My neighbor just bought a new CR-V and he says that not only that model uses timing chain instead of belt, but that Honda is doing that with other new models as well. I've never heard this before. Is this true?
My 03 accord has a chain. I wouldn't ever buy another car with a belt!!!!!!
"Brian Smith" wrote
I'd think the issue is with the cost to replace the belt, whereas the chain is.... maintenance-free. ?
Why not? If one keeps up with regular maintenance, there's no issue with a vehicle with a timing belt.
If one can not afford to maintain a vehicle (or anything one owns), then one should not attempt to own anything. With ownership comes responsibilities. It's only a minor expense every few years, so that argument doesn't really hold.
Agreed. Honda used belts for a solid engineering reason.
Now the marketing mavens have taken over and are responding to the ignorant masses who think that a chain is inherently better, simply because it isn't a scheduled maintenance item.
Instead, it becomes an unexpected, unscheduled repair.
My brother's 91 Infiniti Q needed its timing chains replaced, unexpectedly of course, after about 8 years. $2700.
It is true the chain is not a scheduled maintenance item like the belt is.
That is far, far from saying that the chain is free from needing service attention.
indeed - if there is a chain problem, it's costly. in fact, for many older cars with non-diy owners, the vehicle with a chain problem will become uneconomic to repair. thus it gets the vehicle off the road and the owner into the showroom buying a new one. [if they still have any brand loyalty left after being let down - the bit the mba bean counters somehow don't seem to be smart enough to factor into their cash flow projections]
with a scheduled maintenance item like a belt, and its relatively low cost [some independents here in the bay area advertise timing belt changes from only $250], you can keep that puppy on the road almost indefinitely.
from the engineering perspective, belts with their inherently lower mass, effective absence of stretch and smoother tooth engagement make for better emissions over the life of the engine, much better drive train operation and lower wear rates - technically, a much superior solution.
they're about $74 online for a civic vs $33 for a belt - hardly a material issue. what /is/ material though is that the belted engines are designed to be maintained. the chained engines are supposed to be pretty much "sealed for life". a fundamental philosophical difference that is part of the huge honda shift towards following the rest of the automotive world into "life limitation".
I agree (as should any thinking person) that chains require maintenance. They (the chains) are moving pieces of machinery and everything that moves requires TLC through it's lifespan. For the peope that don't think that chains can stretch, they are sadly misinformed. Those chains are far more expensive than Honda's timing belts.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote
OK, thanks. I was not aware that it would need maintenance. I'm soon taking my Accord in for its 60K major service and I'll ask about it, such as what they do to maintain it. The work will be done at an independent garage.
My guess would be that many owners forget to have their timing belt replaced at the given interval and it results in belt failure that can be catastrophic for interference engines. Honda probably got tired of the bad publicity from these cases and that's why they decided to switch to chains. I assume they still make the interference engines with the timing chains, right?
8 years - what failed/how did it fail?
Hard to imagine anyone blaming MBA bean counters/auto engineers after 8 years of trouble free operation.
Stretched.
Oh no, not blaming anyone on that. But if you buy a Honda now because "look, no more of those damned timing belts that need replaced!", don't expect that you've eliminated a maintenance or repair item. The timing belt will need addressed at some point.
"Cameo" wrote in news:i60n7l$jtf$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal- september.org:
Honda (and Toyota) started migrating to chains around 2003. The engines are still interference.
Most owners do in fact hate the belt-change interval on account of its cost, and the fact that they find it hard to justify such an expense when there appears to be nothing wrong with the car. They tend to think this is a ripoff by either Honda or the dealer.
And many did ignore the belt-change interval and had the belt slip/break on them (my boss was one of those).
Individuals that aren't capable of paying attention to their affairs should not pass the blame for their stupidity to the manufacturer. Nor should the manufacturer change a product that hasn't had any *real* issues for the majority of consumers.
How many miles did he get?
Clams wrote in news:i6144u$hp7$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:
He had about double the recommended mileage interval, but a few years under the time limit. And he had no valve damage.
It's important to know that his CR-V was driven very long distances between shut-downs, so the belt underwent relatively little startup/shutdown stress. Startup/shutdown is extremely tough on timing belts, much tougher than steady running.
The vehicle is still on the road, sold to one of our plant employees. It now has about 280,000 miles on it.
It wasn't a Honda but I did have a 1987 Ford van with a 302 in it. At 60,000 miles I put on a new water pump. While I was in there I removed the timing chain cover and it had stretched enough that it was rubbing on the side of the cover. I replaced it with a double roller one from a performance parts place. They definitely do stretch.
And what will they think when the chain stretches or otherwise needs UNexpected attention?
That's a REPAIR--equally deadly on the market chart, right up there with "maintenance expense".
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.