Hi all,

I recently bought a used 08 Honda 'Fit' McCar, and had the dealer toss
in a set of factory shop manuals as part of the deal.

Later, looking through the manuals, I was very surprised to learn the
'Fit' doesn't use a timing belt, but instead a for real old fashion
timing chain.

Then a little while ago, I saw a post in one of the Honda groups where
someone was trying to confirm if what he'd heard about the Civics going
back to chains was true!

Even though belts have to be replaced now and again, they keep the valve
timing tack on till they're replaced (or fail), are cheap to
manufacture, and eliminate 'internally lubricated components' from
warranty coverage.

Anyone have any ideas what might be going on with Honda? Advantages?
Disadvantages? Is this going to be a new trend with Honda and/or other
manufactures?

Seems strange...

Erik

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 03:50:20 -0700, Erik wrote:

Hi all,

I recently bought a used 08 Honda 'Fit' McCar, and had the dealer toss
in a set of factory shop manuals as part of the deal.

Later, looking through the manuals, I was very surprised to learn the
'Fit' doesn't use a timing belt, but instead a for real old fashion
timing chain.

Then a little while ago, I saw a post in one of the Honda groups where
someone was trying to confirm if what he'd heard about the Civics going
back to chains was true!

Even though belts have to be replaced now and again, they keep the valve
timing tack on till they're replaced (or fail), are cheap to
manufacture, and eliminate 'internally lubricated components' from
warranty coverage.

Anyone have any ideas what might be going on with Honda? Advantages?
Disadvantages? Is this going to be a new trend with Honda and/or other
manufactures?

Seems strange...

Erik

Tmning chains seldom wear out, seldom break, and seldom cause your
valves to turn into interesting forms of dramatic scuplture.

Belts on the other hand...shrug..thats what they generally do if you
dont replace them regularly. With some effort, cost and down time.

Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Jun 6, 7:35*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
...
Tmning chains seldom wear out, seldom break, and seldom cause your
valves to turn into interesting forms of dramatic scuplture.

Belts on the other hand...shrug..thats what they generally do if you
dont replace them regularly. *With some effort, cost and down time.

Gunner

I've lost the belt on a Civic and the chain tensioner idler on a
CB350. In both cases there was no significant damage to the rest of
the engine.

A year ago I replaced the timing belt on the 91 Ranger and knocked
loose at least one well-concealed electrical connector plus sucked
some air into the valve lifters by turning the camshaft backwards
slightly. Getting it going again took probably three days work, spread
over a year and including machining more custom tools and parts. A
helpful mechanic with access to a paid site printed out a wiring
schematic that was much more useful than the one in my Ford shop
manual since it wasn't spread across a dozen pages and cluttered with
all possible options.

jsw

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 04:35:44 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 03:50:20 -0700, Erik wrote:

Hi all,

I recently bought a used 08 Honda 'Fit' McCar, and had the dealer toss
in a set of factory shop manuals as part of the deal.

Later, looking through the manuals, I was very surprised to learn the
'Fit' doesn't use a timing belt, but instead a for real old fashion
timing chain.

Then a little while ago, I saw a post in one of the Honda groups where
someone was trying to confirm if what he'd heard about the Civics going
back to chains was true!

Even though belts have to be replaced now and again, they keep the valve
timing tack on till they're replaced (or fail), are cheap to
manufacture, and eliminate 'internally lubricated components' from
warranty coverage.

Anyone have any ideas what might be going on with Honda? Advantages?
Disadvantages? Is this going to be a new trend with Honda and/or other
manufactures?

Seems strange...

Erik

Tmning chains seldom wear out, seldom break, and seldom cause your
valves to turn into interesting forms of dramatic scuplture.

Belts on the other hand...shrug..thats what they generally do if you
dont replace them regularly. With some effort, cost and down time.

And since most new engines rely on interference fits for the highest
performance, a slipped or broken belt means a new engine. I'll bet
they went back to chains to be able to do the "100k warranty" thing.


