Tony Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 I ponder why some of the most powerful engines in..... Bike's, boats, lorries, planes and automobiles DON'T use cam belts? Why do most car manufacturers use belts rather than chains like the rest of the high powered community.... Ever heard of a bike going in for a 30.000 mile cam belt change? No So why cars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Belts are cheaper than chains and chains can get a bit noisy. Belts themselves are pretty cheap but chains usually go for longer intervals and the labour get expensive whatever it is. Cheapness rules most of the time on new cars nowadays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Is it possible to replace a cam belt with a chain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Belts are cheaper than chains and chains can get a bit noisy. Belts themselves are pretty cheap but chains usually go for longer intervals and the labour get expensive whatever it is. Cheapness rules most of the time on new cars nowadays. Since the high powered club have chains, i'm still troubled to understand why the domestic fraternity suffer with belts... Surly it cannot just be down to the noise and cost.... What is the difference in the cost of a smooth pulley and one with teeth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 I believe it's noise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam@TDi Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Yep noise and cost of manufacture.... That said both the S2000 and the Civic type-r both have silent timing chain systems ... Honda rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Certain SAABs do as well don't they? Honda engines do rock :0~~~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Yep noise and cost of manufacture.... That said both the S2000 and the Civic type-r both have silent timing chain systems ... Honda rock Thought so.... Cost! Once again Mr average has to suffer the consequence and pay the price..... Tiss an evil world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 How evil is it? Belts easily last 60,000miles / 5 years and are quieter and cheaper than chains. Even if you went to chains you'd still have to change them as they stretch plus you'd have extra cost and noise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 How evil is it? Belts easily last 60,000miles / 5 years and are quieter and cheaper than chains. Even if you went to chains you'd still have to change them as they stretch plus you'd have extra cost and noise? If my car had 60k on the clock i would prefer a noisy chain than a 1k bill to replace the belt... At least the chain doesn't brake. By comparison what is the span of a chain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 At 60,000 miles i'd be wanting to give my car a decent service anyway. A grand for a cambelt change? Even my mr2 where you have to get the engine mostly out is only a few hundred max in labour! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 i had the water pump on the zaf throw a wobbly last week which is pulley driven by the cambelt the cambelt just survived all but in tatters i cant believe a chain would have, and would have had devestating effects new water pump new cambelt all labour £300 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinthespin Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Hi guys, There are pros and cons to both, as always, you have got the most important one as in cost, not only is the belt itself cheaper than a chain but so are the sprockets, you need a hydraulic tensioner on a chain, and you need to lubricate it and have prbably 4 rubbing strips all of which adds up, on top of that there is the noise. perhaps not as obvious as you might think but the chain tends to set up resonances in covers and case that need addressing, for example on some engines there is a bolt holding the cam chain chest tight to stop it 'panting' and making a racket. You tend not to get this any of with belts. In terms of what to use, belt or chain, you have to weigh up the application, for high revving engines such as bike engines and big power engines the instantaneous stretch in a belt would be prohibitive, lots of cars use chains, such as Saabs, BMW's (all M-engines) etc, I prefer chains as they do stretch over time and once they go further than the tensioner will cope with they rattle a bit and give you some warning to get it fixed, a belt doesnt stretch with time (very much at all) and once fatigued will just break, not good. So in all chains are dearer but better, belts are cheap and good enough for most 'normal' cars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Hi guys, There are pros and cons to both, as always, you have got the most important one as in cost, not only is the belt itself cheaper than a chain but so are the sprockets, you need a hydraulic tensioner on a chain, and you need to lubricate it and have prbably 4 rubbing strips all of which adds up, on top of that there is the noise. perhaps not as obvious as you might think but the chain tends to set up resonances in covers and case that need addressing, for example on some engines there is a bolt holding the cam chain chest tight to stop it 'panting' and making a racket. You tend not to get this any of with belts. In terms of what to use, belt or chain, you have to weigh up the application, for high revving engines such as bike engines and big power engines the instantaneous stretch in a belt would be prohibitive, lots of cars use chains, such as Saabs, BMW's (all M-engines) etc, I prefer chains as they do stretch over time and once