Are batteries judged? The new gel or dry batteries are great for cars that aren't driven as much as a daily driver, but my car had a tar top 6 volt Willard when it was built. Sould I spend the extra money for a reproduction battery?

If the battery is mounted under the seat, or another place that is not visible...I'd say it's a moot point.

If it is visible, I would suggest a correct reproduction battery. I have one of the newer "gel" batteries that looks just like the original one. A Battery Tender keeps it topped off.

This is a sore point with me and I won't address the judging aspect. A lead acid repro is wildly expense and is basicly the cheapest piece of crap the maker can get away with. Typically they last no more than 3 years. A NAPA battery that costs 1/3 the price will last at least twice as long. The repro battery makers also offer an Optima repro battery but after close questioning they admitted it was an Optima "type" battery. That battery is even more expensive and the guarantee is a paltry 4 years prorata.
Bottom line if you don't NEED a repro you are throwing good money at a crappy product. A lot of guys are carrying a dead repro to shows and just putting it in for the judging..........Bob

I'd rather not make this an argument...but I too used to believe that the reproduction batteries were junk.

A few points to be made first. For starters, many people do not use a battery tender or other device on our oldies that are not driven regularly...so when the battery has a problem...they often think it's the battery rather than the lack of upkeep.

Since I started using New Castle's batteries, and a battery tender...I have not had the failures I had with other brands.

While they do indeed make an Optima type battery...and
I have one...the fact that it is not an Optima brand battery is good by me. Both my local parts shop and mechanic have seen so many Optima failures and problems that they recommend against Optimas. They recommend Interstates.

I have the new style "Optima type" for the 55 and it is now 4 years old, takes a few minutes to float to a full charge with the Battery Tender and the cell readings are perfect between cells. This could easily last 3 to 4 more years. Cost was $225 from Antique Auto Battery. A world of difference from the reproduction wet cell batteries.

No argument from me, I'm just stating my experiance with reprojunk batteries. Others have had better luck. I only know that half my cars have$79 NAPA batteries and they last 6 years. The last 3 $230 repros lasted EXACTLY 3 years. All batteries are treated equally. Again no argument just my observations. Ron I have no experiance with tho gel cell repro's I do hope you have continued sucess with it...........Bob

Yes the batteries are judged as long as they're in plain sight.

What kind of car are you looking to put this battery in?

In the case of our Ford, there is a guy affiliated with the Early Ford V8 Club who sells Optima batteries. What he does is buys reproduction battery cases, machines the inside of them out, and places an Optima up through the bottom of it (the terminal extensions brings it up through the case). The battery looks completely stock, but has the reliability and longevity of a new battery. They are pricey, but when the battery dies, you go out and buy another Optima and put it back inside the old style battery case. In simpler terms, it is a high initial cost, but the cost savings will be when it's time to replace the battery. The Optimas have a longer warranty and higher cranking amps.

Pat I dont have the name of the co. here at the shop, but they make a cover that fits over the top of the grp.24 Delco batt. I see two of them on e-bay now. makes a modern batt look just like thge real mccoy, cost about 25.bucks. Unless they change the rule book this year they are ok for judgeing. You can bet if they make one for Delco some one makes or will make one for the 3 majors.

This is a tip that a freind of mine did with the 6v battery in his 42 Dodge , the car is never judged but he wanted to keep it original or as original as possible . He bought one of those new dry batterys which are small , cut the top of an original style batt removed all the insides and fitted the new batt inside the old one the glued the top back on, works well and unless you look real close you can't tell the top has been cut.

Cardboard box with vacuum formed top and garden tractor battery inside.



Bill
http://www.rustyrestorations.org/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=12

I would like to hear a judges opinion on this.

I have seen these "toppers", and while they are better than nothing, and look OK at a glance, they are easy to spot and only deal with the TOP of the battery. If you have an application where the sides of the battery are visible, this thing stands out like a sore thumb. Certainly that wouldn't receive full points?

Also, unless things have changed recently, the toppers are made only for the very popular 10" GM battery (group 24, as Windjamer points out), such as GTOs and Camaros. I've never seen one for the longer 12" Delco batteries or for non-Delco units.

Greg, dont want to open a can of worms, but page 24 of the 08 judging guidelines item 7 states (batteries may be of modern manufacture,but they must be visually of the era of vehicle manufacture.) I was parked next to a pretty 60 Impala convertable yesterday that had a toper on the battery. He, corection SHE also had a senior agnm on the grill.

Windjamer,
No can of worms intended....I think this is good discussion.

I am no judge, but MY interpretation of this rule is that a reproduction battery (made recently) is OK, if it looks like the original. In other words, a NOS or period-made battery is not required.

I guess the question that remains is: Does a battery with a topper meet the requirement to be "visually of the era of vehicle manufacture"?

Having seen them, I would say NO. They can be easily spotted, and (as pointed out before) do nothing to help the appearance of the sides of the battery. I would assume that IF the sides of the battery are visible to a judge, that would be part of the battery's visual assessment. Let's face it, the sides of a modern battery just don't look like the sides of a period-authentic reproduction ('script') battery.

As for a specific car sporting a Senior badge and wearing a battery topper? I think that means nothing. Any number of scenarios could explain this, including one of the following:
1) Car was sooo fine, that a battery deduction did not prevent it from reaching Senior status. (Since judging sheets are not provided, how would the owner even know?)
2) Judges did not notice battery was a 'topper' and took no deduction (a gift, IMHO).
3) The SIDES of the battery are not visible.
4) The judges simply missed it.
5) The car was judged with a original or correct repro battery, and since the time the award was given, the owner swapped that battery out for a modern battery with topper.

Bottom line: I'm not judge so my opinion means nothing. However, if a member plans to use a "topper" in lieu of a complete repro battery, I would strongly recommend consulting some judging expert first, or potentially risk the disappointment of lost points.

Why not? Every vehicle has a battery, either they should ALL be judged or none.

A lot of yesterdays cars had the battery mtd. under the seat, some under the floor boards. N.C.T. you have been awrond long enough to know (and do) we never remove a part to judge a part. It would be way to time consumeing and possable damage could accure. In all cases we judge with our eyes. As for the toppers, yes if you stare at them you will see they are fake,but outherwise the will fool a lot of folks. Its pretty hahd to pick up with a casual look.

Yea, I think that was my point. Sometime someone will have to explain how a car with an exposed battery has to appear original, when a battery under the floor or seat can be anything. Or exposed headlights don't have to be opened, which can be done manually or electrically or by vacuum, depending on the car. Maybe I'll find a car with a factory tonnaeu cover so the interior can't be judged.

It really is not fair that someone with retractable headlights could get away with having Halogen headlights (on a car that should not have them) and avoid the ten point deduction that should be taken just because of that rule.