P.S: I disabled my gmail filter once again, so I see you once again,
mon.

--
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor
the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
-- Charles Darwin

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 03:50:20 -0700, Erik wrote:

Hi all,

I recently bought a used 08 Honda 'Fit' McCar, and had the dealer toss
in a set of factory shop manuals as part of the deal.

Later, looking through the manuals, I was very surprised to learn the
'Fit' doesn't use a timing belt, but instead a for real old fashion
timing chain.

Then a little while ago, I saw a post in one of the Honda groups where
someone was trying to confirm if what he'd heard about the Civics going
back to chains was true!

Even though belts have to be replaced now and again, they keep the valve
timing tack on till they're replaced (or fail), are cheap to
manufacture, and eliminate 'internally lubricated components' from
warranty coverage.

Anyone have any ideas what might be going on with Honda? Advantages?
Disadvantages? Is this going to be a new trend with Honda and/or other
manufactures?

Probably for the same reason they use thin oil and roller rockers etc.
- less friction. Here's a good read on the tech that's required to get
top fuel specifics.
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/244...-201kw-rav4-v6

Wayne

In article ,
says...
Hi all,

I recently bought a used 08 Honda 'Fit' McCar, and had the dealer toss
in a set of factory shop manuals as part of the deal.

Later, looking through the manuals, I was very surprised to learn the
'Fit' doesn't use a timing belt, but instead a for real old fashion
timing chain.

Then a little while ago, I saw a post in one of the Honda groups where
someone was trying to confirm if what he'd heard about the Civics going
back to chains was true!

Even though belts have to be replaced now and again,


And that replacement is a $700 job at the dealer. Our new Kia Sorento uses a
chain also, and that is the motor destined to power other models. I just
replaced the belt on our Sedona, what a huge job, it's easy to see how they
charge $700. Good riddance to timing belts.

--
DT

Erik wrote:
Hi all,

I recently bought a used 08 Honda 'Fit' McCar, and had the dealer toss
in a set of factory shop manuals as part of the deal.

Later, looking through the manuals, I was very surprised to learn the
'Fit' doesn't use a timing belt, but instead a for real old fashion
timing chain.

Subaru went to a timing chain on their 6 cylinder
boxer. Speculation is that it cut about 2" off
the length of the engine and let them shoehorn
it into existing body styles.

"Erik" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I recently bought a used 08 Honda 'Fit' McCar, and had the dealer toss
in a set of factory shop manuals as part of the deal.

Later, looking through the manuals, I was very surprised to learn the
'Fit' doesn't use a timing belt, but instead a for real old fashion
timing chain.

Then a little while ago, I saw a post in one of the Honda groups where
someone was trying to confirm if what he'd heard about the Civics going
back to chains was true!

Even though belts have to be replaced now and again, they keep the valve
timing tack on till they're replaced (or fail), are cheap to
manufacture, and eliminate 'internally lubricated components' from
warranty coverage.

Anyone have any ideas what might be going on with Honda? Advantages?
Disadvantages? Is this going to be a new trend with Honda and/or other
manufactures?

Seems strange...

Erik

I think it is more likely because people are ****ed about timing belts.
They have been around long enough that a big group of people have found out
that a $39 tune up is required at a 100,000 miles, but a $600+ timing belt
is required at 60,000 miles. And when the belt brakes, it causes major
inconvenience. I do not think anybody makes an interference fit motor
anymore, as they had to warrantee replace a bunch of motors. People find
out a motor requires a $700 fix at 60k miles, they go to the competitors
car.

Erik wrote:

Even though belts have to be replaced now and again, they keep the valve
timing tack on till they're replaced (or fail), are cheap to
manufacture, and eliminate 'internally lubricated components' from
warranty coverage.

