In article <elmop-2F4998.20313513052005@text.usenetserver.com>, "Elmo P.
Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <1116013866.885890.35010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
> "yahmed" <ahmedyassir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of timing belt, it has timing chain that automatically adjust
> > itself with time so no replacements are required.
>
> Don't believe that. Timing chains do require replacement as well.
>
> Ask him what happens if the timing chain breaks. Does the engine trash
> itself, or not? I think Toyota's are the non-interference type which
> don't trash themselves. At any rate, that's the important question. It
> doesn't matter if it's a belt or a chain. There's still chance for
> breaking, and there's still a requirement to change (although a chain
> *should* go much farther in theory).

Great post. It's my opinion that a broken timing belt would in most cases
do less damage to an engine than a broken chain. However, if you change
the timing belt or timing chain about every 50,000 to 60,000 miles--it's
very likely that the owner of the car would never have to worry about the
consequences of a broken chain or belt.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.