Battery not charging to 100%

[MJM Grand]

Hello, I know there are lots of threads on batteries but finding it all a bit confusing. My t6.1 ocean is about 6 months old. When we bought the van, bars were all blue mostly when driving and always when on EHU. Now seem stuck at 80%. After 24 hours on EHU at home using three pin adapter, control panel showed bars at 80%. Is there an issue?

 

[calibusje]

The numbers certainly seem ok. The blue bars do not yet show as if it is full. You could drive it and turn on the maximum charge function: soon they will all be blue. The 24 hour charge is actually not that long depending on how empty the batteries were. The -1A is because the vehicle is constantly monitoring itself and that uses electricity but also because you are putting on the screen.
With the right search terms you can find an incredible amount of information here, especially about the screen - batteries of the t6.1

 

[TripleBee]

This is one of the things that really doesn't help with fuel economy.
I have (luckily) no Bluemotion Technology. So I don't have stop/start system. This means, when I drive, all my batteries are always being charged completely. If I start driving with empty batteries, the van will use a little more fuel to charge all 3 batteries. Once they are full, the alternator will just produce the electricity needed to keep the batteries topped up. When I arrive at a campsite, I will have 100% battery capacity.
But when I start driving with topped up batteries, after a complete EHU charge, the van won't use more fuel.
It all looks good on paper, but in reality, it just doesn't help at all.
As I have read here before, you can put it to maximum charge while driving. Can you use that setting when on EHU? If so, just charge all batteries before you take off. Then you won't use more fuel while driving to top up your batteries.

 

[calibusje]

This is one of the things that really doesn't help with fuel economy.
I have (luckily) no Bluemotion Technology. So I don't have stop/start system. This means, when I drive, all my batteries are always being charged completely. If I start driving with empty batteries, the van will use a little more fuel to charge all 3 batteries. Once they are full, the alternator will just produce the electricity needed to keep the batteries topped up. When I arrive at a campsite, I will have 100% battery capacity.
But when I start driving with topped up batteries, after a complete EHU charge, the van won't use more fuel.
It all looks good on paper, but in reality, it just doesn't help at all.
As I have read here before, you can put it to maximum charge while driving. Can you use that setting when on EHU? If so, just charge all batteries before you take off. Then you won't use more fuel while driving to top up your batteries.

Sorry but this is not entirely correct reasoning (unless I don't understand what you mean): the alternator in the t6.1 (and t6) only works when necessary and therefore the car uses less fuel. The alternator also only charges up to 80% and only up to 100% if you enable the function (and the start-stop is switched off (you can also switch this off manually yourself with a button so you don't have to drive with start-stop if you don't want to). Only then does it - simply put - consume as much as yours. There is indeed less consumption with this way of charging. I also always have full batteries when I arrive at the sleeping place because the maximum charging function (which you can only use with the engine running / or while driving) I briefly enable during a trip and a little later they are 100% charged. Then I stop using it and I suspect that if I didn't stop using it with full batteries, the function would stop anyway because it can no longer charge. I think it is a good system. The t6 also has such an alternator but no maximum charging function. When charging with the cable, all batteries also charge to 100% (this can take quite some time).
Whether a t5.1 has an alternator that works like the t6 and t6.1 I doubt: it is -I think- one that keeps generating energy and 'does not switch itself off'.
The consumption of the t6 - t6.1 is less than previous comparable engines and therefore more economical.
A statement of mine that of course does not apply entirely but does show something: our 1991 t4 Westfalia california with a 5-cylinder 2.4 liter naturally aspirated diesel of 78 hp and manual gearbox and no air conditioning consumed quite a bit more than our almost three year old t6.1 with 150 hp, dsg gearbox and used as a daily driver with the air conditioning constantly on.

 

[TripleBee]

Sorry but this is not entirely correct reasoning (unless I don't understand what you mean): the alternator in the t6.1 (and t6) only works when necessary and therefore the car uses less fuel. The alternator also only charges up to 80% and only up to 100% if you enable the function (and the start-stop is switched off (you can also switch this off manually yourself with a button so you don't have to drive with start-stop if you don't want to). Only then does it - simply put - consume as much as yours. There is indeed less consumption with this way of charging. I also always have full batteries when I arrive at the sleeping place because the maximum charging function (which you can only use with the engine running / or while driving) I briefly enable during a trip and a little later they are 100% charged. Then I stop using it and I suspect that if I didn't stop using it with full batteries, the function would stop anyway because it can no longer charge. I think it is a good system. The t6 also has such an alternator but no maximum charging function. When charging with the cable, all batteries also charge to 100% (this can take quite some time).
Whether a t5.1 has an alternator that works like the t6 and t6.1 I doubt: it is -I think- one that keeps generating energy and 'does not switch itself off'.
The consumption of the t6 - t6.1 is less than previous comparable engines and therefore more economical.
A statement of mine that of course does not apply entirely but does show something: our 1991 t4 Westfalia california with a 5-cylinder 2.4 liter naturally aspirated diesel of 78 hp and manual gearbox and no air conditioning consumed quite a bit more than our almost three year old t6.1 with 150 hp, dsg gearbox and used as a daily driver with the air conditioning constantly on.

