 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Subaru Cars / January 2008Timing Belt
Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 has a chain > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > has a chain Troll No truth. Timing belts just a ripoff for consumers > bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: > > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > > has a chain > > Troll > No truth. Timing belts just a ripoff for consumers > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>Troll Hmmm, It is lighter, costs less. >> No truth. Timing belts just a ripoff for consumers >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hmmm, > It is lighter, costs less. One moving part vs hundreds! ;^) Carl  Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) How many timing chains in normal applications fail? > > bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > How many timing chains in normal applications fail? > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >>- Show quoted text - c'mon buddy - it was a joke! The flat six 3.0s (like my wife's OBW) have a chain. I once had a '51 Chevy that stripped a timing gear! Carl Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) >> No truth. Timing belts just a ripoff for consumers >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hmmm, > It is lighter, costs less. Its also quieter and allows for lightweight components > No truth. Timing belts just a ripoff for consumers > >> bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 >>> has a chain >> Troll So if you're going to make statements like that, back it up. How many engines out there are fitted with timing belts, how many with chains, how many with gears ? Why is Subaru better/worse than any others? > > No truth. Timing belts just a ripoff for consumers > >> bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why is Subaru better/worse than any others? A more intriguing question is "why are so many engines interference designs where a belt failure is catastrophic?" I believe the answer on that has to do with efficiency of the cylinder design, et al, but it's never been explained to me in sufficient detail for me to fully get on board with that. -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > > bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: > > > No truth. Timing belts just a ripoff for consumers [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA I thought it was because they are quieter, but wish they were NI. I read that the SOHC will have less damage if a belt breaks. Something about the DOHC free wheeling and bending all the valves. VF > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > has a chain Which also has a service interval. -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > has a chain if you want transportation that never requires you to service it ride the bus (please). I am with jim on this one, I think belts are a big business and a lousy alternative, the owner ends up putting out the money the manufacturer saved, but: Chains: Normally last the life of the engine, are noisy, sprockets and idlers are lubricated by the engine, you hardly ever hear of catastrophic chain failure. Belts: Quieter, low cost, idlers have bearings which will require replacing at least every other belt change, belts are guaranteed to fail, and sometimes even ahead of time, (think Audi) Gears: Expensive, wont allow for flexible engine designs. Hurray for rotary engines with no valves. > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > has a chain On Jan 2, 7:31 pm, bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > has a chain For the same reason that Honda and Toyota still do - cost, quietness compared to a chain, lightness, etc. Dan D '99 Impreza 2.5 RS (son's) Central NJ USA By the way some of you argue seemingly in favor of timing belts, I guess you like to shell out money and spend time replacing timing belts. I do not. > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > has a chain Then you can shell it out up front for the more expensive engine because of heavier components and the chain; nothing is free. > By the way some of you argue seemingly in favor of timing belts, I guess > you like to shell out money and spend time replacing timing belts. I do > not. > >> Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 >> has a chain How would a chain make it more expensive? The Suzuki SX4 states timing chain on the sticker and a loaded AWD version is <$19k. A car at that price point isnt likely to use anything more expensive than it needs to be. How much heavier? Eight ounces? Whoaaaaaaa! Belts are nothing but a scam to create more maintenance costs for consumers. I see no benefits and those who do are usually mechanics who love getting $500 to swap a $40 belt. > Then you can shell it out up front for the more expensive engine because of > heavier components and the chain; nothing is free. