Consider buying American!

jim beam wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:25:46 -0800, jim beam

<snip>

>> They don't "fail safe". In the
>> case of the timing belt, there is one skinny piece of rubber between
>> running and total destruction of your engine. That was not true in the
>> American OHC motors I have owned.
>
> er, do you think a belt change is going to sneak up on you unexpected???
> with honda, it's 105k miles between changes. how much chance you'll
> accidentally miss it???
>
> advantages of belts include much better timing precision and quieter
> operation. the only disadvantage is not allowing for idiots that can't
> look at their mileage every 7 years.

Huh? Exactly how do belts provide "much better timing precision" than
chains?

We've all heard the squeal of a radiator or power steering belt slipping
if the tension isn't correct, but never a timing belt. The timing belts
I'm familiar with are toothed to prevent slippage, much like a chain
turning a sprocket. Here's an example of a timing chain and sprocket
complete with chain tensioner from a 1988 Porsche Carrera:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/projec.../photo_10.html

jim beam wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article > ,
>> jim beam > wrote:
>>> advantages of belts include much better timing precision and quieter
>>> operation. the only disadvantage is not allowing for idiots that
>>> can't look at their mileage every 7 years.
>>
>> Strange the way then that most makers are going back to chains. Despite
>> them costing far more - the main reason for belts in the first place.
>> Cost
>> cutting.
>>
>
> no, belts offer the advantages cited before. and it's a big deal that
> belts don't stretch allowing timing to drift. there's no real cost
> difference between the two.
>
> the only reason manufacturers are going back to chain is because there's
> a certain select bunch of whiners that bleat about the expense of doing
> belt changes. every 100k+ miles.

And you know this how?

jim beam wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article >,
>> jim beam > wrote:
>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article > ,
>>>> jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>> There's at least one Vauxhall (GM) available in the UK where the
>>>>>> engine has to come out to change the belt. If this is the case it
>>>>>> would be little more overall cost to change a chain. And in practice
>>>>>> less since it would have a greatly longer life.
>>>>>>
>>>>> how much longer is "greatly longer"? put numbers to it.
>>>> On average over 4 times longer than a belt. Some may never need
>>>> changing throughout the service life of the engine.
>>
>>> 1. it's more like 1.5 times.
>>
>> Don't be silly.
>
> because you don't know or care about chain stretch doesn't mean it's not
> happening. chains stretch enough to be out of spec in about this
> mileage span.
>
>
>> The newsgroups are full of cars breaking cam belts - but
>> how often do you hear of a chain going?
>
> belts "go" when they're too old and have been used too long. chains
> usually wear out to the extent that they wreck the rest of the timing
> gear and turn the engine into a sluggish polluter.

Any links to support this claim?

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:26:06 -0600, Gordon McGrew
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:56:08 -0500, wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:39:49 -0800, jim beam
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Generally speaking it's not possible to make an efficient non interference
>>>>> engine. If it was everyone would.
>>>>>
>>>> indeed.
>>> A lot of manufacturers have, what they didn't do is squeeze out a few
>>> extra HP by running the engine at 8000 RPM
>> I still love to drive my '94 GS-R. If I didn't, I would have gotten
>> rid of it long ago. I will take the remote risk of catastrophic
>> engine failure to the certainty that I will hate the car a year after
>> I buy it and suffer catastrophic depreciation when I get rid of it
>> prematurely. So far, with 170,000 miles (and a fresh timing belt), I
>> would say I am winning the bet.
>
> I have owned about 30 cars/trucks and about a dozen motorcycles in the
> 46 years I have been driving. I never got emotionally involved with
> any of them.

:-(

jim beam wrote:
> Mike Scheer wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> dizzy wrote:
>>>> still just me wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For 9999 out of 10,000 drivers, FWD makes more sense.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> Unless you're
>>>>> into throttle steer and serious performance driving, RWD has no
>>>>> advantages and some serious disadvantages.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again.
>>>
>>> neither statement are wrong. in the wet, fwd is a big advantage
>>> because the weight is over the driving wheels. rwd's can easily spin
>>> out with doofus behind the wheel.
>>
>> (1) Have you ever tried to recover a skidding FWD in icy conditions?
>> The physics are all wrong.
>
> yes i have. no it isn't.
>
>> (2) I think you mean to say that "neither statement IS wrong."
>> "Neither" is singular,
>
> there are two instances, hence the plural - "neither of these two
> statements are wrong". something like "neither do i" is singular.

Wrong! The subject of the sentence is "neither", which is singular.
Without the qualification ("of these two statements") it would read
"neither is wrong" (not "neither are wrong").

