Honda Car Forum

Michael Pardee wrote:

> IMHO chains have not proven themselves much more reliable than belts. Maybe
> they have improved, but the last car I had with a chain (an 84 Dodge with a
> Mitsu engine) didn't make it 100K miles before the chain was worn enough to
> jump. The first step in replacement was: remove engine from car.

Toyota 4-cylinders have been chain-driven since the late 90s (starting with
the '98 Corolla I believe), and I am not aware of any chain-related failures
in properly maintained cars. Nissan was using chains long before that,
although I don't know how reliable they have been.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:03:29 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com>
wrote:

>High Tech Misfit wrote:
>> Michael Rose wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was looking at a 2006 Honda Civic and I asked the saleman if the engine
>>>was a Non-interference engine and I got a blank look
>>> So guys help me out here...is it or isn't it!....Thanks
>>
>>
>> I don't know, but it doesn't matter because the engine uses a timing chain
>> instead of a belt.
>
>Don't count on it "not mattering" for that... my old GLC died a messy death when
>an improperly-adjusted timing chain slipped a tooth.

I think it is more a question of good engineering vs. bad engineering.
Saturn owners have a lot more problems with the chains than Honda
owners have with the belts. Ironic, as the Saturn dealers pitched the
chain as being superior to Honda's belts.

We will see if these new Honda chain engines can routinely go 200K on
the original chains. I am assuming that a chain replacement will end
up costing twice as much as a belt.

Also, how hard is it to change the water pump in these cars? Do you
have to remove the chain?

"High Tech Misfit" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:zb6mhvrkh0g7$.dlg@hightech.misfit...
> Toyota 4-cylinders have been chain-driven since the late 90s (starting
> with
> the '98 Corolla I believe), and I am not aware of any chain-related
> failures
> in properly maintained cars. Nissan was using chains long before that,
> although I don't know how reliable they have been.

My #2 son had an '82 Toyota Corolla with a chain. We replaced it a few
months before the engine threw a rod :-(

Researching the chain, we found that it was common for them to eat through
the timing chain cover as a result of "stretching" (pivot wear) and that
those covers were at a premium on the used market for that reason.

Mike

Michael Rose wrote:
> Very simple....if it is a non-interference engine and your timing belt or
> chain breaks it doesn't hurt the engine....

if you maintain the engine as it's supposed to be, this will *never* be
an issue. you run more danger of wheel bolts fatiguing than you do
having a belt/chain break on a properly maintained engine. and get some
perspective on cost/benefit of failure vs. performance/economy of
interference engines.

come to think of it, this thread smells of fud.

> "Steve Mackie" <smackie@eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:JSHDg.2948$395.490@edtnps90...
>>> I was looking at a 2006 Honda Civic and I asked the saleman if the engine
>>> was a Non-interference engine and I got a blank look
>>> So guys help me out here...is it or isn't it!....Thanks
>> Why would it matter if it is or it isn't?
>>
>>
>
>

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:51:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:03:29 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com>
> wrote:
>
>>High Tech Misfit wrote:
>>> Michael Rose wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was looking at a 2006 Honda Civic and I asked the saleman if the engine
>>>>was a Non-interference engine and I got a blank look
>>>> So guys help me out here...is it or isn't it!....Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, but it doesn't matter because the engine uses a timing chain
>>> instead of a belt.
>>
>>Don't count on it "not mattering" for that... my old GLC died a messy death when
>>an improperly-adjusted timing chain slipped a tooth.
>
> I think it is more a question of good engineering vs. bad engineering.
> Saturn owners have a lot more problems with the chains than Honda
> owners have with the belts. Ironic, as the Saturn dealers pitched the
> chain as being superior to Honda's belts.
>
> We will see if these new Honda chain engines can routinely go 200K on
> the original chains. I am assuming that a chain replacement will end
> up costing twice as much as a belt.
>
> Also, how hard is it to change the water pump in these cars? Do you
> have to remove the chain?

The salesman that sold me my 06 Si said that it was a timing belt, and the
scheduled maintenance for it was 100K. Is that incorrect?

--
Joseph M. LaVigne
jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com
http://www.thelavignefamily.us/MyPipePages/ - 8/14/2006 2:27:47 AM
Tobacconist Brick and Mortar Database: http://bam.tobaccocellar.org/

"If you were waiting for the oppurtune moment ... that was it."
--Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Carribean"

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "High Tech Misfit" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:zb6mhvrkh0g7$.dlg@hightech.misfit...
>
>>Toyota 4-cylinders have been chain-driven since the late 90s (starting
>>with
>>the '98 Corolla I believe), and I am not aware of any chain-related
>>failures
>>in properly maintained cars. Nissan was using chains long before that,
>>although I don't know how reliable they have been.
>
>
> My #2 son had an '82 Toyota Corolla with a chain. We replaced it a few
> months before the engine threw a rod :-(
>
> Researching the chain, we found that it was common for them to eat through
> the timing chain cover as a result of "stretching" (pivot wear) and that
> those covers were at a premium on the used market for that reason.

Well the opposite end of that scale would be the trusty old Dodge "Slant-6"
engines... my dad had one in his '81 pickup, never had it replaced that I know
of... when he retired the truck in '87 with over 450,000km, the chain was
streched enough to be constantly rubbing in its guideway... but it just kept on
running (the engine was also drinking a liter of oil with every tank of gas
after my sister ran it dry of oil once). Thin was damn near indestructable.

Joe LaVigne wrote:

> The salesman that sold me my 06 Si said that it was a timing belt, and the
> scheduled maintenance for it was 100K. Is that incorrect?

It is incorrect. It uses a timing chain.

Joe LaVigne wrote:
> The salesman that sold me my 06 Si said that it was a timing belt, and the
> scheduled maintenance for it was 100K. Is that incorrect?
>

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

The 06 Si comes with a FINE manual. Read The Fine Manual.

Read this too, regarding the 'art' of car salesmanship. It's LONG:
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/buying...2/article.html

'Curly'

I've heard theories that the slant six almost put dodge outta business due to
lack of parts sales and longevity....

Matt Ion wrote:
>>>Toyota 4-cylinders have been chain-driven since the late 90s (starting
>>>with
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> the timing chain cover as a result of "stretching" (pivot wear) and that
>> those covers were at a premium on the used market for that reason.
>
>Well the opposite end of that scale would be the trusty old Dodge "Slant-6"
>engines... my dad had one in his '81 pickup, never had it replaced that I know
>of... when he retired the truck in '87 with over 450,000km, the chain was
>streched enough to be constantly rubbing in its guideway... but it just kept on
>running (the engine was also drinking a liter of oil with every tank of gas
>after my sister ran it dry of oil once). Thin was damn near indestructable.

--
Message posted via http://www.carkb.com

loewent via CarKB.com wrote:

> I've heard theories that the slant six almost put dodge outta business due to
> lack of parts sales and longevity....

I wouldn't doubt it. When I was a kid, my father owned a '77 Dodge Aspen
and our neighbour owned a '79 Plymouth Volare. Both had the slant-6, and
both were major pieces of junk.