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The chain is only one of the heavier components. More metal in the components makes them more expensive. Add up all the markups and the addition of the parts and you'll end up paying the same with no additional benefit. Nothing is free; nothing. You pay for it one way or the other. One is visible, the other is not. Your choice. How would a chain make it more expensive? The Suzuki SX4 states timing chain on the sticker and a loaded AWD version is <$19k. A car at that price point isnt likely to use anything more expensive than it needs to be. How much heavier? Eight ounces? Whoaaaaaaa! Belts are nothing but a scam to create more maintenance costs for consumers. I see no benefits and those who do are usually mechanics who love getting $500 to swap a $40 belt. On Jan 5, 8:35 am, "JD" <m...@home.ca> wrote: > Then you can shell it out up front for the more expensive engine because > of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >The chain is only one of the heavier components. More metal in the >components makes them more expensive. I always thought it was precision. Look at printer and copier mechanisms, precision industrial robots, etc... They use toothed belts in place of chains. Chains are sloppy. >>The chain is only one of the heavier components. More metal in the >>components makes them more expensive. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Chains are sloppy. It could very well be. I'm sure you're right. However, my point is that it isn't just a big maintenance rip-off; there is a trade-off somewhere and you will pay for that trade-off one way or another. >It could very well be. I'm sure you're right. However, my point is that it >isn't just a big maintenance rip-off; there is a trade-off somewhere and you >will pay for that trade-off one way or another. I agree. I don't. There is no reason except to rip off consumers to use belts. Some innovations are good. Timing belts are not. My next vehicle will not have one. On Jan 5, 5:17 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchr...@DunderMifflin.com> wrote: > >It could very well be. I'm sure you're right. However, my point is that it > >isn't just a big maintenance rip-off; there is a trade-off somewhere and you > >will pay for that trade-off one way or another. > > I agree. > I don't. There is no reason except to rip off rip off? $300 is is tiny % of costs associated with hitting 100K miles mark: $600 - oil changes $1000 - tires $15000 - gas A. EVERY car needs the oil, gas, tires etc. There is NO need to add an extra $500 for a timing belt change which will end up being more for those who change it 2x or more or those fools who buy vehicles that need a belt change at 60k. > bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: > > I don't. There is no reason except to rip off [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A. Then you should probably buy a low-performance, cheap car with a timing chain. That way you can use regular gas, cheap parts, etc. Its all false economy. But there is no conspiracy here. They have advantages building cars in one way or another, and those advantages are either reduced cost, better performance or whatever else. There are trade-offs and you get what you pay for; no more, no less. EVERY car needs the oil, gas, tires etc. There is NO need to add an extra $500 for a timing belt change which will end up being more for those who change it 2x or more or those fools who buy vehicles that need a belt change at 60k. On Jan 5, 10:15 pm, alf <ask@me> wrote: > bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: > > I don't. There is no reason except to rip off [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A. Next vehicle will likely be an Xterra or Wrangler. Both have chains so I wont have to shell out the $500 to fix it. One has a LIFETIME powertrain warranty so even if the chain goes at 400k miles it's free. No I dont buy "cheap" vehicles thank you. I buy reasonable vehicles that provide long service. The premium gas thing is a complete scam and even if I bought a vehicle that "required" it (not likely) I'd use regular gas and have NO problems. > Then you should probably buy a low-performance, cheap car with a timing > chain. That way you can use regular gas, cheap parts, etc. Its all false [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Next vehicle will likely be an Xterra or Wrangler. Both have chains > so I wont have to shell out the $500 to fix it. One has a LIFETIME [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >>- Show quoted text - Well, let's see here; The timing chain equipped H6 3.0 Soob engines (to my knowledge)all