there was too much "resistance" in the ground cable, the coordinator (taking his cue…it would later prove?) replied, "Yes." He then advised…to fix the problem by replacing the battery cables. Before authorizing, he was told that both cables were observed by me to be (still) pristine, with no sign of corrosion or degradation, shortly before bringing the vehicle in; and, further, that the expensive (around $70) OEM ground cable had been installed within the last eight or so years—such that neither cable, much less the cathode cable, should be approaching end of life…it seemed. Service coordinator answered (to the effect that—and, possibly conjecturing? possibly obfuscating?) that it was not unlikely that "sulfatation" had proceeded, un-see-ably, down the core of the cable, gradually reducing (cross section) to the point of unacceptable resistance; and that it must be this resistance which was impeding the battery from attaining a full charge (also implying, perhaps, a cause of the "alleged" degradation by sulfur crystallization?). Coordinator further informed…that they were charging the battery with charger as we spoke, and recommended that the battery be placed on trickle charge at home to (attempt to?) bring it back up to full charge (again, a possible, offhand reference to battery plate sulfation?). (I was a bit perplexed by this recommendation—and the service coordinator seemed to see nothing inconsistent between his repair and his after-repair owner service recommendations!) Based on assurance that cable replacement would ultimately fix the problem…, approval of the repair was given…price: $278.

At delivery of the "repaired" vehicle, I took my customary pre-acceptance precaution of inspecting the work--and looking for repair-shop-inflicted damage, as happens all too often, especially at dealerships. I immediately noted that comparatively less expensive, after-market cables had been installed…and, not having right-angle connector, the ground cable had not been routed the same so as to avoid interference…etc. Of more immediate importance, I also pointed out to coordinator, that there was (now) no "rubber boot" covering the anode post connection…that this was not unimportant as one was needed to block spurious conduction to any ground. Setting aside for the moment the disproportionate markup issue, the coordinator responded (probably correctly) that after-market cables do not come fitted with boots—or one that is would not be easy to find in short order. (The factory stock cable is apparently no longer available.) He also pointed out how the robustness of the new, 14-ga. cables should serve better than the OEM (also 14 ga.) cables. He then began to suggest the possibility of using the old cable's boot…but at this point a stocky fellow in suit who was standing within earshot—he had been thought to be another waiting customer at closing time—walked away, the coordinator following after him, around a corner and towards the unseen service bays. Several minutes later, both returned and the Suit handed me a boot which he confirmed, and I recognized, to be the one from my former anode cable; it had been cut free from the replaced cable. (I would later have second thoughts about this incident but, because unvarnished opinions are needed, I will not disclose them for now.) The boot did not fit over the new cable connector but, thinking it might be possible to modify it to fit, we concluded business: they closing shop and I departing in the vehicle…a bit uncertain….

Having driven about ten miles before arriving home, I did not follow the suggestion to trickle charge the battery…figuring that, (supposedly) functioning (now) normally: (A) ten miles should be sufficient to more or less "top up" the battery; (B) the vehicle's amp gauge needle deflection had not indicated high charging rate (if any at all); and (C) "artificial charging," while doing no harm, would only serve to disguise any charging defect that remained. And my instinct (about the repair shop's story and actions) told me such defect might remain.

Overnight after an approximately 16-mile excursion following "repairs," the original "no-crank/no-start" problem returned, with the same exact symptoms as described previously! On the phone, after apprising the service coordinator of the failed repair (and after wafting smoke out of my face?), I asked him to explain exactly what troubleshooting had been done…and to further explain that (ground "cable) sulfation" thing…which, I told him, I understood in connection with battery plates, but not cables; and in connection with starter batteries left standing/undercharged, neither of which was (or should have been) the case. (Coordinator and company would later begin avoiding the sulfation word in preference for "acid…," but I digress.) At this juncture, coordinator insisted I talk directly to the repair tech. The technician (there had been almost a day's time to get their stories straight, but had they?), when questioned about the coordinator's "cable sulfation," indicated that corrosion was the word wanting to be used; and that he had had to cut the old cable's insulation back "quite a ways" in order to find the cause of conduction resistance: the corrosion. He did not mention the presence of any visible corrosion (or sulfation) at either clamp; and I did not mention the absence…. The tech went on to state (in so many words and with a seemingly credible anecdote) his suspicion that the problem must rest with the battery; that it might one of those—perhaps with shorted cells or other peculiarity—that defeats the best efforts of Ford's testers…. He advised that I arrange to bring the Ranger back in and "we'll take care of you at no charge" even if it meant setting other jobs aside…. He also gave assurance in response to my question (including concerns about diverting repair funds to a second day's car rental), that the engine would start if I used my charger's 50A start-boost feature. (I tested this last part and it proved true.)

