Honda v6 Timing chain

hope not. Timing belt is a helluva lot easier to replace than a chain, cheaper too.

Alot of fuss is made over the Timing belt. After doing it on my own on my 98 civic, I realized its not such a big deal. And some of the horror stories I have heard about chains, definitely make me hope that Honda doesn't cave to the pressure... Unless they can design one that won't need to be replaced.

t

Count me in on that sentiment. Worn chains can jump or break, and when the wear increases beyond the snubber capacity the chains tend to wear the timing chain housing out from the inside out. It is a common and frustrating failure mode in '80s Toyota engines. I traded our '84 Dodge with the Mitsubishi Silent Shaft 2.6L engine because the timing chain was worn out at

90K miles, and replacement would cost more than the car was worth.

Mike

Too late. The iVTEC 4-bangers have timing chains. If they put iVTEC on the V6, they'll probably use a chain as well.

Well that sucks. Though I'm not an engineer, hopefully Honda had their reasons for doing this, and it wasn't just a cave to pressure from everyone who is scared of timing belts.

t

"disallow" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@localhost.talkaboutautos.com:

It's in response to Toyota, who made the move to chains some years ago. The idea is to be able to claim longer service intervals.

The reason chains are getting a bad reputation is because in the old days nobody expected their OHV engines to last much longer than 100K miles, and most chains were good up to at least that figure.

However, engineering was paramount. A good, short, OHV chain would last a long, long time. A long OHC chain on the other hand, might last less than

100K before eating through the chain cover or breaking. Some OHC engines had chains that were single-row, in addition to their excessive length, both of which were very bad for longevity (think Triumph Stag 2.5L V8). Conversely, the 1972-82 Toyota 2T and 3T OHV engines had robustly designed double-row chains. With regular oil changes they would eventually get very noisy, but still easily last over 200K.

With people now getting over 200K regularly on all kinds of engines (with decidedly variable maintenance), they're getting to the limits of chain life, hence the problems you see. Also, some manufacturers used fiber sprockets in an attempt to quieten chain noise. Phenolic is not the most durable material out there.

Toyota's current designs shorten their OHC chains by running the other cam off a gear from the chain-driven one (like their belt-driven engines).

i'll bet you that's exactly what /did/ happen. look at all the whining about belts in recent threads. it's one of those situations where chains have been out of the picture so long, all the new kids have no experience with all their problems and think they're some kind of "great new idea".

I wonder why the best engines in the world use chains. or gears not belts. I wonder why all of those trucks that do 500,000 miles before a major overhaul use chains. There must be something to they not trusting belts. Belts are cheaper , quieter and the dealers are guaranteed some schedule maintenance money. They must be replaced at a range of 60 to 100 K miles based on manufacturers recommendation usually owners take them into the dealer for that type of service. I had a new car in 1974 and 50 miles from the dealership the belt slipped and stranded me on the highway.

I hope Honda starts to put them on the V6's soon.

Chains can be engineered to last a long time, but very few in passenger cars are. The last car I had that used a chain needed the chain (actually, chains) replaced at 90K miles and the car wasn't worth the labor at that point. Step one was to remove the engine from the car because there wasn't room to remove the cover in the car.

Before there were belts the stories of jumped and broken chains were as common as the belt stories today.

Mike

what engines are those dianne? are you referring to 2500 rpm diesels? are you talking head mounted or block mounted cams? how long is the chain run? single row?

so you /are/ talking about trucks? you're not talking 100bhp/liter 9000 rpm honda engines?

that's the same argument that's kept detroit stuck on solid axles for about 100 years past their end of life. we don't use horses for traction any more, so there's no need to use horse-drawn technology on a car.

to a manufacturer, the cost between a chain & a belt is practically identical. when you factor in fewer oil seals & simpler gasket procedures, the chain's probably cheaper.

what manufacturer? be specific. by that logic, no one would every fly in case a plane crashed.

as stated in other threads, belts offer the substantial advantage of much better cam timing. in a higher preformance/low emissions engine, this matters. unless chain wear can be compensated for with variable valve timing, belts are the way to go.

Murphy's law can kick in with belts or chains. It's my belief that in most cases that a broken belt would do less damage to an engine than a broken chain. However, I agree with a poster that told me that a broken belt or a broken chain could destroy an engine in some circumstances.

Doesn't.. MB , Jag, BMW , use chains there must be a reason and I am sure they are not low revving high torque diesels..