Consider buying American!

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 from a bean counter's viewpoint,
it's much better to have a motor go 150k on a chain, then become a
sluggish noisy p.o.s., than have a honda motor go 300k or 400k on
replaceable belts with no noticeable degradation.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:20:10 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>>> BTW anyone on a slippery road is using torque steer. Unfortunately in
>>> a FWD, once you lose one factor, you lose them all. Your life is
>>> hanging on the traction of 2 tires, not 4.
>> rubbish. 2wd is 2wd. period. fwd has the weight over the drive wheels
>> where it can provide traction. unlike rwd.
>
> No real driver would ever say that. RWD only propels the vehicle, you
> steer with the front wheels. If you lose one, you still have the
> other. You can steer with either. In a FWD when you lose the front
> wheels you either recover them pretty fast or you are on a ballistic
> trajectory to the crash.

no "real driver" criticizes something that he himself hasn't mastered.
and you clearly haven't gotten any experience with a decent fwd. or 4wd
for that matter.


> If course if your accellerating the front wheels tend to come off the
> ground pulling weight off the drive wheels not transfer the weight to
> the drive wheels.

tell that to this guy:
http://theoldone.com/articles/Larrys...rrys_Civic.htm

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:26:50 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>> 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 from a bean counter's viewpoint,
>> it's much better to have a motor go 150k on a chain, then become a
>> sluggish noisy p.o.s., than have a honda motor go 300k or 400k on
>> replaceable belts with no noticeable degradation.
>
> Spoken by the man who charges $800 for the belt.

what's with the ad hominem? do you know me?


>
> BTW how do you know how old the belt is if you didn't buy the car new?
> I have been told here the "inspection" is useless

how are you going to inspect the chain?

as for the belt, look at the service history. and if you don't believe
that, just replace the belt. the part is about $35. if you do it
yourself, have the tools and know your business, you can do it in just
over an hour.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:20:10 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>>> 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???
>
>
> ... and they have never had a belt fail at 104000 miles? or 60000?
>

if you're using cheapo belts, even 60k is sticking your neck out. i'm
talking oem honda - they're rated to 105k. and failure rate at that
mileage is less than 1 per million.

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'll trade higher efficiency for a minuscule chance of interference.
especially if i can be bothered to pay attention to my mileage.

still just me wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:59:56 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
> > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And noise. A belt is quieter.
>
> Me, I like chains. I even like the noise.

Please, keep your personal life out of this. ;-)

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:19:38 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>> if you're using cheapo belts, even 60k is sticking your neck out. i'm
>> talking oem honda - they're rated to 105k. and failure rate at that
>> mileage is less than 1 per million.
>
> Good, Thanks I guess I don't need a belt.


??? all this info is free online. why wouldn't you check before
launching a criticism?

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:03:20 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:20:10 -0800, jim beam
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> BTW anyone on a slippery road is using torque steer. Unfortunately in
>>>>> a FWD, once you lose one factor, you lose them all. Your life is
>>>>> hanging on the traction of 2 tires, not 4.
>>>> rubbish. 2wd is 2wd. period. fwd has the weight over the drive wheels
>>>> where it can provide traction. unlike rwd.
>>> No real driver would ever say that. RWD only propels the vehicle, you
>>> steer with the front wheels. If you lose one, you still have the
>>> other. You can steer with either. In a FWD when you lose the front
>>> wheels you either recover them pretty fast or you are on a ballistic
>>> trajectory to the crash.
>> no "real driver" criticizes something that he himself hasn't mastered.
>> and you clearly haven't gotten any experience with a decent fwd. or 4wd
>> for that matter.
>
> Perhaps I don't have a decent FWD, I just have a Prelude
> I have mastered RWD driving, competitevly and I have tolerated the
> handling of FWD but I am not confused that a good handling RWD will
> leave a FWD understeering into the wall on the same course.

eh? understeer means you turn the wheel more relative to the centerline
than over-steer, but it doesn't mean the car doesn't corner. and the
degree of understeer depends on the way the car's set up. you seem to
be confused.


> If FWD is technically superior either in handling or acelleration
> there would be some racers using them and winning.

eh? what about all the civics, integras, preludes, rabbits, etc. that
get raced every weekend all over the country? what about the fwd
winners i see down at the track?


> I'm sure there is a NHRA rice burner class that pits FWDs together but
> they are not the fastest cars.

what class? a civic's not going to beat a race-prep 911, but that's not
like with like.


>
>>
>>> If course if your accellerating the front wheels tend to come off the
>>> ground pulling weight off the drive wheels not transfer the weight to
>>> the drive wheels.
>> tell that to this guy:
>> http://theoldone.com/articles/Larrys...rrys_Civic.htm
>

no comment i note.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:17:26 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:26:50 -0800, jim beam
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 from a bean counter's viewpoint,
>>>> it's much better to have a motor go 150k on a chain, then become a
>>>> sluggish noisy p.o.s., than have a honda motor go 300k or 400k on
>>>> replaceable belts with no noticeable degradation.
>>> Spoken by the man who charges $800 for the belt.
>> what's with the ad hominem? do you know me?
>
> Perhaps I am mistaken but I think you are the guy whgo told me I was
> too dumb to replace a belt and I should bring it to a dealer, leaving
> the impression you worked at one.
> If I am mistaken I appologize.
>>> BTW how do you know how old the belt is if you didn't buy the car new?
>>> I have been told here the "inspection" is useless
>> how are you going to inspect the chain?
>
> Why do all of that? Just rock the engine from the crank pulley and
> look for lost motion on the distributor shaft. DUH!

on a domestic v8 without tensioners. and unworn gears. if it does have
tensioners, and/or worn gears, that doesn't work.


>
>
>> as for the belt, look at the service history. and if you don't believe
>> that, just replace the belt. the part is about $35. if you do it
>> yourself, have the tools and know your business, you can do it in just
>> over an hour.
>
> We already went through this ...

not with me you didn't.



> ... and the best price I could get for an aftermarket belt and pump
> was over $100 at Advance Auto. The dealer is a lot more.
>
> If you can do this in just over an hour and the part is $35, why does
> the dealer charge $800?

which dealer? where?


> BTW I will give you the $800 if I can watch you do this in 90 minutes
> (quite a bit over an hour) , if you run over it's free.

why would you want to lose money like this against a guy you don't know
on a newsgroup???? are you as generous with other strangers you meet on
the street?

bottom line dude, you're not thinking. get your fact straight.

wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:24:37 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>>> 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'll trade higher efficiency for a minuscule chance of interference.
>> especially if i can be bothered to pay attention to my mileage.
>
>
> It is a lot of blind faith to put in a rubber belt.

how odd. methinks you put a lot of faith in the rubber seals in your
braking system - why the disparate religions?


> You have convinced
> me tho. I am going to keep running it until I get tired of the car.
> If the belt breaks I will get tired of it pretty fast ;-)
>
> I do have a lot of experience with cog belts. I worked on equipment
> with lots of them for 30 years. I agree they are pretty trouble free
> but when they fail it is usually a sudden and complete failure.

and when chains fail? do they phone your old lady and say you'll be
late for dinner, just to be nice about it?


> I have
> replaced hundreds if not thousands. Some were very old, some fairly
> new.
> I did get far enough into my car to see it was a "honda" belt, could
> be 11 years old and 85000 miles, may be 4 years old and 20000 mi if it
> was replaced along the way. If I am to believe the inspection criteria
> it is OK.

engineering is not a matter of faith. read the manufacturer specs and
maintain accordingly.