recommend premium fuel. The 4 cyl Soob engines ALL have timing belts. So....I guess you have no reason to post to this group anymore. Carl Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) Your point is? I wouldnt bother with a 6 cyl subaru in a wagon or sedan as the performance increase isnt noticable and the fuel economy suffers. I wouldnt use premium no matter what it says as it is a waste of money and will cause no damage despite what those brainwashed think. I do not plan on buying another subaru until they fire the current deigners and engineers and make the outback what it used to be. The new subes from WRX on down are just plain ugly. New outback has poor ergonomics and has lost the raised roof and big foglights. The GT lost the hood scoop and the tribeca- dont even get me started on that one. I will keep my 04 for a couple more years as the wife is up for a new car next. > bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: > > Next vehicle will likely be an Xterra or Wrangler. Both have chains [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jan 6, 10:50 am, bigjimp...@gmail.com wrote: > Your point is? I wouldnt bother with a 6 cyl subaru in a wagon or > sedan as the performance increase isnt noticable and the fuel economy > suffers. I wouldnt use premium no matter what it says as it is a > waste of money and will cause no damage despite what those brainwashed > think. I test drove a 2008 4 cylinder Outback before purchasing a 2003 6 cylinder Outback last summer. I noticed the performance increase of the 6 cylinder enough to decide that I really wanted a 6 cylinder Outback. But I am annoyed that Subaru no longer will sell a 6 cylinder Outback without all the expensive options that I am not interested in. But I like the 6 cylinder enough that I plan to purchase a 2 or 3 year old one next time. I guess I have been "brainwashed" ;) -- I use premium in my 2003 6 cylinder Outback and my 1993 BMW 525i. The 1989 Volvo 240 wagon gets mid-grade. David 2003 Subaru Outback H-6 wagon 1993 BMW 525i Touring wagon 1989 Volvo 240 wagon Next vehicle will likely be an Xterra or Wrangler. Both have chains so I wont have to shell out the $500 to fix it. One has a LIFETIME powertrain warranty so even if the chain goes at 400k miles it's free. No I dont buy "cheap" vehicles thank you. I buy reasonable vehicles that provide long service. The premium gas thing is a complete scam and even if I bought a vehicle that "required" it (not likely) I'd use regular gas and have NO problems. While I like (Jeep) Wranglers, to say they are quality shoots a hole in your own theory about saving money. Jeeps 4.0 have been known to crack exhause manifolds, so much that out local junk yard sells aftermarket replacements. Jeeps love to leak; Seen countless rear axle seals, some with 30k-60k miles, lots of leaks around the transfer case and transmission. And the premium gas is not a scam. We have had a few 6 cylinders running like crap due to lower octain gas. I believe the 6 cylinders rule is premium suggested, if performance problems is noted, then go to a higher octain. SignatureSteve ASE Master Tech L1 Diag Currently residing at a Subaru Shop 4.5 years doing tires and alighnments That's why the Jeep is a big IF. Chrysler quality is always a crapshoot. That's what extended warranties are for though. If Toyota was smart theyd have revived the FJ cruiser as a direct wrangler competitor instead of an ugly impractical waste of money. Toyota name, four doors, removable top and theyd sell like hotcakes. I had personal experience with a turbo passat 01.5 same as audi. "Required" premium never got it. Many many problems but none related to fuel. LAsted 140k+ then was on its way out for tranny and other issues. They new Jeep uses a 3.8l which is reputed to be pretty good. > Next vehicle will likely be an Xterra or Wrangler. Both have chains > so I wont have to shell out the $500 to fix it. One has a LIFETIME [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Currently residing at a Subaru Shop > 4.5 years doing tires and alighnments > That's why the Jeep is a big IF. Chrysler quality is always a > crapshoot. That's what extended warranties are for though. And I bet that extended warranty costs more than a pair of $500 timing belts. And based on owner reports rolled up in Consumer Reports every year, if reduced mtc costs are your interest, neither of those manufacturers are exactly known for reliability. If you want a chain and an engine that doesnt' seem to have major mtc problems, the Subaru H-6 seems like one of the less trouble prone you'll find, based on what I've read here for 6 years. -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA I've not heard anything bad about the 6 cylinder Subaru engine - in fact everything I've read is very positive about it. Unfortunately, you have to go to an Outback to get that engine. No offence to those who like the Outback! :) I've never found the Outback very appealing - I have no off-road pretensions, and the styling always seemed a bit garish to me with the add-ons... To my mind it would be nice to see a regular legacy wagon with 6 cylinder... Cheers! SignatureFred Boer - Amateur Access Enthusiast Interests: Library software / Z39.50 / Web Services Freeware Small Library Application available here: http://www3.sympatico.ca/lornarourke/ >> That's why the Jeep is a big IF. Chrysler quality is always a >> crapshoot. That's what extended warranties are for though. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA Warranty covers anything From AC to trans. So spending $1k is worth it. Paying for "maintenace" in a ripoff. I don't give much credibility to consumer reports after they bashed the Trooper. Right before that they had the trooper as reliable as the landcruiser- The Standard for off road vehicles. I wont buy an outback until they make it look good again > bigjimp...@gmail.com writes: > > That's why the Jeep is a big IF. Chrysler quality is always a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA And because the performance would be down as well as the mileage, you probably spent more on regular gas than you would have on premium, and you ran the risk of damaging the engine. Like I said; nothing is free. You will pay for it all one way or another. One of my cars requires 93 minimum. It runs like crap on anything less; no guts and absolutely abysmal gas mileage. The other requires 91 and 89 can be used in a pinch. It runs OK on 89 but gas mileage sucks. So I have done the math on that one. It costs about 10% more to use a lower grade of fuel. On the car that requires 93, I wouldn't even attempt it. It runs very poorly on 91 on a hot day. That's why the Jeep is a big IF. Chrysler quality is always a crapshoot. That's what extended warranties are for though. If Toyota was smart theyd have revived the FJ cruiser as a direct wrangler competitor instead of an ugly impractical waste of money. Toyota name, four doors, removable top and theyd sell like hotcakes. I had personal experience with a turbo passat 01.5 same as audi. "Required" premium never got it. Many many problems but none related to fuel. LAsted 140k+ then was on its way out for tranny and other issues. They new Jeep uses a 3.8l which is reputed to be pretty good. On Jan 6, 12:13 pm, "StephenW" <Flatheadst...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Next vehicle will likely be an Xterra or Wrangler. Both have chains > so I wont have to shell out the $500 to fix it. One has a LIFETIME [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Currently residing at a Subaru Shop > 4.5 years doing tires and alighnments > EVERY car needs the oil, gas, tires etc. There is NO need to add an > extra $500 for a timing belt change which will end up being more for > those who change it 2x or more or those fools who buy vehicles that > need a belt change at 60k. correction: Subaru requires t/b change @ 104K miles. anyways, if you do not like, do not buy it. I do not see your problem. there are plenty of other cars to chose from. Signatureandy The replacement interval depends on the engine your subaru has, some call for 60K, some for 100K >> EVERY car needs the oil, gas, tires etc. There is NO need to add an >> extra $500 for a timing belt change which will end up being more for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anyways, if you do not like, do not buy it. I do not see your problem. > there are plenty of other cars to chose from. > The replacement interval depends on the engine your subaru has, some > call for 60K, some for 100K this is interesting, do you know what model needs 60K? > > The replacement interval depends on the engine your subaru has, some > > call for 60K, some for 100K > > > this is interesting, do you know what model needs 60K? My mtc book said 100k but then from several sources i was told they changed their mind about that and were recommending 60k. Best Regards, -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA >> > The replacement interval depends on the engine your subaru has, some >> > call for 60K, some for 100K [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA The STi recommends 96,000KM; approx 60,000 miles the 2.2 engine used in the 95 called for 60K intervals, those used the belt with the square teeth. The 2.5 which uses the belt with rounded teeth calls for 100k > The replacement interval depends on the engine your subaru has, some > call for 60K, some for 100K [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> anyways, if you do not like, do not buy it. I do not see your problem. >> there are plenty of other cars to chose from. >>It