But, before contacting coordinator to schedule the second "diagnosis," I decided I needed some "control data"—that a few basic charging-system "baseline" tests might be in order. This was, in part, because I had also read on the Web [ What others have said about alternator diagnostics] about a similar dealership encounter—one which reminded me of a "classic dealership run-around"—something like a Texas Two-Step, because the smaller (dependent) partner is forced to keep stepping backwards vigorously just to keep from careening back and getting danced right over!

After 10A charging to point of charger cut-off, and 2A overnight trickle-to-cut-off after that, the battery's nominal voltage was read across its terminal posts. With key on, a test light between disconnected cable and battery cathode did not glow—indicating absence of short circuits. With engine running (and battery back on line), voltage was only a bit low at about 13.5—maybe slightly less.

When I called coordinator, he was unwilling to accept, just yet, that the alternator might be at fault (or maybe he felt "locked in" by his Tech's cable replacement recommendation?). So he began asking about the age of the battery…and this finally "came down" to a recommendation and decision to replace the battery before bringing in for any further dealership diagnostics. So, this chapter ends with my battery (at not quite four years into its 5-year-prorata warranty, and at 2-5 years from typical battery life expectancy in my Ranger) being load tested good—twice—by Auto Zone; then being replaced anyway with a new one. (We, AutoZone and I, would later joke about it when I mentioned how quickly my "core exchange" battery had disappeared from their discard pile—and whether it was only coincidence that a small fleet of AutoZone delivery vehicles—all Rangers—was parked outside!) By the next day, again after sufficient driving to top up even a partial dealer charge (or mfr's dry charge) the same no-crank-no-start condition remained. When the dealership service coordinator was informed, he replied that "because of the delay" (which I took to mean not delay caused by his service department), the Ranger could not be seen until after midweek, next—and that the promised fix at no additional charge would include only diagnostics; and no adjustments for (in my words) questionable or incorrect repairs already done. When I mentioned potential damage-by-discharge to the new battery (in the event I could not just shut down for over a week), the coordinator "reminded" me how it was that nothing (no person besides myself, at least) forced me to replace the battery (his insistence on the battery's being the problem (and the diagnostic key), notwithstanding).

During the interim I began my quest to ascertain the minimal power requirement (and battery match…) for my Ranger; including a broad search, at dealers and elsewhere, for alternator replacement candidates.

So you all now have the full run-down on initial faults and diagnostic steps taken thus far. Hope this clarifies as requested.

I feel you were scammed big time......

Perhaps..big, or not so big...depending on how you define what and how "big" is--whether monetarily, ethically, un-customarily, unmitigatedly, etc.

But there's the next installment, now in preparation, to consider before...the final bottom line about degree of scam. Until then, it's always hard to "pin down" dealership car repair "scams"...so as to (as suggested in the anecdote link) "divide ineptitude at a price" from devious intent; and, like physicians/surgeons, mechanics seldom fail to get paid, if only in part, for mistakes or under-training.

In the meantime, I'm interested to know what others think about (not only the linked article as it relates to my situation, but) the little technical things--like the idea of insulated cables sulfating, or corroding, from the inside out, and with no previous "tells," at the battery posts or otherwise. Is this kind of thing "normal," or even possible? It's certainly something I've never seen or heard of. Do any of you, like I, sense that the cutting away and bringing of the anode cover boot (as mentioned previously) was, in actuality, the service manager's way of covering the tech's (accidental or deliberate?) mistake? And a way of destroying evidence as well? As to the cable resistance diagnosis, I'm inclined to think that "high resistance" was measured indirectly, as a voltage drop...and without knowing what amperage actually was! Is there any way--other than disconnecting and measure ohms--to measure (to infer) resistance of a connected ground cable without "determining" amps? My sense is, that the tech was over-reliant on hookup equipment, without knowing the underlying, basic (very basic) component troubleshooting skills. Or, it could have been that he had someone or some thing (a superior or service protocol--either bent on maximum profit &or bonus) looking over his shoulder.

More to follow...

IP

I would love to help you with some accurate information, but you were there and was not able to master the situation, what can we do 1000s of miles away?

I certainly smell a Rat, just by the way you were treated and how things were progressed, if that is the right word.......

It is true that cables can rot, but usually I would have thought with battery acid......was that possible in your case?

Why did you not require to be given ALL removed/replaced parts, that is normal in europe, but only if you ask for it.....most do not. I do!!

As with most things, it is still "Caveat Emptor"........! Sorry.

I'm going to let loose the strings of my jacket for a moment.

1.. progress reports are confidential... and the violation of that confidentiality should have reslted in lost employment!

