Cursed cam-belts.

ivan (ivan'H' snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It's unlikely that a snapped cambelt would actually seize an engine, though.

The crank will continue rotating, driven by the wheels, until such time as the clutch gets dipped. The valve train won't. Which will result in some very buggered valves and pistons, and lots of bits of metal where they shouldn't be.

I doubt there's any engine design ever that hasn't suffered valve train failure. Thereagain I doubt there's any that hasn't throwm a conrod either. Quite why extended belt life should make it more common is an interesting theory to say the least

No they don't. All engine designs with cambelts have had failures but I'll bet way over 90% of engines make it to the scrapyard without ever breaking a belt.

DuncanWood ( snipped-for-privacy@dmx512.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Because now - when belt failures at 30-40-50k miles are not unknown, and

When the recommended interval is 100k, how many are ever going to get changed?

So... the car gets to 120-150k, the belt snaps because it's the original.

DuncanWood ( snipped-for-privacy@dmx512.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Oh, whoopee. Only 1 engine in 10 dies because of a very easily preventable cambelt problem. That's around 3 million cars, just in the UK. OK, not all have belts. Call it 2.5 million, then.

The message from DuncanWood contains these words:

I reckon 10% failures is pretty poor.

Whatever, but to my knowledge alone within the last 12 months there have been at least five women killed when their cars have broken down on a motorway.

Although I'm not saying that these breakdowns were due to cam belt failure, it would be awful to think that any preventable fatalities have ever been caused due to manufacturers wanting to line their corporate pockets.

Especially (as previously commented on in this newsgroup) in incidences of premature failures, some of them instead of correcting the problem, have merely responded by drastically reducing the replacement intervals.

ivan (ivan'H' snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

How is their gender relevant?

For someone used to working on basic RWD cars (Escort, Sierra) where with the Sierra the cam belt is right in front of you and just joins the crank to the cam (that's why it's called a 'cam belt' right?) a cam belt isn't an problem. The Escort (Kent), Morris minor 'A' series and non 'Fire engine' Panda's with cam chains just rattle on forever (longer if you fit fancy 'duplex' systems! ). I believe the 3L V6 'Essex' I put in my CF Campervan used 'composite' cam gears that were also prone to destruction?

The two cambelts I recently changed 'just-in-case' (on our new-to-us Rover 218SD and Astra 1.4i) were a right pain in comparison and the belts also provide drive to the buried-in-the-engine waterpump, why?

Had the cam belt snap on the 2L Sierra (~80k miles and luckily 1/2 a mile from home) .. and a hour (and 12 quid for the belt) later I'd changed it and was on my way again (hmmm 'safe engine') ;-)

All the best ..

T i m (stuck in the past, can't afford to repair the future ..) ;-)

The message from "ivan" contains these words:

Depends where you draw the line.

Almost any failure is preventable if you throw enough money at it - the difficult bit is deciding where to draw the line.

Ford obviously got it wrong with the Pinto - as many years of legal wrangling have revealed, but how do you decide how much to spend on, for example, a light switch. Mine failed the other day leaving me with no headlights at speed on a twisty country lane in the dark. Perhaps Rover could have spend a few quid more and made the switch better - but how many people would be protected from harm by that decision?

Yes, but they're pushrod engines, so the connection between crank and cam is a lot shorter. Chains _can_ get a bit thrashy and harsh on OHC engines - especially twin-cam engines with their long and convoluted chain runs. I don't think I know of any pushrod lump with a cambelt.

Yeah, common fault, but you can fit metal gears which last forever. They don't half whine, though, as do the gears in the Honda VFR engine.

It's not, it's just that in a couple of fairly recent cases that I have read about (on the rare occasions that I get to read a newspaper) the fatalities have all been female - in fact one of them involving two female fatalities and a young boy who was injured occurred only this week.

Yep, you almost hear their brains ticking over, "How can we turn a broken rubber band into a multi-billion worldwide industry!"

You sold me my last CX and I claim my £5

Suzuki GS series were probably even worse if that's possible.

The straw poll that is these newsgroups would disagree with you.

I've had - hmm - lost count including some dreadful old bangers and never once had a chain break. Crankshafts, yes. Pistons yes. Connecting rods, yes. Even had an MG with a hole in the side of the engine big enough to get your hand through. But the timing chain was still ok. ;-)

That's because all the pushrod engines I can think of date back to before cambelts came in.

The telling one is BMW. They bring out probably more new engines (or

They went from chains to belts - both OHC - then back to chains.

I didn't know what a cambelt was until that one went "ping"

Interesting - my brother just bought an astra for about 30 quid that's done that. The rockers are designed to break in the event of belt failure - cost next to nowt for a set of rockers too.

Garage quoted 4 hrs labour plus parts, 600 quid sounds heavy to me...