battery at the trunk - relocation
 

¿Anyone has done a battery relocation to the trunk of the brz? I am interested in doing so as a way of counterbalancing weight after a SC install. Not interested in lightweight batteries. Thing is I haven't seen many installs. Indeed. None.


I know some Audi cars, for instance, have the battery fitted inside the spare tire location at the trunk. Any pros or cons of doing this in the brz?


Thanks!

Personally, it's not worth the time and effort. If your not in actual racing competition where 2 lbs can mean a win or loss, your just "ricer-ing" yourself.

If all you do is daily driving or "sprinted mountains driving " then it's still not even worth it.

Your better off with a light weight battery. And even then why?

Relocating a battery is pretty simple for the most part but also if done wrong may end up in your car catching fire.

Personally you’re better off with it in the front


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, that's about 1% of the car's weight moving to the back. Brings it 1% closer to 50/50. ;)



Now that everyone is all riled up, I'm going to say that I also do not recommend doing this, even on a race car. Batteries store a whole lot of energy, and you don't want a main unfused line in the cabin. Running the line outside is likely to get it damaged or corroded. You have to have pretty thick cabling on the positive wire to reduce resistance, and that long of a wire might produce more interference in the electronics' power supply, increasing the likleyhood of a fault. In a race car, you would be better off getting a super small, lightweight battery because it only needs to crank once (or twice if something unfortunate happens) and usally in not-cold weather.

Meh, AGM battery with a decent ground strap in the back. One single heavier gauge conductor carefully mounted under center console with a fused link at the battery.


Win.

Fuses only really break after the designed in amperage is exceeded. On the main positive that's going to be rather high because you have to drive the starter.


Win revoked.

Still only a fraction of the current from a dead short. Not new. Study and borrow from solid designs. Consider strain relief, potential for chafing, inspect regularly.


Live. Learn. Do. Win.

A fraction of 100 amps can still kill someone or set something on fire. Granted, it's not likely if its secured against the frame. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that you're wrong and I'm right. :iono:








JK, I'm sure there's a legit way to do it, but still not recommending messing with it. :cheers:

The original set up is also a solid design with no real world advantage to re-engineering the whole system. This system significantly increases risk by extending the potential points of failure through the whole vehicle. Sure you can manage that increased risk through the things you said but I think a deeper PFEMA would tell you it is not necessarily a good idea. If the benefits outweighed the risk it may be worthwhile pursuing but I just don't see that for this application.

I get the nay-saying, and I mean that in a positive sense. Risk to benefit ratio, though? Assigning merit to the idea? Those are slippery slopes, and are why I chimed in here. The OP was to explore the potential change. Since no one took the stance in favor, I decided to do so with some requisite caveats.


There's a great deal involved in doing it right but it can be done. Benefit schmenefit. Of course it's silly but so's a snooker ball for a shift knob.

"win revoked" LOL.

Main reason for re-location was usually no more room under the bonnet with the V8 shoehorned into Sunbeam Tigers and Cobras.
I think Sunbeam Alpines still had the battery in the engine bay.

Also another 5 to 10 lbs. extra copper leads.

Well a snooker ball for a shift knob is not re-engineering a whole primary system of a vehicle. I guess that my dislike of the idea stems more from my stance on needless over engineering for the sake of over engineering. Many times a year I have to look at an engineering proposal that somebody spent weeks on just t say "that is very nice and would do the job but bring me back something that is 50% easier to maintain and at least 25% cheaper to build". They always do.

When we were building the new assembly plant I spent a great deal of time in Detroit monitoring the engineering firm contracted to design and build much of the line equipment. Now, this was not some mom and pop shop but the leading automation company in the world. The whole reason I was there was that they had a horrible tendency to want to make everything overly complex. The best example of this was the task of installing the three 5/16 (socket size) bolts that hold the rotor splash shields on. They proposed this massive device that looked all the world like a minigun on a swing arm. The operator would place three 1/2 inch long bolts in the sockets, swing the thing in place, line it up with the holes, pull a trigger and wait until it hit the preset torque and stop. then they would swing it back and start all over. This task was given a 20 second cycle time. So, I told them that it would never work and to make something simpler . They went over my head to the corporate engineering director and he said build it as designed. Well guess what? It didn't work. Try standing back almost 4 feet and line three small bolts up with holes you can hardly see due to the bulk of the equipment. The 20 second cycle time was extended to over a minute and that just could not happen. After fighting with corporate for a week we eventually pulled the massive thing and gave the operator a small pneumatic had driver which I wanted in the first place. The cycle time went down to 10 seconds and the operator was actually even able to do a second task as well.

THIS is why I dislike over engineering and moving a battery to the rear of the car for no appreciable advantage is certainly that.