2.. if not for such breeches, those unofficiated to progress had and have nothing to do anything, and will continue to do so..

3.. Under such confidentiality, how can a scam be intitiate to anyone on the outside, and those within are only prompted to and by the results of sucessful testing.

SSYFM and mind your own business.

Good! We will not miss you.

Wow I can't believe how many engineers are looking at this problem like an engineer. I'm an old car guy. Ford nor any other manufacture DOES NOT design different wiring harnesses for each vehicle configuration. A 47 amp altenator is for a fully UNLOADED vehicle. If you have AC it will be about 100 Amp, if you have power everything about 120 amps. If the altenator is too small, then you will drain the battery life and then when the battery starts to go you will burn up the starter. If the altenator is too big, then you will have power in reserve and will extend the life of the battery.

I understood most and would even agree with most of your comments, but PLEASE explain to me your comment:-

"battery starts to go you will burn up the starter."

That I did not understand!!!

This is IP.

I believe that might have been an allusion to situations of unlimited power supply: where, say in the instance of power connection via an overlong but not properly up-gauged extension cord, a motor can overheat and fail gradually or suddenly. However, seems to me that, with a limited power source such as a starter battery, when stored charge (ability to supply current) in the failing battery has declined too much, &or EMF fades below nominal range, the starter coil will (just click and) be unable to enable any current to the starter motor or solenoid. Without bypassing the coil, there will be no current at all, and no damage, in the starter.

Even in the case of bypass, and assuming it's not a greatly oversized battery, I would think that a failing battery would not typically be able to deliver current sufficient or likely to harm the motor; with motor circuit cable (but not battery) resistance unchanged, and both current and voltage being smaller.... But I stand to be corrected??

As far as I can tell you are totally mixed up on this subject, sorry......

I would suggest that you get a book(s) and study a little deeper, rather than attempt to fault find with a crystal Bollack!! (Old English name for a ball!)

...also, then there's the matter of motor duty ratings. It's hard to imagine anyone simply holding the key switch, or the bypass tool, in contact indefinitely while the motor failed to crank.

As regards #116 guest interloper, below:

First, I am not sure what Guest/#116 is trying to impart; or how "progress reports" (whatever that was intended to refer to) or "lost employment' entered into his thinking. I can say that that post and the rude abbreviation were not mine.

By IP

Responding to Andy's #113

It was indeed atypical of me to forget to ask for replaced parts; yes, the regulatory (and buyer-beware) guidelines are the same here as there. However, as to exposing a rat, or a rat in the making, it was (as shall become evident) probably just as well, that when I made the work order authorization—it was by telephone—I did not then request the old cables to be returned. Otherwise the genuine removed cables, even still, might not themselves have been returned; substitutes instead would more likely have been provided (if a preconceived fraud was in play); or (if not) the cables could simply have been conveniently lost ("Oops. Please excuse us…") with the garbage. Nor might the incident with the Suit (whom I believe had no cognizance of any situation­, any need for damage control, prior to overhearing his service coordinator's attempts to answer my questions about the replacement cables) have given rise to suspicion of an emerging rat infestation (i.e., suspicion that, at minimum, the Suit's alert intervention was meant to conceal…at best, possible technician &or service writer error; at worst, to conceal his service writer's (etal's) possible scheme to sell unnecessary parts—&or to shift the culpability/burden for substandard diagnostics work back to the customer.)

Now—before posting the update (the next "installment") of what has transpired since my preceding post #112—a response to your point about "cable rot." As said, the replaced cables, which at less than 8 years' use, and also diligently maintained, could be thought of as comparatively new. They showed no visible signs of degradation…no changes or deposition at the connectors, no visible damage to insulation/conductor sealing. As to possible unseen rot, it occurs to me that this could refer either to oxidation or to chemical alteration resulting in deposition. In either case, seems to me that, barring any break in the sealing (the insulation conduit), while it might be possible for "rot" to originate and grow inward from an exposed-metal cable terminus, it would not be possible (i.e., other than remotely likely) for rot to originate (as suggested by the "repair" personnel) at other than an insulated cable's terminus; and at other than the terminus closest to the battery anode at that. In the case of sulfurous deposition—

