 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / April 2007why use timing belt?
Lowest cost/highest profit is what drives corporations. It's cheaper to use a belt than a chain, it will last beyond the warranty period, and most (not all) people who buy new cars will trade it in for another new car before the timing belt becomes an issue. People who buy used cars are used to (and should expect to) buying trouble in a proportionate amount to the mileage - if I buy a used car with 75K miles on it I expect some things need fixing, if I buy a car with 125K miles on it I also buy a 6-pack of duct tape. I've had cars where the engine lasts longer than the body, so when it looks that bad, who would want to drive it? I had a timing belt break on a Dodge Caravon/3.0L 6cyl Mitsu engine. Two incredibly ironic twists - first, it happened while I was driving to work, a light mist in the air, and I was thinking how nice and smooth the engine was running when it suddenly just stopped running. The second irony - I didn't want to do the repair myself, so I had a shop do it. I had just gotten a state tax refund check 2 days earlier. The repair cost exactly what the refund check was to the dollar (not the pennies). I don' remember the exact numbers now, but something like refund check $468.86, repair cost $468.12. Easy come, easy go! Currently rebuilding a 1993 Plymouth Sundance Duster with the same engine, a Mitsu 3.0L V6. What a cool and fun little car! > Lowest cost/highest profit is what drives corporations. It's cheaper > to use a belt than a chain, it will last beyond the warranty period, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Currently rebuilding a 1993 Plymouth Sundance Duster with the same > engine, a Mitsu 3.0L V6. What a cool and fun little car! Yes, chains typically last longer. I had a 1964 Plymouth with a 273 V8 that went 200,000 miles on it's original chain. During that time, however, some manufacturers used nylon-toothed camshaft gears. I had a friend with a Pontiac and other with an Oldsmobile where the chain stripped the teeth on the camshaft gears between 80,000 - 90,000 miles. At least they were not too hard to work on back then. -KM >> Lowest cost/highest profit is what drives corporations. It's cheaper >> to use a belt than a chain, it will last beyond the warranty period, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > -KM My 1951 Studebaker had phenolic gears to drive the camshaft. In a lot of ways that car was better than anything made since. >>> Lowest cost/highest profit is what drives corporations. It's cheaper >>> to use a belt than a chain, it will last beyond the warranty period, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > My 1951 Studebaker had phenolic gears to drive the camshaft. In a lot > of ways that car was better than anything made since. I had a Subaru with all metal gear-driven cam. But, alas, Subaru has also gone the way of the "We're no worse (or better) than anybody else" philosophy when it comes to design and major component longevity. I guess it must be necessary to compete in today's marketplace. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Lowest cost/highest profit is what drives corporations. It's cheaper > to use a belt than a chain, it will last beyond the warranty period, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > engine lasts longer than the body, so when it looks that bad, who > would want to drive it? You made every bit of that up. You've never worked for an auto manufacturer, or ever spoken to any person involved in that decision for any car in real life. You've never taken a survey of used car buyer expectations. You have literally no information about the correctness of what you've posted, and no way to even begin to find out if it's correct. I mention this because a thinking person would distinguish between information you have and information you've made up. Most ordinary people don't make that distinction. > Lowest cost/highest profit is what drives corporations. It's cheaper > to use a belt than a chain, it will last beyond the warranty period, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > engine lasts longer than the body, so when it looks that bad, who > would want to drive it?... Not sure what your point was, but it inadvertently supports what I was talking about. That used car is probably due for a timing belt. A savvy buyer will know about that and use it to wittle the price down to pay for the timing belt/water pump job. The unwary buyer will buy it thinking she's gotten a bargain, only to find out later that she has to spend $700 right off the bat for that work, or find out in short order the hard way that it needed to have that done and end up with expensive engine damage (assuming it has an interference engine, which the overwhelming majority of them these days do. In either case, the value of the car will have been decreased that much more *UNNECESSARILY* because of the use of timing belts. In any case, again, the value of that car will have been decreased by it and there is no question that statistically it will end up being junked earlier in its life than necessary due to the cost-to-value thing. Point being that you can help all considerations to the consumer by not using timing belts - maintenance costs, end of life (go to the junk yard) point, cost to the environment of replacing it with another car having to be manufactured, and probably a few things I haven't thought of. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.