> It's interesting how manufacturers say belts are quieter and better.
> And the next thing you know everybody is going chains.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> thks
>> bk
>> It's interesting how manufacturers say belts are quieter and better.
>> And the next thing you know everybody is going chains.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> high-mileage cars, I prefer belts, because there is no $600 chain job
> needed at 130k or so...
I've been driving since 1962 and NEVER EVER heard of a timing CHAIN having
to be replaced. I have heard of them jumped ONE link, so to speak, requiring
a manual timing adjustment, but never, ever HAVING to be replaced.
C. E. White - 12 Feb 2008 13:33 GMT
>>> It's interesting how manufacturers say belts are quieter and
>>> better.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> speak, requiring a manual timing adjustment, but never, ever HAVING
> to be replaced.
Really? I've never had one replaced myself, but it is not an uncommon
repair. The chains stretch over time and this can lead to timing
drift. And although this might not prevent the car from running, it
may lead to poor performance.
Ed
sharx35 - 12 Feb 2008 13:39 GMT
>>>> It's interesting how manufacturers say belts are quieter and better.
>>>> And the next thing you know everybody is going chains.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Ed
For sure. That's why, back when I had a 72 Dodge Dart, we couldn't time it
according to specs, had to time it best performance instead. If I recall,
manual said to use TDC. In reality, it was set several degrees off TDC for
best performance.