• I am given to understand that, contrary to generally held perceptions, deposition does not arise (via ion transport) from within the conductors (the post, connector lug, or cable wires) but, rather, as a result of trace acidic gas leakage from the battery (from vents, poorly sealed posts—particularly the anode post, other routes); which gas (up until the time at which the battery electolyte has become neutralized) then "finds" and contacts the nearest exposed metal (the cable connector lugs) where it condenses (on outer surfaces) to begin the etching and deposition process. Moreover, I have observed elsewhere….
• That deposition corrosion, even when the post-cable interface has become fully coated, will not then progress under the insulation and on down the cable but, rather, (the gas) will find the next closest, air-exposed metal "donor," typically a hold-down nut or J-bolt (the most likely reason, in recent car model years/decades, for which the J-bolts and hold-down fasteners have been universally relocated to the most distant points—at the battery midline between cells 3 and 4—from the posts; for which plastic retainer straps/frames have been substituted for metal; and for which, in the case of certain Japanese models, support plates & hold-down hardware have been dispensed with altogether in preference for a plastic battery "bucket" with cover. Or so it seems to me.
• (In the case of my Ranger—even if there had been an insulation break far down the [approx. 6-ft⁺] ground cable, still the environment of forced or fan-drawn wind, or heat rise from a hot engine, should have prevented or retarded acid-induced deposition.)

Other technical as well as general (logical) observations also call the cable diagnosis and replacement into question:

• In probability jargon, other (non-) "events" were also (not) observed which argue against the "sulfur and acid" explanations advanced by the service department personnel.
• Even if sulfate growth or acid movement down the "core" of a multi-strand (presumably cable-wound) cable was somehow possible, and barring any defect of the alternator, such an "attack" on the cable ought not to have occurred until after the battery plates had long-since been fully sulfated (i.e., covered with crystalline sulfur)—when no more battery-plate metal was left exposed. But, such a battery would long-since have died a natural death and have been replaced—there would, in the worst case, be fresh plate metal to attack before a cable was attacked.
• The engine starting-subsystem failure event did not happen gradually in a manner consistent with gradual, rot-induced cable conductor degradation.
• If the replaced cables had any such damage (whether to sealing or conductor), would any diagnostics & repair provider, especially in order to answer a challenge, have been reluctant (and not more than happy) to present the cable and point out the failure-inducing damage to the customer? Hardly!

So yes, battery acid electrolyte, escaping as gas or otherwise, would seem to have persisted long after it would normally have become neutralized, and unable to attack a cable in the manner claimed by the dealership…if I got the drift of your (Andy's) statement and ellipsis correctly.

And yes, I was, and remain, inclined to agree that the dealership has not been acting with total candor. But did that rise to the level of scam? Given that some degree of chicanery is ubiquitous in 'most all automobile factory support—and in most any other manufacturing arena for that matter—judging the level of "scam" in any one situation can be a tough call. My sense (here, 1000s of miles away) is, that what began as a misdiagnosis (due possibly to inadequate system knowledge & basic troubleshooting skill, plus over-reliance on factory-diagnostic equipment & protocols [in short, reliance on dumb-down training]; or could it have simply been an over-hurried diagnosis? or a diagnosis "unduly influenced" by the service writer?), along with a bit of wishful guessing, on the tech's part, quickly devolved (when the expected outcome did not materialize and the battery required "external" charging, post-repair, to reach engine-start capacity) into a kind of "cover-up and run" (cover the error and run with customer's money) strategy. In short order, other personnel, including the service manager, became "invested" in the cover-up; and in preventing the customer from getting wise and his asking for money back. On the other hand, it is possible I fell into a setup where the service personnel were fully aware of how certain charging system/alternator failure modes could be exploited to extract additional charges for un-necessary parts replacement—a true scam in the sense of premeditation and/or conspiracy. Based on what happened next I am not yet convinced that an intentional theft occurred.

So, please stay tuned….

To me your last sentence was the best and probably as near to the truth you will ever get......

Some service stations just change parts to generate cash flow, this works well when the problem is fixed as well (replacing the fuse or cleaning a contact), but they fall down dreadfully (as in this case) when they change something, but cannot fix the fault as well......basically, this is how you go out of business in the long run as ANY customer, who has been so handled, will never go back again, rather the risk of it happening again somewhere else, than trusting such cowboys....

The only way is RIGHT UP FRONT, to set all YOUR rules down on paper and get it agreed by the them, if they won't agree, go some place else....they are two a penny anyway......

Also, in the USA, you have"Tick & Tack", "The Tappet Brothers" (the name might not be perfect!) from Boston I believe, who are on Radio, their website has lists of good mechanics all over the USA.....use their website first!!

If you are not in the USA, I expect something similar exists in your country...find it.

We will never know for sure either how many guests or who the guests are on this or any other CR4 Blog, but I am sure that you do not all agree with each other and that wrong things might be attributed to you personally, which are simply not true....

Can you now see the logic of having your very own sign-on name, so that you can stand up and be counted!!!!!

(Of course if you have made a right mess of your input as at least one Guest here has, you might just want to fade into the distance completely unknown, understandably so!)