Years ago, I was touring a Saturn dealers service facility while negotiating the purchase
of my current vehical. The salesman wanted to impress me that they could service my
vehical, I saw a mechanic that looked like he was changing out a timing chain/tensioner.

So I asked him what is wrong with this car, he said, they didn't change the oil often
enough.

I will not buy an car with a belt driving the cam shaft. I still remember the periodic
working on a buds Fiat X19.

Belts are fine when it is easy to change them out.

Wes


--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

In article ,
says..


Belts are fine when it is easy to change them out.


I remember when they first appeared. Ford of England used them on the BDA
engine (Belt Drive series A). My first one was on a Pinto 1600 engine.

The belt could be changed in 10 minutes. First, the engine was not sideways,
so you could get at it. Second, it wasn't even under a cover. Third, you did
not even have to remove the crank pulley.

Then they added a belt retainer under the bottom of the belt, so you had to
remove the crank pulley to slide the belt out. Then added complex dust
covers. Then they made the belt drive other things, like water pumps. Then
they put them on front wheel drive cars where you had to remove all kinds of
things, including the two or three piece front engine mount, which uses 4"
long bolts and there is only 3 7/8" of clearance between the engine and
inner fender.

I just did the one on my Kia Sedona, and the basic job was going fine, it was
as straightforward as any I have done. Then I removed the four 4" long motor
mount bolts. And the mount didn't budge. Nada. After searching on online
forums, I discovered there is a fifth motor mount bolt that comes from the
front, sideways to the rest of the bolts. It is not mentioned in the
repair manual. This requires that you remove the alternator. Which requires
the radiator to be moved forward. Which requires the upper front cross member
removal and part of the intake air duct and loosening the air condioner lines
and stretching them to the max to allow the passage of one alternator bolt.

That one stupid extra motor mount bolt doubled the time required to do the
job, and no other car I have done has had a bolt needed in that location.

--
DT

wrote:
....
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/244...-201kw-rav4-v6

404 error

Tmning chains seldom wear out, seldom break, and seldom cause your
valves to turn into interesting forms of dramatic scuplture.

Belts on the other hand...shrug..thats what they generally do if you
dont replace them regularly. With some effort, cost and down time.

And since most new engines rely on interference fits for the highest
performance, a slipped or broken belt means a new engine. I'll bet
they went back to chains to be able to do the "100k warranty" thing.



"timing chains seldom ..." - you must be out of your mind - timing chains
always wear out, taking the larger gear with them - I've had to change them
on my 38 plymouth, 36 cadillac, 59 cadillac, and twice on my 51 dodge -
newer ones hold up better, but they still go bad - and they are much harder
to change than a belt - I've seen plenty of catastrophic timing chain
failures but the usual failure is not that the chain breaks, rather that it
stretches and cuts the teeth off of the cam gear.

I think it is more likely because people are ****ed about timing belts.
They have been around long enough that a big group of people have found
out that a $39 tune up is required at a 100,000 miles, but a $600+ timing
belt is required at 60,000 miles. And when the belt brakes, it causes
major inconvenience. I do not think anybody makes an interference fit
motor anymore, as they had to warrantee replace a bunch of motors. People
find out a motor requires a $700 fix at 60k miles, they go to the
competitors car.

even more nonsense - any performance motor will be an interference fit motor
as you call it - how could it not be and get decent compression - econobox
motors for little toy cars don't need the performance and can afford the
extra clearance but check ANY car you consider to be high performance - BMW,
Audi, Corvette, Porsche, Lotus, Ferrari, Bentey, you choose -

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...