could very well be. I'm sure you're right. However, my point is that >>it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I agree. I agree too. In my opinion, a timing chain cover leaks more often and costs a lot more to repair. Some belts are a PITA and others are easy. I've seen timing chain tensioners in Nissans fail, and with a chain the manufactures always seem to have interference heads, so as well as the head damage, you have metal and plastic in the oil. The engineers do many things we wonder about, but designing an engine around "getting more maintenance" doesn't seem to be one of them. When I chose my wife's car, belt or not was not even a choice. I wanted a 4 cyl over a 6. Repairs are cheaper when you can get your hand into the engine. It was going to be a camery and the 2.2 was a great engine. Non interference, easy belt to change, but the Toyotas have changed to the 2,4 with a chain. Also is the new VVIT, where the timing gear on a cam can vary for emissions/performance. No EGR system, and those can be a PITA. But some other cars have had some issues with cam timing, so give up the reliable belt to a unproven chain. I had to rely on the Toyota name, and it's been a good car. Wouldn't care if it had a belt. We could take this same argument and look at belt/chain/shaft drive on motorcycles. Lots of trade off for each one Anyway, my 2 cents, SignatureSteve ASE Master Tech L1 Diag Currently residing at a Subaru Shop 4.5 years doing tires and alighnments I was curious to reasons why engeneers wouls use one over the other and found this. From http://www.valvoline.com/carcare/articleviewer.asp?pg=pht20020901bd&cccid=4&scccid=5 There are many more advantages to a belt-drive system than ease of use. A belt drive can increase power over a timing chain through less frictional loss, more precise timing, smoother valvetrain motion and eliminating windage caused by the timing chain and gears running in oil. A belt drive also isolates the crankshaft's torsional vibrations from the camshaft better than a chain (and certainly better than gear drives, which can amplify crank harmonics). Think of it as a second harmonic damper for the rotating assembly. And with all that engine builders are doing to stabilize cylinder-to-cylinder camshaft timing, such as larger-diameter cams, doesn't it make sense to do what you can to precisely phase the camshaft to the crankshaft? Hi BigJim, All! >Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 >has a chain A belt probably gives a more consistent valve timing over the life of the belt, and doesn't require an oil bath. Useable at higher RPMs too. Perhaps a better question would be: "Why do manufacturers insist on putting interference engines into consumer vehicles?" A broken timing belt or chain is merely an inconvenience in an NI motor, but is often a disaster of the highest degree (read "new motor") on an interference engine. And I fully understand that an interference type head/piston arrangement means higher flow, more power, possibly even slightly better efficiency, but it _also_ means that you'd better watch that timing belt, buddy! Or else! Just as an aside, last summer I acquired for cheap a '99 Forester with under 100K that had what sounded like a bad rod bearing in it's 2.5L SOHC motor. Turned out to be a failed idler bearing. (Bonus!) When I performed the 105K service on my wife's '02 Forry (also with the SOHC motor) a couple months ago, the belt looked OK, but several idlers were going, particularly the same cogged idler that had failed on mine. What this means is that simply replacing the belt does not guarantee that you're good to go for another 100K; you absolutely _must_ check all of the idlers that the belt rides on (including the waterpump), and replace any that aren't perfect. Or, do as I do, and simply replace everything while it's apart. $igh. And just one final note; I have heard it said that the EJ22 (as found on early Legacys/Imprezas) is an NI engine. Don't count on it; I've seen at least two with bent valves resulting from timing belt failures . . . ByeBye! S. Steve Jernigan KG0MB Laboratory Manager Microelectronics Research University of Colorado (719) 262-3101 > Hi BigJim, All! > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > University of Colorado > (719) 262-3101 I don't like interference engines, and wonder who they can't cut reliefs for the valves in the piston tops. I have heard of ones that had Tripple chains. I had wondered why I have seen timing belts sold with the idlers. I should have realized they can go bad, but never owned a car with a belt. I had a friend who was upset because a mechanic told him his VW needed a new motor, since the motor had a knock. When the friend told me his Oil Light was on, and he had been driving it for THREE Mos like that. I Had to