Re: Consider buying American!

In article <eYadnUiQS50UFCranZ2dnUVZ_tmhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
   jim beam <spamvortex@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> On average over 4 times longer than a belt. Some may never need
> >>> changing throughout the service life of the engine.
> > 
> >> 1. it's more like 1.5 times.
> > 
> >  Don't be silly.

> because you don't know or care about chain stretch doesn't mean it's not

> happening.  chains stretch enough to be out of spec in about this 
> mileage span.

If chain stretch was an issue makers would fit tensioners that eliminated
it. All you need for this is tensioners on 'both sides' of the run.


> > The newsgroups are full of cars breaking cam belts - but
> > how often do you hear of a chain going?

> belts "go" when they're too old and have been used too long.  chains 
> usually wear out to the extent that they wreck the rest of the timing 
> gear and turn the engine into a sluggish polluter.

If you care to do some research you'll find plenty evidence of belts
snapping well within the service interval.  

> > There may well be some belts with
> > a service interval of 100,000 miles but they're not the norm. 

> i'm a honda guy.  honda belts are 105k miles.

I'm a 'BMW guy'. BMW saw sense and ditched belts some 15 years ago. And
I'll bet Honda will too. The market hates them - and for good reason.  

> > 
> >> 2. "service life of the engine" is the whole point of going back to 
> >> chains - "uneconomic to repair" means new car.
> > 
> > It's no big deal to change the chain(s) on many engines - easier than
> > belts on some.

> cite examples.

Pretty well any where the engine has to come out to change the belt.


> > 
> >>  belts keep an engine going as long as it'll run.
> > 
> > And when they break the engine is scrap?

> "when" is a big assumption - an assumption that you can't read the 
> owners manual and be bothered to look at mileage.

Do some research. Several makers have shortened the cam belt change time
from original. Just enter cam belt in Google and read for a few days...


> > 
> >>  chains, especially long run chains on 
> >> overhead cams, turn the engine into an inefficient, polluting p.o.s.
> > 
> > Now you are being silly.

> no, it's fact.  as you'd know if you had experience in this stuff.

Then perhaps you'd give some examples of vehicles failing emission tests
due to worn chains?

BTW, you don't need 'long runs' for OHC engines.  

> >>>> and define the degree of wear considered "acceptable".
> >>> If it's quiet with the engine hot?

> >> ridiculous.
> > 
> > Have you ever worked on an engine?

> "ridiculous" is asking a question like that after trying to argue that 
> chain stretch letting cam timing drift doesn't matter because you can't 
> hear it.

I'll take that as a no, then. Another armchair mechanic.

-- 
*Eschew obfuscation *

    Dave Plowman        dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.