Toyota: Timing Belt or Chain?

[SwampSurvivor]

I have a friend with a 2005 Accord, 135K (was 130 last time I saw it) who refuses to change the original belt. Honda's recommendation is 5 years/105000 miles. It's too expensive ...

He brought it to a mechanic who said the belt, apparently, looks good.

Every time I see I have a text from him or he's calling I am expecting to hear how it just died on the road.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I have a friend with a 2005 Accord, 135K (was 130 last time I saw it) who refuses to change the original belt. Honda's recommendation is 5 years/105000 miles. It's too expensive ...

He brought it to a mechanic who said the belt, apparently, looks good.

Every time I see I have a text from him or he's calling I am expecting to hear how it just died on the road.


On both my Sienna and the Accord, I've never seen a bad belt even after over 100,000 miles. It's the tensioner pulleys (and on the Accord) the water pump that go bad. From what I've seen those are more a reason to "change the belt" than the belt itself.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I have a friend with a 2005 Accord, 135K (was 130 last time I saw it) who refuses to change the original belt. Honda's recommendation is 5 years/105000 miles. It's too expensive ...

He brought it to a mechanic who said the belt, apparently, looks good.

Every time I see I have a text from him or he's calling I am expecting to hear how it just died on the road.


On both my Sienna and the Accord, I've never seen a bad belt even after over 100,000 miles. It's the tensioner pulleys (and on the Accord) the water pump that go bad. From what I've seen those are more a reason to "change the belt" than the belt itself.

The water pump almost took out the timing belt in my old Neon too. I imagine if you are doing mostly highway miles in a temperate climate, some timing belts would go double the interval. I know I was never going to do the timing belt on the Neon again, even though the interval was 60k miles... I think the one that's on it now has around 100k miles, and looks fine.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I have a friend with a 2005 Accord, 135K (was 130 last time I saw it) who refuses to change the original belt. Honda's recommendation is 5 years/105000 miles. It's too expensive ...


Having done the work myself on a same-year J35 engine, I'd wager that it's not going to croak anytime soon. Nothing on mine had any visible wear. The pulleys all spun smooth and free, the belt still looked great, I guess the water pump was still good (it didn't leak), and the tensioner had not leaked.

I replaced everything but the camshaft seals. Those, too, seemed fine. I think I spent $400 in parts, and that included new spark plugs from an Acura dealer online. Even indy shops will get you on this job...because they know that people are intimidated by it.

Watching Eric The Car Guy's video before hand gave me a lot of confidence. And, really, if all of your crankshaft and camshaft marks are good after you get the belt on, you can't mess it up. You just have to be cognizant of the procedures involved. And yeah, it takes one Saturday morning every seven years...

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Donald
Chains are superior in design, but they made the path more complicated than it use to be on say a 289 Ford engine. No one ever had issues with timing chains that were in use before timing belts.
Really? I replaced dozens of them toast around 100K milesin the 70's andearly 80's. CHains are not superior in design - whatever that means.
I'm a M.E. with 40 years experience.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: Donald
Chains are superior in design, but they made the path more complicated than it use to be on say a 289 Ford engine. No one ever had issues with timing chains that were in use before timing belts.
Really? I replaced dozens of them toast around 100K milesin the 70's andearly 80's. CHains are not superior in design - whatever that means.
I'm a M.E. with 40 years experience.


We've covered that- plastic "silent" cam gears were a ~150k limiting factor, some went much sooner than that.

A correctly done chain system (there are many examples, but a good one is the Ford 4.6 2-valve) will last the life of the engine. Many documented examples of >300k mile 4.6 Fords out there with the original chains and guides. No belt will do that.

 

[Lapham3]

One wonders if the short chains of decades ago had the benefit of modern lubricants what life they would have had...or if the 'long and busy' cam chains of today had to get by with a 1965 formula of Penzoil,ect!?!