check it out. The knock was coming from the front of the motor, near the TB cover, and didn't sound like a valve, rod, or anything I had heard before. I pulled the cover and the idler was moving with metal shavings on a flange. I told him That was his knock. Figured the oil light sending unit was bad or something. Told him to pick up the parts and I would fix it. Changed the idler and sending unit, and the oil light was still on. Took it out and poked in the hole, and the oil light went off, so sludge was blocking it. My friend was pissed that the mechanic was going to charge him 1600$ for a new motor. Having a knock and no oil pressure did sound bad, but Not being able to drive it for very far. VF The Subaru H-6 3.0 liter uses a timing chain. > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > has a chain And if you want to see a mess, take one of those apart. SignatureSteve ASE Master Tech L1 Diag Currently residing at a Subaru Shop 4.5 years doing tires and alighnments > The Subaru H-6 3.0 liter uses a timing chain. >> Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 >> has a chain > And if you want to see a mess, take one of those apart. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Oh, come on, two long-a.s chains with tensioners under a cover with about 300 little bolts, what's not to like? With the water-pump chain driven, I think. (03 H6 owner) Dave Chains are far better. Even with all the parts the failure rate is so low as to be negligible. Chains usually last the life of the engine or at least several 100k. I drove a 73 Mercury Montego with 351W and never noticed chain noise. On a Subaru 4 cyl who would notice that either? Belts are an easy way to make an extra $500-1000 on the price of a vehicle. On Jan 4, 2:17 pm, spamTHIS...@yahoo.com wrote: > > And if you want to see a mess, take one of those apart. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Forgot to mention the $$ the manuf. gets selling tensioners, idlers, covers (rusted screws dislodge nut inserts from cover) and of course the labor $$ the dealers get. The group that loves timing belts the most is mechanics. > Chains are far better. Even with all the parts the failure rate is so > low as to be negligible. Chains usually last the life of the engine [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >>- Show quoted text - >I drove a 73 Mercury Montego with 351W and >never noticed chain noise. You probably couldn't hear it over the pushrods. <G> What rpm range did the 351W do most of it's operation at? I've never had a chain fail, but I've had them get worn sloppy, as well as had a tensioner fail. The broken tensioner let the chain slip all kinds of teeth. >> I drove a 73 Mercury Montego with 351W and >> never noticed chain noise. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > well as had a tensioner fail. The broken tensioner let the chain slip > all kinds of teeth. I had a '74 Ford pickup with a 302W that had so much timing chain stretch at 20K miles that it was slapping the cover. It sounded like a rod knock it was so bad. And if they used chains with the heavier parts, extra lubrication and cost of the chain, the car would probably cost an extra... $500-$1000. Nothing is free. Chains are far better. Even with all the parts the failure rate is so low as to be negligible. Chains usually last the life of the engine or at least several 100k. I drove a 73 Mercury Montego with 351W and never noticed chain noise. On a Subaru 4 cyl who would notice that either? Belts are an easy way to make an extra $500-1000 on the price of a vehicle. On Jan 4, 2:17 pm, spamTHIS...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Jan 4, 2:03 am, "StephenW" <Flatheadst...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 > has a chain Because Sunaru depends on 40% of it's income from planned obsolence and degradation of internal engine parts and 300% markups from the dealer to bring the money in. I bought my first Subaru in 2002. I was the WORST mistake I ever made! Their dealer service sucks a.s and you're SOL with them as far as warranty service is concerned unless you like to do battle with corporate morons. As far as I am concerned they should ship half the Subaru cars in the USA to Iraq for AlQuaada to use as car/suicide bomber platforms. That's all they are good for. My next car will be a Honda like I had before I went and bought a Subie-piece-of-shi+. >>Why does Subaru still use a timing belt. Eventhe newcheapo suzuki sx4 >>has a chain [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are good for. My next car will be a Honda like I had before > I went and bought a Subie-piece-of-shi+. HAHAHAHA! Such language - and from a Reverend too! lol! Carl Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) |
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.