Well I had to lay to rest my alternator (note: my alt was and still is too small to handle my amp, it wasn't a grounding problem). Just spent 3-4 hours puttin in a new one. My dad suggested just run the ground wire from the amp straight to the battery. I'm wondering what's the difference between letting the current run through the frame of the car, versus an easier pathway through wire? Either way it still gets to the battery the same. Only thing I see wrong with it is more chance for fire with current running through 2 lengths of wire (engine to trunk)
I'm no expert on cars so please fill me in on what I'm missing lol... I had this exact same setup in my Blazer with all the exact same equipment. The alt in my Honda was 105 amps I'm guessing (the new one is I know for a fact), the one from my Blazer was about 85 at the most. In the Blazer it was much much louder, and I never blew the alt, or tripped the circuit breaker, which is 140 amps until I hooked it all up in the Honda, I've flipped the circuit breaker quite a few times now. I'm saving up for a 200 amp alt from www.nopi.com finally.
That's just something I'm tryin to figure out and it's not workin out so hot. But anyway, is there even a difference between straight ground to batt, or frame to batt? Maybe a circuit or something just before the battery? Resistances of the frame and wire are definately gonna be different. Wire should be less.
Replies (5)
ttocs on 10/29/2003 21:31:05
If it were my vehicle, I think I would personally run two wires... There is no downside to it, other then $$$... There is no fire hazard, you cannot ground a ground wire.
Frames are not always a good ground anymore. We had a new Nissan truck at the shop two weeks ago. The amp WAS grounded to the frame, with a Bolt. We tested voltage at the amp, and got 9 volts, as the frame was fairly isolated from the electrical system.
Swez on 10/30/2003 04:59:57
Hummm, goes against most conventional thinking, but whatever it takes to get maximum watts (volts x current) to your gear is the best choice.
Ttocks, would it be easier and more cost effective to run an AUX ground from the battery to the frame, then ground amps to frame? I would think there is such a large bulk of metal that is now same potential as ground at battery, this would give the same effect? (less wiring hassles?)
On Unibody designs, the whole body is grounded right? So, having a solid ground from Bat/Eng/Body/Amps, would the target to shoot at or am I missing something here?
Comments?
Swez
accusedmonk on 10/30/2003 06:23:58
I personally don't want to run another cable through, one reason being I don't wanna clutter up everything. On my Honda you can see the ground cable comming off the frame right in front of the battery. Actually now that I think about it, I'm probably getting more current to the amp now since the wires between the alt and battery are already what looks to me 6 guage.
With what I have now, I don't loose even .01 volts going to the back, that's really good, so I don't wanna waste my time running a second cable just to get a little better of a ground.
Thanks.
Swez on 10/30/2003 11:37:17
That's the goal... getting the most power back to the amps. If you have less than 0.5 voltage drop from BAT to amps, you are doing well. In this case, doing very well (0.01 volt drop) so power line and ground are definitely doing the job as noted.
Your next step may be to upgrade the #6 wire from ALT/BAT and BAT/GNDS to #4 gage. Now you can be certain the amps are getting everything they need from the electrical system.
Swez
Pinch on 10/30/2003 12:21:46
Something to think about though...
Since the metals which make up the body of the vehicle are different from those in the wires connecting the amp(s) to the batt, ground loops could be an issue. In that respect, running a wire from the negative terminal of the batt to the amp will ensure that the potential at the amp between + and - is the same as the potential at the battery between + and - (12-14 volts). When you rely on the conductivity of the vehicle for ground you may measure a potential much less than you'd expect at your amp even if you weld the ground wire to the frame.
Pinch
I'm no expert on cars so please fill me in on what I'm missing lol... I had this exact same setup in my Blazer with all the exact same equipment. The alt in my Honda was 105 amps I'm guessing (the new one is I know for a fact), the one from my Blazer was about 85 at the most. In the Blazer it was much much louder, and I never blew the alt, or tripped the circuit breaker, which is 140 amps until I hooked it all up in the Honda, I've flipped the circuit breaker quite a few times now. I'm saving up for a 200 amp alt from www.nopi.com finally.
That's just something I'm tryin to figure out and it's not workin out so hot. But anyway, is there even a difference between straight ground to batt, or frame to batt? Maybe a circuit or something just before the battery? Resistances of the frame and wire are definately gonna be different. Wire should be less.
Replies (5)
ttocs on 10/29/2003 21:31:05
If it were my vehicle, I think I would personally run two wires... There is no downside to it, other then $$$... There is no fire hazard, you cannot ground a ground wire.
Frames are not always a good ground anymore. We had a new Nissan truck at the shop two weeks ago. The amp WAS grounded to the frame, with a Bolt. We tested voltage at the amp, and got 9 volts, as the frame was fairly isolated from the electrical system.
Swez on 10/30/2003 04:59:57
Hummm, goes against most conventional thinking, but whatever it takes to get maximum watts (volts x current) to your gear is the best choice.
Ttocks, would it be easier and more cost effective to run an AUX ground from the battery to the frame, then ground amps to frame? I would think there is such a large bulk of metal that is now same potential as ground at battery, this would give the same effect? (less wiring hassles?)
On Unibody designs, the whole body is grounded right? So, having a solid ground from Bat/Eng/Body/Amps, would the target to shoot at or am I missing something here?
Comments?
Swez
accusedmonk on 10/30/2003 06:23:58
I personally don't want to run another cable through, one reason being I don't wanna clutter up everything. On my Honda you can see the ground cable comming off the frame right in front of the battery. Actually now that I think about it, I'm probably getting more current to the amp now since the wires between the alt and battery are already what looks to me 6 guage.
With what I have now, I don't loose even .01 volts going to the back, that's really good, so I don't wanna waste my time running a second cable just to get a little better of a ground.
Thanks.
Swez on 10/30/2003 11:37:17
That's the goal... getting the most power back to the amps. If you have less than 0.5 voltage drop from BAT to amps, you are doing well. In this case, doing very well (0.01 volt drop) so power line and ground are definitely doing the job as noted.
Your next step may be to upgrade the #6 wire from ALT/BAT and BAT/GNDS to #4 gage. Now you can be certain the amps are getting everything they need from the electrical system.
Swez
Pinch on 10/30/2003 12:21:46
Something to think about though...
Since the metals which make up the body of the vehicle are different from those in the wires connecting the amp(s) to the batt, ground loops could be an issue. In that respect, running a wire from the negative terminal of the batt to the amp will ensure that the potential at the amp between + and - is the same as the potential at the battery between + and - (12-14 volts). When you rely on the conductivity of the vehicle for ground you may measure a potential much less than you'd expect at your amp even if you weld the ground wire to the frame.
Pinch
Copyright ClubKnowledge 2009 * All Rights Reserved
