At 11:28 AM 6/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, I would say that the timing belts are worse. You have to get them
>replaced 60,000 to 100,000 miles and sometimes, this work requires major
>work (i.e. removing engine). And if the belt isn't replaced, you run a
>higher risk (as opposed to timing chain) of it breaking and destroying your
>engine. Timing chain is better in my opinion. Why do they use belts, anyway?
Yikes! Porque questan mucho dinero! Not only is a belt a bad idea... but
in my '94 Intrepid, they used a PLASTIC tensioner! And of course, when you
get up to 60,000 miles, at which time the belt is stretched to about 12
feet in diameter, the tensioner and the water pump are to be replaced.
(The water pump, because they are so hard to get at, and since you're in
there and they need to be replaced every X number of miles anyway...) You
get it. Fortunately, the tensioner replacement is made of steel. Thank
God for small favors.
Here's how it panned out... Belt $95.08. Tensioner $80.14. Water pump
$109.85. A little for antifreeze, and labor, and it comes to $450!
Who thinks to ask questions like that when buying new?
Me: "Oh, by the by, Govnah, what sort of material are the valve shafts made
of?"
Salesman: "Duuh. Umm... some kinda hard stuff developed by NASA to make the
Space Shuttle not blow up anymore called ABS, I think."
Sheesh.
Dave
'62 MGA 1600 MkII
|