I think it is more likely because people are ****ed about timing belts.
They have been around long enough that a big group of people have found
out that a $39 tune up is required at a 100,000 miles, but a $600+ timing
belt is required at 60,000 miles. And when the belt brakes, it causes
major inconvenience. I do not think anybody makes an interference fit
motor anymore, as they had to warrantee replace a bunch of motors.
People find out a motor requires a $700 fix at 60k miles, they go to the
competitors car.

even more nonsense - any performance motor will be an interference fit
motor as you call it - how could it not be and get decent compression -
econobox motors for little toy cars don't need the performance and can
afford the extra clearance but check ANY car you consider to be high
performance - BMW, Audi, Corvette, Porsche, Lotus, Ferrari, Bentey, you
choose -

those cars you named, probably none have a rubber timing belt, and when you
figure a $800 tune up for the Porshe etc. they are not in the same league
of the cars we are talking about. the econoboxes pocket the pistons, etc,
so if the belt breaks the valves do not hit.

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...



Tmning chains seldom wear out, seldom break, and seldom cause your
valves to turn into interesting forms of dramatic scuplture.

Belts on the other hand...shrug..thats what they generally do if you
dont replace them regularly. With some effort, cost and down time.

And since most new engines rely on interference fits for the highest
performance, a slipped or broken belt means a new engine. I'll bet
they went back to chains to be able to do the "100k warranty" thing.



"timing chains seldom ..." - you must be out of your mind - timing chains
always wear out, taking the larger gear with them - I've had to change
them on my 38 plymouth, 36 cadillac, 59 cadillac, and twice on my 51
dodge - newer ones hold up better, but they still go bad - and they are
much harder to change than a belt - I've seen plenty of catastrophic
timing chain failures but the usual failure is not that the chain breaks,
rather that it stretches and cuts the teeth off of the cam gear.

Maybe you should have changed the oil more. The only street car with a
timing chain failure I have had in 50 years was a Chevy Luv P/U. And that
was a tensioner failure.

Califbill wrote:

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...



Tmning chains seldom wear out, seldom break, and seldom cause your
valves to turn into interesting forms of dramatic scuplture.

Belts on the other hand...shrug..thats what they generally do if you
dont replace them regularly. With some effort, cost and down time.

And since most new engines rely on interference fits for the highest
performance, a slipped or broken belt means a new engine. I'll bet
they went back to chains to be able to do the "100k warranty" thing.



"timing chains seldom ..." - you must be out of your mind - timing chains
always wear out, taking the larger gear with them - I've had to change
them on my 38 plymouth, 36 cadillac, 59 cadillac, and twice on my 51
dodge - newer ones hold up better, but they still go bad - and they are
much harder to change than a belt - I've seen plenty of catastrophic
timing chain failures but the usual failure is not that the chain breaks,
rather that it stretches and cuts the teeth off of the cam gear.

Maybe you should have changed the oil more. The only street car with a
timing chain failure I have had in 50 years was a Chevy Luv P/U. And that
was a tensioner failure.

I replaced the timing chain in a '66 GTO YS 389 V8 engine because the
timing was off. If I had waited, it would have broken. I replaced it
with a double roller sprocket racing chain. It was a quick job, in
spite of one of the Woodridge keys falling into the oil pan. A bent
hanger and 30 seconds of fishing dragged it out. It took under a half
hour, and most of that time was spent scraping off the old gaskets.

That's the only one I've replaced, and I've driven a lot of high
mileage vehicles.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

DT wrote:
In article ,
says..

Belts are fine when it is easy to change them out.



I remember when they first appeared. Ford of England used them on the BDA
engine (Belt Drive series A). My first one was on a Pinto 1600 engine.

The belt could be changed in 10 minutes. First, the engine was not sideways,
so you could get at it. Second, it wasn't even under a cover. Third, you did
not even have to remove the crank pulley.


Belt guards serve a valuable purpose in keeping crap and stones etc away
from the belt. More than a few cars without covers have found this to
their cost. On a well designed engine they are quite easy to remove,
I've mainly done a few FIAT/Lancia twin cam engines and they were quite
straight forward, the Lancia Delta having the least clearance in the
engine bay and so being the most trouble for that mm or 2 clearance isse.

