Timing belt vs. Timing chain

[penman39]

I would like to hear from the group on this subject. I personally prefer a timing chain due to fact that they are basically maintenance free. Most engine manufacturers recommend a belt change around 75K miles. This can be pain in-the-butt and the wallet due to cramped engine bays and the fact that engineers do not think of ease of maintenance when designing vehicles. I think a chain may be less efficient than a belt, but that may be the only con of a chain. What do you folks think?   

[tdmart]

Here in my shop, I only do engine and computer work on both gasoline and diesel engines in cars, pk tks, and vans. I see chains as well as belts. Often belts are the easier to change as compared to chains. However, both have some inherent weaknesses. Admittedly, some engines, whether chain or belt, can be very challenging to replace but with good service information, the right tools, and lots of patience any can be done. So fas as efficiency goes, I am not sure which is more efficient. Chain engines as a rule are not interference engines while many belt engines are. From my experience many vehicle owners do not change belts at the recommended intervals, even if I as a shop owner remind them of it. With chains you usually do not have that problem although there are other issues with chains. So, there is pros and cons in both. For the record though, I am biased slightly in favor of the chain setup. Having been in this business since the middle 60s, I have seen the development of the belt and for some odd reason I still tend to look at them a little cross eyed. That is my take on this for what ever it is worth.

[NickD]

With the belt, you have also that tensioner pulley that has a limited lubricated ball bearing to content with, has a adjustment, tension adjustment is added with a spring, but as the belt stretches, the tensioner adjustment is no longer correct.

But the key point is, would you purchase a vehicle solely on whether it has a belt or chain driven camshaft?  Many other factors enter the what to buy equation.

My 88 Supra Turbo not only has a belt, but is an interference engine as well and all the inter-cooler stuff, radiator fans, radiator, and a bunch of other stuff have to be removed first even before thinking about the belt with that dreaded crankshaft pulley.  But I can take the roof off and put that in the trunk, and that eight way power seat is wonderful.  It's a tradeoff.

[jjm]

I absolutely HATE timing belts, especially their application on interference engines.  Timing belt breaks, engine essentially becomes a boat anchor.  Timing belt replacement is slightly off, engine also becomes a boat anchor.  I guess I wouldn't mind timing belts as much if it weren't for the interference engine factor.

Believe it or not, timing belts and interference engines actually factors into my purchase decision.  Wouldn't prevent me from buying a vehicle, but it is a big negative for me.

I'd like to know who the heck ever thought of this stupid timing belt thing, especially since chains are so much more reliable.  And interference engines... whoever thought of that should be taken out back and whipped, shot, or both.

Joe

If you found this information helpful, please support BATAuto!

   

[NickD]

Can't say I ever had a problem with timing belts, but when the clock says time to change them, I change them.  Most expensive belt I purchased, all OE of course was around 40 bucks and an entertaining way to spend a Saturday.  I like to remove all the spark plugs, install the belt, and crank the engine for 30 seconds, let it rest for about five minutes, then crank again, and again.  This allows for more precise adjustment of the tension.  Also a lot easiest to view the timing diagram than on the vehicle, they don't show the inner fender on the timing diagram blocking your view.

[JackC]

I try NOT to buy a car with a belt and especially with an interference engine. My 3 cars are chain -none interference.

[keith]

I like changing timing belt quick easy money.  If you notice all honda cars are interferance engines.  Very nice cars but you must keep this in mind for your customers.  The opposite for toyota cars no toyota has an interferace engine, which is what I have my wife drive.  I for the most part dont even worry about it.  If it brakes  I will change it, or if I get a slow time in the shop and feel good maybe then.  I like belt better then chains, I have seen alot of chains make noise which is hard to deal with.  Also nissan has alot of chains, real pain to remove head.

[pro-3]

jackc, i prefer chains over belts too.nevertheless we seem to have to deal more with belts today. i am a 25 yr veteran in the automotive field. mainly engines,transmissions.i have just registered on bat.not sure how it all works,if i mess up,please excuse me.   pro-3

[jasonn20]

Belts do not stretch and use less power of the engine to operate.  The thing a person has to remember is rubber will dry rot so if you have a car that has been sitting for 5 years but only has 30k on it then you should replace it.   I hate buying a used car with a belt cause I never know when or if it was replaced.  A belt will have better fuel economy and I believe to be more efficient.  

A chain uses more power of the engine to operate and it will stretch.  Timing chains have a point where they need to be replaced but it is usually at xx high mileage and can be a nighmare to replace and be very time consuming replacing a head gasket on OHC engines. 

[schraube]

After having mentioned all the pro´s and contra´s of the issue i just want to state that i prefer belts for being more fuel efficient as they don't rob a lot of power from the engine.
Keith, there are quiet a lot of Toyota  interference engines out there, especially diesel engines like 1HZ, 1 HDt etc. But a lot of these engines never were sold officially in the U.S. and come in from Canada, Australia or directly Japan. Greetings.