Originally Posted By: CrackyWainwright
What automotive engineer ever thought the timing belt was a superior idea and practice over the timing chain?
We on BITOG are all in the habit of careful maintenance so that our vehicles will last a long time, so any of us with timing belt vehicles can expect to have to change them two or three times over the life the car. My Honda Accord V6 timing belt job cost me $900 at the Honda dealer two years ago. If I keep the car another couple of years, I'll be at 200,000 and in need of another $900 timing belt replacement.
Some will say timing chains stretch or break, but those are rare occurrences. I've always believed a chain to be far superior to a belt that has be changed every few years.
Some of you fellows can fill me in on the historical specifics, but I would guess that some automotive engineers 30 or 40 years ago had the idea of a belt that could be accessed easily and changed for $100 at most shops. Very quickly, however, manufacturers began stacking all kinds of parts and components in the way of the timing belt cover and causing the cost of the replacement to go way up. Again, this is my idea of what happened.
What do you gentlemen know about this? Thanks.
I think it was to make the engine quieter. I sold my 1994 Camry with about 225K miles on it as it was due for a timing belt change and that would have cost 50% of what the car was worth.
But timing chains are not what they use to be. In my 1965 Mustang with 289 V8 the chain was a straight run to the cam, nothing else was driven off the timing chain. They never needed anything and no one ever talked about them as an issue.
Then at some point they went to timing belts driving a multitude of things. And the change needed at 90K and some engines were interference.
Now its back to timing chains but they do not have a straight run and drive all the things a timing belt did and now do break (but not very often).