Then they added a belt retainer under the bottom of the belt, so you had to
remove the crank pulley to slide the belt out. Then added complex dust
covers. Then they made the belt drive other things, like water pumps. Then
they put them on front wheel drive cars where you had to remove all kinds of
things, including the two or three piece front engine mount, which uses 4"
long bolts and there is only 3 7/8" of clearance between the engine and
inner fender.

I just did the one on my Kia Sedona, and the basic job was going fine, it was
as straightforward as any I have done. Then I removed the four 4" long motor
mount bolts. And the mount didn't budge. Nada. After searching on online
forums, I discovered there is a fifth motor mount bolt that comes from the
front, sideways to the rest of the bolts. It is not mentioned in the
repair manual. This requires that you remove the alternator. Which requires
the radiator to be moved forward. Which requires the upper front cross member
removal and part of the intake air duct and loosening the air condioner lines
and stretching them to the max to allow the passage of one alternator bolt.

That one stupid extra motor mount bolt doubled the time required to do the
job, and no other car I have done has had a bolt needed in that location.

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:54:18 -0400, DT
wrote the following:

In article ,
says..


Belts are fine when it is easy to change them out.


I remember when they first appeared. Ford of England used them on the BDA
engine (Belt Drive series A). My first one was on a Pinto 1600 engine.

The belt could be changed in 10 minutes. First, the engine was not sideways,
so you could get at it. Second, it wasn't even under a cover. Third, you did
not even have to remove the crank pulley.

Then they added a belt retainer under the bottom of the belt, so you had to
remove the crank pulley to slide the belt out. Then added complex dust
covers. Then they made the belt drive other things, like water pumps. Then
they put them on front wheel drive cars where you had to remove all kinds of
things, including the two or three piece front engine mount, which uses 4"
long bolts and there is only 3 7/8" of clearance between the engine and
inner fender.

I just did the one on my Kia Sedona, and the basic job was going fine, it was
as straightforward as any I have done. Then I removed the four 4" long motor
mount bolts. And the mount didn't budge. Nada. After searching on online
forums, I discovered there is a fifth motor mount bolt that comes from the
front, sideways to the rest of the bolts. It is not mentioned in the
repair manual. This requires that you remove the alternator. Which requires
the radiator to be moved forward. Which requires the upper front cross member
removal and part of the intake air duct and loosening the air condioner lines
and stretching them to the max to allow the passage of one alternator bolt.

That one stupid extra motor mount bolt doubled the time required to do the
job, and no other car I have done has had a bolt needed in that location.

You often wonder if the suits forced the engineering team to futz one
up so the dealerships remained busier, don't you?

--
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor
the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
-- Charles Darwin

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:31:41 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

wrote:
...
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/244...-201kw-rav4-v6

404 error

Huh. I usually check them before posting, but I didn't bother this
time because I remember it working not so long ago. The current error
message is recommending the same URL I posted, which implies that the
problem might be some kind of temporary glitch. But the whole site
looks different, and the way back machine doesn't have a copy yet. Too
bad, it was a nicely detailed article that focused on tech instead of
cupholders. IIRC correctly, most of the info was cut and paste from
Toyota itself. But I don't see any comparable article with a quick
search.

Wayne

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:41:31 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:54:18 -0400, DT
wrote the following:

In article ,
says..


Belts are fine when it is easy to change them out.


I remember when they first appeared. Ford of England used them on the BDA
engine (Belt Drive series A). My first one was on a Pinto 1600 engine.

The belt could be changed in 10 minutes. First, the engine was not sideways,
so you could get at it. Second, it wasn't even under a cover. Third, you did
not even have to remove the crank pulley.

Then they added a belt retainer under the bottom of the belt, so you had to
remove the crank pulley to slide the belt out. Then added complex dust
covers. Then they made the belt drive other things, like water pumps. Then
they put them on front wheel drive cars where you had to remove all kinds of
things, including the two or three piece front engine mount, which uses 4"
long bolts and there is only 3 7/8" of clearance between the engine and
inner fender.

