Honda Car Forum

I hit the trigger without elaborating. Sorry about that.

GREED:

1. Design an interference engine so that it costs the customer more for
repairs. If Dodge can design a non-interference engine, why didn't Honda? Is
it so hard to machine a piston's top so that it doesn't collide with the
valves?

2. Why use a rubber belt that could break and ruin your engine? Why not use
a chain? I'll tell you why. Because it costs me more for repairs.

But that's the name of the game, right?

Isn't business all about making money?

james

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:30:25 -0500, "James" <anonymous> wrote:

>I hit the trigger without elaborating. Sorry about that.
>
>GREED:
>
>1. Design an interference engine so that it costs the customer more for
>repairs. If Dodge can design a non-interference engine, why didn't Honda? Is
>it so hard to machine a piston's top so that it doesn't collide with the
>valves?
Efficiency and Emissions.

>
>2. Why use a rubber belt that could break and ruin your engine? Why not use
>a chain? I'll tell you why. Because it costs me more for repairs.
The length of loop and quietness are probably the two main reasons

>
>But that's the name of the game, right?
>
>Isn't business all about making money?
And building a reliable quality product.
>
>james

"NoMoreRGS" <NoMoreRGS@SGReroMoN.com> wrote in message:

>>1. Design an interference engine so that it costs the customer more for
>>repairs. If Dodge can design a non-interference engine, why didn't Honda?
>>Is
>>it so hard to machine a piston's top so that it doesn't collide with the
>>valves?
> Efficiency and Emissions.

So what you're saying is that those engines that are non-interference are
not efficient and have greater emmission problems?

I'm not an engineer, but designing for efficiency and emmissions must be
more important that designing an engine that doesn't self destruct when the
timing belt breaks. And if timing belts break as often as "motsco_" claims,
there should be a lot of angry people switching to a non-interference auto
manufacturer.

Sorry, but I find your statement hard to believe.

>>2. Why use a rubber belt that could break and ruin your engine? Why not
>>use
>>a chain? I'll tell you why. Because it costs me more for repairs.
> The length of loop and quietness are probably the two main reasons

Cars have used chains for years. Even the new Hondas use chains.

>>But that's the name of the game, right?
>>
>>Isn't business all about making money?
> And building a reliable quality product.

A quality product that gets destroyed when the belt breaks....when they
could have just used a chain?

Doesn't sound like quality, does it...?

So it's back to the bottom line, $greed$...

"James" <anonymous> wrote in message
news:4PWdnQaikqsfYfzanZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@bright.net.. .
> "motsco_" <motsco_@interbaun.com> wrote in message :
>
>> Actually, they are made to last the life of the _engine_
>>
>> Every month somebody tells us how the belt finally failed at _EXACTLY_
>> the same moment as the engine. There must be some strange metaphysical
>> connection to the wording of the owner's manual.
>>
>> Here's a link to the HONDA owner's manuals:
>>
>> https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/...01_OMANUAL.asp
>>
>> 'Curly'
>
> Our 98 Accord will turn over 300K miles probably before spring arrives in
> 08. I use Mobil One synthetic. I've run it in every car we've ever owned.
> Our last vehicle was a 92 Accord that we traded in for the 98, and it had
> 204K miles.
>
> Typically speaking, what is the "life of the _engine_" in a Honda product?
> I've never run one into the ground, but if our finances don't improve, we
> may run our 98 into the ground...or until the engine quits and the timing
> belt mysteriously breaks. ;o)
>
> Just curious, but what's the highest mileage anyone has ever put on a
> honda engine?
>
> james

Probably well over a few million miles but not without major maintenance.

Hey James, I just took out the original Honda timing belt on the Integra GSR
at 93K miles and it looks brand new, and couldn't tell the difference from
the new replacement belt. Just amazing! Looks like it could go for another
500K miles. Manual says change at 95K miles and sooner if the car was driven
hard. My friend, the mechanic, said he doesn't bother to change the belt
until its around 150K miles. I don't have that kind of faith, so every 95K
miles it is. If the timing belt breaks, my GSR might as well be totaled as
the engine will self destruct - goodbye pistons, valves, etc. I hear from
other Honda owners that their belt broke at a little over 95K miles.

