Thread 28610768

What's so bad about them anyways? It's easier to replace a belt than a chain. At worst you will just have pieces of rubber that flakes off of the belt not like a chain were a solid chunk can render a car into an IED.
Wet belts are inherently superior to a internal timing chain.

>>28610768 (OP)
>Wet belts are inherently superior to a internal timing chain.

nah.

>>28610768 (OP)
>Wet belts are inherently superior to an internal timing chain.

>>28610768 (OP)
you get the worst of both worlds

>>28610768 (OP)
retard

>>28610768 (OP)
>Wet belts are inherently superior to a internal timing chain.
let me know when a wetbelt goes 300k miles without needing to be serviced.

>>28610768 (OP)
I've seen rubber belts go to over 250k km, chains appear to stretch over time but its actually just the pins on each link wearing out slightly. On a Mercedes with over 250k km it was getting close to a full tooth in slop, this was a car from the 70's, rubber should deteriorate even when not in use but if the chain stretches too much it will push the values out of the engine. The one I saw was able knock out the camshaft and put a hole in the cam cover.

>>28610839
People always seem to act like chains are indestructible and never ever need work.

>>28610768 (OP)
>It's easier to replace a belt than a chain.
Yeah, when it's on the outside of the engine behind some covers. Not when it's on the inside, which makes it just as much of a pain in the ass to replace as a chain (unless you're comparing it to whatever the fuck VAG does with their chains).
Also, metal particles can be caught with a magnetic drain plug, whereas rubber flakes head straight for the oil pickup and block it off eventually. Guess what happens when the oil pickup can't pickup any oil?

>>28610768 (OP)
Gear-head here to laugh @ u

here you go op
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SASSFjIt5I&ab_channel=driving4answers

Erm... actually...

Timing chains are nice and all, but timing gears are truly the best option, especially when long service life is desired.

Pic related International Harvester SV V8 timing gears.

>>28610768 (OP)
>duh belts are great
Plus, you can use your bent valves as interesting paperweights.

>>28611084
Heh...nothing like that nice whine from a 345. Pairs nicely with dual cherry-bombs.

If wet belts so bad why no banned?

>>28611084
dual roller timing chain easily goes 250k miles but you can also usually swap most pushrod v8s to a bolt in timing gear set but they're usually loud on purpose

>>28612719
people who think daddy government should be tasked with legislating away poor engineering should be hung by their testicles and beaten with baseball bats until they are just a bruised flesh bag of broken bones and organs.
i am not playing around. fuck you and your entire bloodline.

>>28610768 (OP)
Wet belts are a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.

>>28612169
non interference dry belt is no big deal. but OP's wet belt is bait

>>28610768 (OP)
>It's easier to replace a belt
then why make it wet

>>28610768 (OP)
Timing chains last a lot longer than rubber belts, even if they are more expensive to replace. Belts will deteriorate even if the car isn't driven much because rubber turns brittle over time. On top of that wet belts have the additional issue that depending on what oil you use it might significantly accelerate the belt's wear, reducing its strength and making chunks fall off of it.
>At worst you will just have pieces of rubber that flakes off of the belt not like a chain were a solid chunk can render a car into an IED.
Chunks of rubber floating around in your oil is in fact not a good thing, they can clog your oil filter or worse. Also rubber belts can snap as well and the end result is the engine is toast just like with a timing chain snapping. Literally the only upside of timing belts is that they make less noise, that's about it. As for wet belts they exist solely to make you spend more money.

>>28610768 (OP)
Are you retarded or do you work for Ford?

>>28612730
The people who come up with and approve such poor engineering should be hung by their testicles and beaten with baseball bats until they are just a bruised flesh bag of broken bones and organs.

>>28610768 (OP)
>Wet belts are inherently superior to a internal timing chain.
wrong

t. mechanical engineer

>>28610768 (OP)
>What's so bad about them anyways? It's easier to replace a belt than a chain.
Yes, but look at the procedure to replace the belt on a wet belt Fiesta

>>28610768 (OP)
>easier to replace a belt than a chain.
wet belts last 40-50k miles (manufacturers say 60-100k, but they're lying) timing chains can outlast the car

>>28613031
>On top of that wet belts have the additional issue that depending on what oil you use it might significantly accelerate the belt's wear
Doesn't a wet belt also potentially degrade even faster if the car is frequently cold started and driven in short trips?
Not only will that make the oil go bad faster, but if the engine doesn't get hot enough to evaporate the small amounts of gasoline leaking into the oil, the belt will also be bathing in small amounts of gasoline.

Ford used to claim their EcoBoost engine's wet belt change interval was 240,000 km, but some of them have worn out the belt and self-destructed before 100,000 km.

>>28613100
Same thing with turbos but no one cares about that

>>28610768 (OP)


Think, anon. Rubber timing belts are a wear item. They start debriding as they get used up. And how's it going to work out if all that shit is now getting dumped inside your engine oiling system?

>>28614293
If it's a wear item, as you say, simply replace it before that happens and voila! Problem solved.

Also, everyone knows that lubrication makes things last longer.

>>28610921
In an American v8, they are. The odds of you needing to replace the chain prior to a cam swap or bottom end rebuild is essentially 0.

Shit, we have a 244?k 5.4 3v on the stock timing components lmao. Really should have been done ages ago it just became a beater farm truck and we keep not giving it love and it just won't die. It's totaled a mail truck and four deer, I'd be afraid of it if it weren't on our side

>>28614312
that would mean replacing your belt every oil change

>>28614376
Source?

>>28614379
the physical integrity of a belt is a different matter from rubber particulate debriding from use; the latter is something that happens every time you use it while the former is a design target that could last a long time; and in any normal engine rubber dust or debris wouldn't be a concern at all, but with wet belts there's only one place for it to go and that's all inside the engine

>>28610933
You cant pick up hookers with your geo metro anymore D:

>>28614266
because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks

>>28614266
>>28614748
At least you might notice the turbo failing and stop before something else breaks. A crumbling wet belt slowly choking the oil system may cause serious wear before anything even goes noticeably wrong, and can end with the engine suddenly destroying itself.

>>28610768 (OP)
>It's easier to replace a belt than a chain
Didn't the 3.0 Duramax drive its oil pump with a separate wet belt located behind the engine? The timing used a chain, but because of the oil pump's location, you might have to drop the transmission to access its drive belt.

Though I think the engine was mostly engineered in Turin, Italy, also famous for those Alfa Romeos where you need to disassemble the front of the car to take the engine out to perform basic maintenance procedures.

>>28614312
There is zero reason to have an engine component as a "wear item".
>these door hinges are wear items, theyre only designed to open 5,000 times before needing replacement....