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Lapham3
One wonders if the short chains of decades ago had the benefit of modern lubricants what life they would have had...or if the 'long and busy' cam chains of today had to get by with a 1965 formula of Penzoil,ect!?!


Having rebuilt old-school engines and then run them a lot of miles with modern lubricants... I can tell you that it really does make a difference. My personal opinion is that the very long engine life we see today is about 60% due to better lubrication, 25% due to better fuel/spark management that prevents detonation damage, lean/hot combustion damage, etc. and only about 15% due to better mechanical assembly precision. Yes, modern engines are more precisely assembled and more consistent than they were decades ago- absolutely no question. But IMO that helps power and efficiency for the most part, and only slightly benefits overall longevity. The better longevity improvement mostly comes from the better lubrication and engine management. I think if you could put carburetors and breaker point ignitions on a fleet of GM LSx, Ford Modular, or modern Hemis, and ran them on 1971 Pennzoil, you absolutely would see lifespans much more similar to a 1971 Chevy 350 than a 2015 Modular.

 

[Lapham3]

Thanks for your report 440. Most of my rebuild/repair has been Buick nailhead and other 1960s GM V8 engines and I'd have to mirror your statement. Also those conditions often resulted in an amazing amount of sludge build-up. Sometimes fellas would wonder why after an oil change and adding the 'correct' amount of oil, they'd show a quart over filled on the dipstick=they figured it was a wrong stick-no, they had a quarts worth of sludge in the pan. Mostly disbelief until teardown revealed the ugly truth! Now I'm not doing very much-getting older and lazy and most of my local mochine shops and mochinists have gone away now. Anyway, I drive those old cars and service them about as modern and no particular issues, and if they break I don't much need the Internet to figure out a fix either!

 

[artificialist]

Modern chains rarely ever fail, but when they do, they cost far more to replace than a belt. With belts, you know when to replace them, so the amount of money you spend in replacements is predictable.

Another problem is that with timing belts, if the water pump fails, you often get stuck with replacing the belt at the same time. That in mind, in the few engines that have chain driven pumps require huge labor hours to replace.

I just hate timing belts because in my family, we never knew what a timing belt was, until 1994, when a snapped one killed mom's 1985 Nissan Maxima. I loved that car so much, it hurt me to see it go, even though that car was unreliable.

 

[aualtima3.5]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Modern chains rarely ever fail, but when they do, they cost far more to replace than a belt. With belts, you know when to replace them, so the amount of money you spend in replacements is predictable.

Another problem is that with timing belts, if the water pump fails, you often get stuck with replacing the belt at the same time. That in mind, in the few engines that have chain driven pumps require huge labor hours to replace.

I just hate timing belts because in my family, we never knew what a timing belt was, until 1994, when a snapped one killed mom's 1985 Nissan Maxima. I loved that car so much, it hurt me to see it go, even though that car was unreliable.


I had an Altima with the 3.5 and the timing chain started to make noise right after I got the car at 40k. I was in college, and I didn't have the extra cash to fix it (some shops wanted to replace the motor, saying it would be less labor!) - so I kept driving it to 105k, where I gave it to my Dad. He totalled it at 110k. I'm certain it was about to fail, it make an awful rachet when warmed up. The stereo barely could cover it up.

In the past I was wanting chains, but now after having a car with a belt, I see it isn't so bad. It can be serviced in the car, and you don't have to worry about broken tensioners or extremely difficult repair jobs due to a design not made ideal for service.

 

[Number_35]

I'm OK with (in fact, like) timing belts, IF the engine is non-interference.

I don't know why any manufacturer ever equipped interference engines with timing belts.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: Number_35
I'm OK with (in fact, like) timing belts, IF the engine is non-interference.

I don't know why any manufacturer ever equipped interference engines with timing belts.

The auto maker would either need a deeper dished piston or a lower lift cam to be non-interference. In other words, the auto maker would have to give up performance to get a non-interference engine.