BTW, wife's Volvo timing belt broke at 62K miles, manual said change every
60K miles. Fortunately the Volvo engine was non-interfering.

"** Frank **" <noemall@xyz.net> wrote in message:

> Probably well over a few million miles but not without major maintenance.
>
> Hey James, I just took out the original Honda timing belt on the Integra
> GSR at 93K miles and it looks brand new, and couldn't tell the difference
> from the new replacement belt. Just amazing! Looks like it could go for
> another 500K miles. Manual says change at 95K miles and sooner if the car
> was driven hard. My friend, the mechanic, said he doesn't bother to change
> the belt until its around 150K miles. I don't have that kind of faith, so
> every 95K miles it is. If the timing belt breaks, my GSR might as well be
> totaled as the engine will self destruct - goodbye pistons, valves, etc. I
> hear from other Honda owners that their belt broke at a little over 95K
> miles.
>
> BTW, wife's Volvo timing belt broke at 62K miles, manual said change every
> 60K miles. Fortunately the Volvo engine was non-interfering.

If what you say (95K) is truly typical, then it's a miracle that I've got
275K (as of today) on the original belt. Assuming your mechanic (at 150K) is
more realistic, then I still fall in the miracle category. Now that you've
offered me some doubt, mine will probably break. ;o)

Though I find it interesting that there hasn't been more feedback on this
issue. I was hoping too see more people with timing belt stories.

Maybe everyone's out doing their xmas shopping...

-james

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:18:40 -0500, "James" <anonymous> wrote:

>If what you say (95K) is truly typical, then it's a miracle that I've got
>275K (as of today) on the original belt. Assuming your mechanic (at 150K) is
>more realistic, then I still fall in the miracle category. Now that you've
>offered me some doubt, mine will probably break. ;o)
>
>Though I find it interesting that there hasn't been more feedback on this
>issue. I was hoping too see more people with timing belt stories.

A friend of mine knowingly neglected the recommended timing belt
replacement on his car and paid the price. I saw the mess it made of
the engine.

I don't think there really are any timing belt stories, It either
breaks or it doesn't.

I replace timing belts at the recommended interval and I've never had
one break. But what does that prove? I know that my timing belt is
*way* less likely to break than yours is though.

I recently bought an old BMW with 190K miles on it, and no service
record. Would you care to guess what the first thing was that I did
to the car?

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:18:40 -0500, "James" <anonymous> wrote:

>"** Frank **" <noemall@xyz.net> wrote in message:
>
>> Probably well over a few million miles but not without major maintenance.
>>
>> Hey James, I just took out the original Honda timing belt on the Integra
>> GSR at 93K miles and it looks brand new, and couldn't tell the difference
>> from the new replacement belt. Just amazing! Looks like it could go for
>> another 500K miles. Manual says change at 95K miles and sooner if the car
>> was driven hard. My friend, the mechanic, said he doesn't bother to change
>> the belt until its around 150K miles. I don't have that kind of faith, so
>> every 95K miles it is. If the timing belt breaks, my GSR might as well be
>> totaled as the engine will self destruct - goodbye pistons, valves, etc. I
>> hear from other Honda owners that their belt broke at a little over 95K
>> miles.
>>
>> BTW, wife's Volvo timing belt broke at 62K miles, manual said change every
>> 60K miles. Fortunately the Volvo engine was non-interfering.
>
>If what you say (95K) is truly typical, then it's a miracle that I've got
>275K (as of today) on the original belt. Assuming your mechanic (at 150K) is
>more realistic, then I still fall in the miracle category. Now that you've
>offered me some doubt, mine will probably break. ;o)
>
>Though I find it interesting that there hasn't been more feedback on this
>issue. I was hoping too see more people with timing belt stories.
>
>Maybe everyone's out doing their xmas shopping...
>
>-james

Most people replace the belt at approximately the recommended interval
and very few have a problem with the belt breaking. Many people push
it well past the limit and they usually don't have a problem either.

If the belt breaks, it's catastrophic but that very seldom happens. As
a result, this isn't a big issue except when some one raises it as a
hypothetical.