Air conditioning doesn't really add that much to the fuel consumption too.
The 5-cylinder engine will need one more cylinder to be fed, alongside the lack of turbo to accelerate the van, meaning it needs more fuel to get to the same performance.
And if my batteries are full, the alternator will still turn, but will not make the engine use (much) more fuel, because it doesn't have to work either.
If I drive with full batteries, the display shows 0.XA fed into the leisure batteries.
But on the other hand, on paper, the van should use 7,7 liter/100km mixed driving. I get below that: 7,67.
And on longer trips, I can get as low as 5,5 liter/100km. So I think the fuel economy is quite good for my van. And I don't have to bother with AdBlue too. And 1 starter battery every 14 years isn't that much of a hassle too. Where you save here, you can spend more there. Doesn't make that much of a difference.

 

[calibusje]

Air conditioning doesn't really add that much to the fuel consumption too.
The 5-cylinder engine will need one more cylinder to be fed, alongside the lack of turbo to accelerate the van, meaning it needs more fuel to get to the same performance.
And if my batteries are full, the alternator will still turn, but will not make the engine use (much) more fuel, because it doesn't have to work either.
If I drive with full batteries, the display shows 0.XA fed into the leisure batteries.
But on the other hand, on paper, the van should use 7,7 liter/100km mixed driving. I get below that: 7,67.
And on longer trips, I can get as low as 5,5 liter/100km. So I think the fuel economy is quite good for my van. And I don't have to bother with AdBlue too. And 1 starter battery every 14 years isn't that much of a hassle too. Where you save here, you can spend more there. Doesn't make that much of a difference.

Much difference or not: the emission standards of the t6.1 (t6) are the lowest due to interventions such as the alternator so actually nothing needs to be proven here. By the way: you should know how much our t6.1 consumes on the highway, the ‘longen trips’.
Don't be blinded by what I show in my 'comparison' between our previous T4 with five-cylinder and no horsepower and our T6.1 with almost double the horsepower (and heavier and air conditioning that does make a difference in consumption), but know that we are talking about several liters of difference per 100 km..
I am happy that you are happy but I think we are talking past each other so never mind. Everyone has their own idea.
Have fun travels with yours!

EDIT:
I do have to mention that I am a fan of the (T5) T5.1 so I have nothing against these California’s; on the contrary: after purchase and a few years of travelling they were the model I wanted as a successor to our rather old but faithful T4 Westy. Then - and this must have been about 10 years ago if I remember correctly- I had the chance to buy a second-hand one from a vet who works on the same site as me; a Mojave beige (hence my affinity with this colour but chose ascot grey after all) with a fair number of kilometres driven but never camped in it. It was about 4 years old and only used to drive to his country house in Switzerland and later for his commute. I drove it and it was wonderful. However, I did not buy it for a reason related to the engine and actually I did not have the necessary amount of money to spend on a California at the time... this was 35,000 euros. I should have bought it. But we continued to travel happily with our T4 California and are now very happy with our T6.1 Coast.
Just to say that for me there is no best or better than the other and I would be happy with any one.
All this doesn't really have anything to do with the OP's question, so I'll stop now

 

[dspuk]

Hello, I know there are lots of threads on batteries but finding it all a bit confusing. My t6.1 ocean is about 6 months old. When we bought the van, bars were all blue mostly when driving and always when on EHU. Now seem stuck at 80%. After 24 hours on EHU at home using three pin adapter, control panel showed bars at 80%. Is there an issue?

View attachment 131761

No.

 

[The Little Red Cali]

Hello, I know there are lots of threads on batteries but finding it all a bit confusing. My t6.1 ocean is about 6 months old. When we bought the van, bars were all blue mostly when driving and always when on EHU. Now seem stuck at 80%. After 24 hours on EHU at home using three pin adapter, control panel showed bars at 80%. Is there an issue?

View attachment 131761

Ignore the blue bars, they are not reliable. Your voltage looks good, indicating 100% charge. The blue bars normally reset themselves.

 

[scottk]

I never bother with the battery view on the control panel-voltage is a better indicator. The batteries are only charged to 80% in normal use to preserve battery life. Use max charge if you need 100% but I only use this if I am off grid for a few days.

 

[pluc99]

Hello, I know there are lots of threads on batteries but finding it all a bit confusing. My t6.1 ocean is about 6 months old. When we bought the van, bars were all blue mostly when driving and always when on EHU. Now seem stuck at 80%. After 24 hours on EHU at home using three pin adapter, control panel showed bars at 80%. Is there an issue?

View attachment 131761

No issue. Your picture post EHU shows 12.8V which is 100%.
Normal alternator charging (without max button) only goes to 80% (approx 12.4V) on the T6.1 to allow for regenerative braking energy to be stored.
The blue bars are just a nice graphic, but inaccurate.

 

[MJM Grand]

No issue. Your picture post EHU shows 12.8V which is 100%.
Normal alternator charging (without max button) only goes to 80% (approx 12.4V) on the T6.1 to allow for regenerative braking energy to be stored.
The blue bars are just a nice graphic, but inaccurate.

Thanks for the reply