I cannot recall seeing someone asserting so much in Usenet yet providing
so little supporting links, etc. Clearly a legend in your own mind.

still just me wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:42:51 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
> > wrote:
>
>> It's a good book, but, ironically, when it came out, Ford made
>> something like record profits, and Nissan lost money.
>
> Even if true, what has manufacturing low quality cars in models people
> don't want to buy done for Ford? The Japanese have the right strategy.
> The right strategy has been incredibly obvious to anyone with a brain,
> but 30 years after the Japanese starting eating their breakfast, the
> US manufacturers still don't have a freaking clue.
>
> I saw GM's CEO give a speech last year in which at one point he argued
> against CAFE standard increases for "trucks", because he claimed the
> Japanese sold more smaller cars than trucks (and it was easier for
> them to hit the average). Then, later in the same speech, he talked
> about how sales were down because they weren't selling many tucks
> anymore.
>
> Apparently he couldn't connect the dots.

Bet he happily took home his $10.2 million package for 2006 undoubtedly
believing he earned every penny of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/au...es/28auto.html

In article >,
Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:

> > I'm a 'BMW guy'. BMW saw sense and ditched belts some 15 years ago.

> Why does BMW care? They've created a market in the US where their
> target market leases the cars and turns them around before the warranty
> is up.

The world does *not* consist of the US. But in any case like most makers
offer a warranty on secondhand cars.

> BMW doesn't give a **** about maintenance costs down the road. That's
> some other ******'s problem, not BMWs.

Really? They include maintenance in the sale price for 100,000 miles -
which can be extended for a fixed payment. A good reason for using chains.

But since chains cost more and are inferior in every way (in your
opinion) just what is your explanation for BMW using them ?

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tony Harding wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:25:46 -0800, jim beam
>
> <snip>
>
>>> They don't "fail safe". In the
>>> case of the timing belt, there is one skinny piece of rubber between
>>> running and total destruction of your engine. That was not true in the
>>> American OHC motors I have owned.
>>
>> er, do you think a belt change is going to sneak up on you
>> unexpected??? with honda, it's 105k miles between changes. how much
>> chance you'll accidentally miss it???
>>
>> advantages of belts include much better timing precision and quieter
>> operation. the only disadvantage is not allowing for idiots that
>> can't look at their mileage every 7 years.
>
> Huh? Exactly how do belts provide "much better timing precision" than
> chains?

because they don't stretch!!!


>
> We've all heard the squeal of a radiator or power steering belt slipping
> if the tension isn't correct, but never a timing belt. The timing belts
> I'm familiar with are toothed to prevent slippage, much like a chain
> turning a sprocket. Here's an example of a timing chain and sprocket
> complete with chain tensioner from a 1988 Porsche Carrera:
>
> http://www.europeancarweb.com/projec.../photo_10.html
>
>

that tensioner's on the slack side of the chain!!! it doesn't prevent
stretch!!! and the degree of stretch is substantial - as you can see in
that pic.

Tony Harding wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article > ,
>>> jim beam > wrote:
>>>> advantages of belts include much better timing precision and quieter
>>>> operation. the only disadvantage is not allowing for idiots that
>>>> can't look at their mileage every 7 years.
>>>
>>> Strange the way then that most makers are going back to chains. Despite
>>> them costing far more - the main reason for belts in the first place.
>>> Cost
>>> cutting.
>>>
>>
>> no, belts offer the advantages cited before. and it's a big deal that
>> belts don't stretch allowing timing to drift. there's no real cost
>> difference between the two.
>>
>> the only reason manufacturers are going back to chain is because
>> there's a certain select bunch of whiners that bleat about the expense
>> of doing belt changes. every 100k+ miles.
>
> And you know this how?

how do you /not/ know this??? examine the facts!

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:
>
>>> I'm a 'BMW guy'. BMW saw sense and ditched belts some 15 years ago.
>
>> Why does BMW care? They've created a market in the US where their
>> target market leases the cars and turns them around before the warranty
>> is up.
>
> The world does *not* consist of the US. But in any case like most makers
> offer a warranty on secondhand cars.
>
>> BMW doesn't give a **** about maintenance costs down the road. That's
>> some other ******'s problem, not BMWs.
>
> Really? They include maintenance in the sale price for 100,000 miles -
> which can be extended for a fixed payment. A good reason for using chains.
>
> But since chains cost more and are inferior in every way (in your
> opinion) just what is your explanation for BMW using them ?
>

actually, bmw spend more r&d dollars on product life limitation than any
other manufacturer. and they spend money buying back crashed cars to
keep used parts off the second-hand market to further limit lifespans
too. [old cars they don't worry about - they just stop selling parts.]
it's no coincidence they use chain.