why honda and others don't use timing chain in

[M1Accord]

their v6 and up engine. i would think that the [censored] they claim about their hassle free ownership by having long oci should be refocused in eliminating expensive service items such as timing belt and waterpump replacement off the maintenance chart.

RANT OFF.

 

[Mr Nice]

Cause they want you to visit their service dept and spend the big $$$ to get it changed.

 

[TokyoJoe]

I agree with you 100% after the timing belts of my 2 Civics('85 & '89) snapped prematurely(both at less than 9K miles)and destroyed the engines because they were interference type. Now when I buy a car, I try to buy a car that has timing chain. So, most of the Hondas are out of question. Only benefit that I can think of using a timing belt instead of a chain is quieter engine.

 

[JTK]

I'd like to think it has to do with reducing NVH and keeping the engine as light, fuel efficient and powerful as possible. Like you say though, it probably boils down to costs and profits.

Joel

 

[brianl703]

Probably the same reason the Civic didn't lose the distributor until 2001.

 

[The Critic]

The 2.4L I4 and 1.8L I4 engines are both chain. They have been used in the Accord and Civic since 2003 and 2006, respectively.

There are both sides to the argument. Belt engines do seem to be quieter, and do not become noisier as they age. (my experience only) Chain equipped engines tend to sound "old" once they get past 100k miles, especially if they were not well-maintained as far as oil changes. On the other hand, installing a new timing belt and tensioner on a belt equipped engine will allow it to sound like new again.

Also, chains do not last forever. While I do know one mechanic who likes to think that all chains self-destruct after 150k (which I do not agree with), it is true that timing chains often require a lot more labor to replace in the event that they do need replacement. It isn't uncommon for the newer chain equipped engines to require engine/transaxle assembly removal to access the timing chain removal.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
The 2.4L I4 and 1.8L I4 engines are both chain. They have been used in the Accord and Civic since 2003 and 2006, respectively.

There are both sides to the argument. Belt engines do seem to be quieter, and do not become noisier as they age. (my experience only) Chain equipped engines tend to sound "old" once they get past 100k miles, especially if they were not well-maintained as far as oil changes. On the other hand, installing a new timing belt and tensioner on a belt equipped engine will allow it to sound like new again.

Also, chains do not last forever. While I do know one mechanic who likes to think that all chains self-destruct after 150k (which I do not agree with), it is true that timing chains often require a lot more labor to replace in the event that they do need replacement. It isn't uncommon for the newer chain equipped engines to require engine/transaxle assembly removal to access the timing chain removal.


I pretty much agree. Timing chains will eventually wear out. The short chain on the the Buick (cam in block) had a ton of slop in it after 80K miles. In fact it's recommended that we replace the chain at 100K though a lot of it has to do with the nylon gear teeth chipping. I have to wonder how much cam timing changes with all that slop. While belts are made to be servicable, chains a lot of times are not and require much more labor

 

[tom slick]

belts are easier and cheaper to engineer into the design.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Timing chain in my 2.4 Accord was a MAJOR factor in my purchase decision. Belt on the V6 helped me decide against it.

 

[Cogito]

I thought Honda was using chains in their V6 now? My solution is to only buy noninterference design engines. Then if either type goes bad you're probably not going to screw the pooch.

 

[asiancivicmaniac]

Why do some manufacturers use interference designs and some use non-interference? If the non-interference wouldn't die because of a broken timing belt then wouldn't it make more sense to use a non-interference engine?

 

[TokyoJoe]

Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
Why do some manufacturers use interference designs and some use non-interference? If the non-interference wouldn't die because of a broken timing belt then wouldn't it make more sense to use a non-interference engine?

I asked the same question to my friend mechanic when my second Civic engine was damaged. He said that the pistons have to come all the way up very close to the ceiling to gain high compression which is the key for high horsepower in a relatively small engine. I don't need a fast car but I need one that lasts long with a very few maintenance requirements(except for oil changes, of course). Therefore, timing chain in non-interference engine is the best, timing belt in interference engine is the worst and timing belt in non-interference engine is acceptable at least for me.