I just did the one on my Kia Sedona, and the basic job was going fine, it was
as straightforward as any I have done. Then I removed the four 4" long motor
mount bolts. And the mount didn't budge. Nada. After searching on online
forums, I discovered there is a fifth motor mount bolt that comes from the
front, sideways to the rest of the bolts. It is not mentioned in the
repair manual. This requires that you remove the alternator. Which requires
the radiator to be moved forward. Which requires the upper front cross member
removal and part of the intake air duct and loosening the air condioner lines
and stretching them to the max to allow the passage of one alternator bolt.

That one stupid extra motor mount bolt doubled the time required to do the
job, and no other car I have done has had a bolt needed in that location.

You often wonder if the suits forced the engineering team to futz one
up so the dealerships remained busier, don't you?
From 1996 -
The Designer

The designer sat at his drafting board,
A wealth of knowledge in his head was stored.
Like "What can be done on a radial drill,
Or a turret lathe or a vertical mill?"
But above all things a knack he had,
For driving gentle machinists mad.
So he mused as he thoughtfully scratched his bean,
Just how can I make this thing hard to machine?
If I make this perfect body straight,
The job had ought to come out first rate.
But it would be so easy to turn and bore,
That it would never make the machinist sore.
So I'll put a compound taper there,
And a couple of angles to make them swear.
And brass would work for this little gear,
But it's too damned easy to work I fear.
So just to make the machinist squeal,
I'll have him mill it from tungsten steel.
And I'll put these holes that hold the cap,
Down underneath where they can't be tapped.
Now if they can make this, it'll just be luck,
Cause it can't be held by dog or chuck,
And it can't be planed and it can't be ground,
So I feel my design is unusually sound.
Then he shouted with glee, "Success at last!
This goddam thing can't even be cast!"
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

"Califbill" wrote in message
m...


"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...



I think it is more likely because people are ****ed about timing belts.
They have been around long enough that a big group of people have found
out that a $39 tune up is required at a 100,000 miles, but a $600+
timing belt is required at 60,000 miles. And when the belt brakes, it
causes major inconvenience. I do not think anybody makes an
interference fit motor anymore, as they had to warrantee replace a bunch
of motors. People find out a motor requires a $700 fix at 60k miles,
they go to the competitors car.

even more nonsense - any performance motor will be an interference fit
motor as you call it - how could it not be and get decent compression -
econobox motors for little toy cars don't need the performance and can
afford the extra clearance but check ANY car you consider to be high
performance - BMW, Audi, Corvette, Porsche, Lotus, Ferrari, Bentey, you
choose -

those cars you named, probably none have a rubber timing belt, and when
you figure a $800 tune up for the Porshe etc. they are not in the same
league of the cars we are talking about. the econoboxes pocket the
pistons, etc, so if the belt breaks the valves do not hit.

my 911 has a timing chain - actually two of them, but it does have a rubber
cogged belt to drive the power steering pump. However, my 944 (in fact all
944s) have a "rubber" timing belt - of course it's not rubber really, but
it's the black flexible stuff - the 944 uses two of them, one for timing and
water pump, one for balance shafts - I change them at 30K intervals. Audi
TT has "rubber" belt also, only one - the manual says the change interval is
"120,000 miles" - but that's a mistake, they forgot to change from KM to
miles - major lawsuit as virtually every belt broke before the change - in
my case, only 16 of 24 valves destroyed. so, no, in this case you are
wrong - performance cars use timing belts, they use them because they are
lighter, have less inertia, and are quieter than chains. But, with the cost
of labor, and so many folks not knowing which end of a screwdriver is which,
I can see why cheapie cars aiming for reliability might go back to a chain.