Above applies to Hondas. Other makes may have different results.

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:05:41 -0500, Dean Dark
<ddrake@comcast.notthis.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:12:16 -0600, Gordon McGrew
><gmcgrew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>why can not fabricate the timing belt with better material that lasts
>>>for life time of the car?
>>
>>The belts are made with high quality rubber and Kevlar. What material
>>do you think would work better?
>
>How about numerous short metal pieces, joined together with flexible
>links? You could even make the metal pieces with an opening in them,
>so that a toothed metal wheel of some sort could engage the openings
>and turn or be turned by a loop or belt made of such joined links.
>
>I'll bet something like that would last longer than ones made of
>rubber and Kevlar.

Posted yesterday in the Saturn Newsgroup:

Had it [2002 Saturn] towed in to the saturn dealer. They confirmed
the broken chain diag.
They proceeded to further inspect the upper end for valve damage and
found 4
bent valves. They then proceeded to install a remanufactured head and
new
timing chain. They called me today to tell me they got it running,
and were
test driving it when one of the valves in the newly remanufactured
head
'fell in' and proceeded to destroy the entire engine. SATURN (not my
third
party agreement) is now paying to install a new complete engine
assembly.
They'll call when it's done.

I guess those metal links aren't all that great after all.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
<SNIP>
They called me today to tell me they got it running, and were test
driving it when one of the valves in the newly remanufactured
> head 'fell in' and proceeded to destroy the entire engine. SATURN (not my third party agreement) is now paying to install a new complete engine
> assembly. They'll call when it's done.

------------------

I had a really old volvo 122a and the 'keepers' on the top end of a
valve / valve spring popped off while I was climbing a hill. Before I
could shut it down the valve fell into the cylinder and went down and
then back up. It didn't hit its hole in the guide properly and forced
out the guide right through the steel valve cover. That was a funny sight !

I was three hours from home so I called my employer and got them to tell
the Volvo shop to put a valve and a guide on the bus. I got a room and
convinced the mechanic that I'd borrow a few of his tools and I pulled
the head. Parts arrived and I put the head in a cardboard box and hitch
hiked to the next town where a shop had a proper press and the needed
skills.

I drove that vehicle for a few more years.

'Curly'

Some stories of timing chain problems indicate they are not perfect
either. I remember back in the 70's there were stories of a timing
chains slipping a tooth or two as they stretched a little. They would
also break but usually only on very high mileage engines (100,000+).

Most of the time back then engines were non-interference so they ran
terribly if the chain slipped a tooth or just stopped running when the
chain broke. Both with no internal damage. Obviously the chain and
sprockets would be changed but sometimes the cover also. I don't
remember hearing more damage than that though.




On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:18:40 -0500, "James" <anonymous> wrote:

>"** Frank **" <noemall@xyz.net> wrote in message:
>
>> Probably well over a few million miles but not without major maintenance.
>>
>> Hey James, I just took out the original Honda timing belt on the Integra
>> GSR at 93K miles and it looks brand new, and couldn't tell the difference
>> from the new replacement belt. Just amazing! Looks like it could go for
>> another 500K miles. Manual says change at 95K miles and sooner if the car
>> was driven hard. My friend, the mechanic, said he doesn't bother to change
>> the belt until its around 150K miles. I don't have that kind of faith, so
>> every 95K miles it is. If the timing belt breaks, my GSR might as well be
>> totaled as the engine will self destruct - goodbye pistons, valves, etc. I
>> hear from other Honda owners that their belt broke at a little over 95K
>> miles.
>>
>> BTW, wife's Volvo timing belt broke at 62K miles, manual said change every
>> 60K miles. Fortunately the Volvo engine was non-interfering.
>
>If what you say (95K) is truly typical, then it's a miracle that I've got
>275K (as of today) on the original belt. Assuming your mechanic (at 150K) is
>more realistic, then I still fall in the miracle category. Now that you've
>offered me some doubt, mine will probably break. ;o)
>
>Though I find it interesting that there hasn't been more feedback on this
>issue. I was hoping too see more people with timing belt stories.
>
>Maybe everyone's out doing their xmas shopping...
>
>-james
>
>