 

[Eddie]

Timing belts on an interference engine is a dumb manufactures decision. The rational for belts is, they are quieter, use less horse power and subject the cams to less jerking motion (wear). My Subaru TB looked like new when I changed it at 105,000 miles but, the dealer wanted $575 for the job. I did the job in my garage for ~ $200 which included a new WP, thermostat and oil pump O-ring. Not a job for a first-timer at engine work though. I love the faint whir of my Saab & Mazda timing chain, while knowing they we probably last to the first rebuild at 175,000 miles or more.

 

[BuickGN]

The easy answer to interference vs non-interferance is high compression usually puts the pistons closer to the valves. It also depends on cam lift and valve diameter.

It doesn't always hold true. My Buick runs low compression dished pistons yet is still an interference motor. As far as I know, the majority of engines made today are interference.

 

[Squishy]

I'll go one step further and say I prefer the pushrods. Really short chain (sometimes even gear driven) and they are generally tuned to be low-revving stump pullers - obvious and notable exception being the LS7.

Pretty much all the high-compression, premium-fuel sipping engines are interference. I haven't seen a benefit to them for everyday driving - the extra horsepower isn't needed, and I haven't seen any fuel savings from the higher compression. Another negative aspect is battery and starter wear - the high compression engine in our MDX takes 2-4 seconds to start, while the Escape and Trans Sport V6s take around half a second; I won't compare the I4s to a V6. My favourite engine out of our family "fleet" is the GM pushrod V6, despite the intake manifold problems (which we haven't experienced yet), and despite my Duratec 30 being "Porsche designed".

 

[mstrjon32]

I was told by three separate people that the GM 3100 in my old car was the quietest engine they'd ever heard (when warmed up, it was virtually inaudible at idle), despite the "antiquated" pushrod design and the timing chain. I sold it, running perfectly, with 195K miles on the original chain.

Unfortunately, the same could not be said for the 3900 in my new car. It definitely growls at idle and occasionally makes other odd noises. At cruising speed though, it's certainly a quieter car.

When the head gasket in my mom's Lumina failed, it had 216K miles on the original chain. Had the car not fallen victim to rust, it would have been fixed and would probably still be on the road.

Give me an engine with a no-maintenance chain any day of the week,

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: Squishy
I'll go one step further and say I prefer the pushrods. Really short chain (sometimes even gear driven) and they are generally tuned to be low-revving stump pullers..


Good point. One little dinky chain, no complicated tensioners, idlers, etc. On one of today's typical chain driven OHC setups, if that mile-long chain lets loose, that engine is done for. That sucker is going to weed-wack the front of the engine to bits. IMO, at the end of the day it doen't really matter. All that protects your engine from disaster is either a simple strip of reinforced rubber, or a more complicated, long multi-link chain. Worst part of a T-belt is the expense and time required to replace it @ over 100Kmi.

Joel

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Squishy
I'll go one step further and say I prefer the pushrods. Really short chain (sometimes even gear driven) and they are generally tuned to b


I'm waiting for sleeve valve engines to make a comeback.

 

[andyd]

The engine in my 528e has a belt and it is an interference engine. I can buy the OEM belt and tensioner for 30$. The interval is 60k or 4 yrs. Those are conservative numbers. It is a 4hr job with basic handtools. I pick a nice Saturday and listen to the ballgame.

 

[Max_Wander]

It's a simple corporate decision, based on their current handful of products. The J-series is only Honda's first and only 60 degree V6. It's a relatively old design, and minus the tinkering of heads and displacements, it hasnt changed. A good engine, but when it was designed, timing belts were the Japanese standard. Honda is not going to dump money into retrofitting the J block with a consumer-frienly chain because it only benefits the end consumer, and takes money away from their dealers. We'll just have to wait for Hondas next 60 degree V6 for a chain. Also today's chains are just as quiet, if not quieter, than timing belts. The belts are definately not noise-free, they often make whining and resonance noises, and they flap when tensioners get old. Just wait for Honda to finally update/replace the J, and you'll be guaranteed a chain.