That said, the $800 tuneup cost on a 911 is mostly the labor to get at the
plugs - I work pretty fast and it takes four hours to get there, then about
5 minutes to change 12 plugs, then four hours to put everything back -
mostly you have to do things like remove mufflers, sheet metal, etc - it
isn't as annoying as on a cheapie car because the instructions tell you what
to do, and it's all pretty reasonable, just tedious - no like those vegas
where you had to remove a wheel and drill a hole in the fender.....

DT wrote:

I remember when they first appeared. Ford of England used them on the BDA
engine (Belt Drive series A). My first one was on a Pinto 1600 engine.

The belt could be changed in 10 minutes. First, the engine was not sideways,
so you could get at it. Second, it wasn't even under a cover. Third, you did
not even have to remove the crank pulley.


The first car maker to use toothed timing belt to drive a camshaft was
Hans Glas of Germany. The car was a 1963 Glas 1600 Coupe. Glas was later
bought by BMW. Glas also made interesting microcars, the Goggomobil
range, but were two strokes so no belts or chains.
From where I stand as a humble consumer, toothed timing belts are the
work of the devil. They give no warning of impending failure, and
overlooking a scheduled change will often end in tears. A chain on the
other hand give audible noise if it's on its way out, and will pretty
well keep on going with its guts hanging out.
Having said that, the simplicity and economy of belts are hard to
ignore, and as you say, as long as they are designed to be easily
serviced, could be a tolerable solution. The time to check that is
before you buy the car!

Jordan

DT wrote:
In article ,
says..

Belts are fine when it is easy to change them out.


I remember when they first appeared. Ford of England used them on the BDA
engine (Belt Drive series A). My first one was on a Pinto 1600 engine.

The actual Pinto 1600 was chain drive, cam in block.
Now, if you had a BDA head on a 1600 block, that's a different story.

In article ,
Jordan wrote:

DT wrote:

I remember when they first appeared. Ford of England used them on the BDA
engine (Belt Drive series A). My first one was on a Pinto 1600 engine.

The belt could be changed in 10 minutes. First, the engine was not
sideways,
so you could get at it. Second, it wasn't even under a cover. Third, you
did
not even have to remove the crank pulley.


The first car maker to use toothed timing belt to drive a camshaft was
Hans Glas of Germany. The car was a 1963 Glas 1600 Coupe. Glas was later
bought by BMW. Glas also made interesting microcars, the Goggomobil
range, but were two strokes so no belts or chains.
From where I stand as a humble consumer, toothed timing belts are the
work of the devil. They give no warning of impending failure, and
overlooking a scheduled change will often end in tears. A chain on the
other hand give audible noise if it's on its way out, and will pretty
well keep on going with its guts hanging out.
Having said that, the simplicity and economy of belts are hard to
ignore, and as you say, as long as they are designed to be easily
serviced, could be a tolerable solution. The time to check that is
before you buy the car!

Jordan

Ahhh... but timing belts keep the valve timing dead on throughout their
entire life, increasing efficiency, and reducing emissions. Chains
'stretch' and get sloppy.

(And from the Mfg's point of view, belts eliminate 'internally
lubricated parts' they cover under extended warranties.)

I agree, if belts are used, they need to easily serviceable.

There was some discussion of interference engines here a while back...
if you want to find if any particular engine is or isn't, Gates has a
PDF booklet covering most every belted application out the

http://www.gates.com/downloads/downl...-1466_web.pdf&
folder=brochure

Interference engines are indicated with an * in the listings.

Sorry about the long URL, copy/paste if necessary to make it work...

Erik

In article ,
says...
DT wrote:
In article ,
says..

Belts are fine when it is easy to change them out.


I remember when they first appeared. Ford of England used them on the BDA
engine (Belt Drive series A). My first one was on a Pinto 1600 engine.

The actual Pinto 1600 was chain drive, cam in block.
Now, if you had a BDA head on a 1600 block, that's a different story.


I'm getting old. The belt drive was on my 2 liter Pinto engine. My formula
junior Tojeiro that I raced in the SCCA Solo series used the 1600 engine.


--
DT