they go further than the tensioner will cope with they rattle a bit and give you some warning to get it fixed, a belt doesnt stretch with time (very much at all) and once fatigued will just break, not good. So in all chains are dearer but better, belts are cheap and good enough for most 'normal' cars great first post welcome to WIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Hi guys, There are pros and cons to both, as always, you have got the most important one as in cost, not only is the belt itself cheaper than a chain but so are the sprockets, you need a hydraulic tensioner on a chain, and you need to lubricate it and have prbably 4 rubbing strips all of which adds up, on top of that there is the noise. perhaps not as obvious as you might think but the chain tends to set up resonances in covers and case that need addressing, for example on some engines there is a bolt holding the cam chain chest tight to stop it 'panting' and making a racket. You tend not to get this any of with belts. In terms of what to use, belt or chain, you have to weigh up the application, for high revving engines such as bike engines and big power engines the instantaneous stretch in a belt would be prohibitive, lots of cars use chains, such as Saabs, BMW's (all M-engines) etc, I prefer chains as they do stretch over time and once they go further than the tensioner will cope with they rattle a bit and give you some warning to get it fixed, a belt doesnt stretch with time (very much at all) and once fatigued will just break, not good. So in all chains are dearer but better, belts are cheap and good enough for most 'normal' cars great first post welcome to WIM I concur.... nice post and welcome (i still hate belts though) In reply to cost i know some belts cost well over 1k to renew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinthespin Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Cheers chaps, Its true some belts cost an arm and a leg and need an engine removal, but a manufacturer isnt 'too' bothered about that, its 4 years or so away and not on the mind of any new vehicle purchaser, it much more important to save £100 on the cost of a new car (to them that is) and if your the sort of person to do that many miles in a new car in the first couple of years you will just pay the cash. agreed I much prefer chains, Saab quote dme £800 and a day and a half labour to change mine on my 9-5, in the end I split the chain, attahced the new one to the old one, wound the engine round until the old chain was out then took the old chain off, job done, £34 all in! Simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Cheers chaps, Its true some belts cost an arm and a leg and need an engine removal, but a manufacturer isnt 'too' bothered about that, its 4 years or so away and not on the mind of any new vehicle purchaser, it much more important to save £100 on the cost of a new car (to them that is) and if your the sort of person to do that many miles in a new car in the first couple of years you will just pay the cash. agreed I much prefer chains, Saab quote dme £800 and a day and a half labour to change mine on my 9-5, in the end I split the chain, attahced the new one to the old one, wound the engine round until the old chain was out then took the old chain off, job done, £34 all in! Simon Nice.... I like it With obvious mechanical ingenuity you beat the system... Do you mind if i ask your pedigree. You seem well versed in the engine department Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 About time you got here Simon Where's the photo of the cable tied saab? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinthespin Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 heres the saab..... was a bit awkward on my own---lol, I was worried that the spanners holding the cams in position would slip too, that wouldve been a pain--lol. I know Jon btw, he directed me this way, I'm a design engineer at Triumph on the chassis side of things (did my degree in auto engineering) but have had plenty involvement with engine development too, oh, an im technical writer for a magazine called mr2only too, so like messing with the old mr2 and doing things like this.... So no doubt that will completely ruin my handling so will be on here asking stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Damn that's low! Doesn't it catch any where? Welcome to WIM as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Damn that's low! Doesn't it catch any where? Welcome to WIM as well Probably only if you try to steer.... Also welcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Turn or have anything other than a steel rod for suspension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinthespin Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 If you can imagine an area it catches there--lol I need to add a bit of camber, get lower profile tyres, roll the arches a bit more and fettle (ie hit with a lump hammer) the inner arch by the footwell, then I might be able to get more than 1/4 turn of lock! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 I spoke with Jonno Simon and he had to move the spring cup to 30mm to fit 235/40s on the front (stock damper units) and move his arches out. He didn't think it would ever fit with longer sprung coilover units. Of course you could just trd the front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinthespin Posted May 18, 2007 Report Share Posted May 18, 2007 Come on Jon you know me better than that, nothing motivates me more than someone telling me it cant be done! (it will be close though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.