> The engine on my Celica is not interference. If the belt breaks,
>you just replace it and drive away. The timing belt isn't even
>on the maintenance list except in the "severe service" section
>at some absurd number like 100,000 miles.
>
> I have an LBC engine in my garage that had to be scrapped for
>a timing chain failure.
>
> Which design is "catastrophic"?
You want the chain, or gears. Belts are a dumb idea. Compare:
You see all sorts of modern designs, from Hyundais to BMWS,
for sale cheap after catastrophic engine failure. (Nearly
got a '93 Elantra for $300 this way :)
... whereas if a timing chain *does* break on a vintage
non-intereference engine (and how often does that happen?)
the only awful sounds are coming from the driver's mouth.
He'll have to cough up maybe $100 to get back on the road,
after what would have been an entire engine replacement in
a modern car.
And you know what't the kicker? A factory in China is gunning
for the world's timing belt market. How would you like to
have $4000 worth of Swiss-watch engine depending on *that*?
Charles.
|