Honda Car Forum

Does any one know of Honda putting timing chains on the future V6's

hope not. Timing belt is a helluva lot easier to
replace than a chain, cheaper too.

Alot of fuss is made over the Timing belt. After
doing it on my own on my 98 civic, I realized
its not such a big deal. And some of the horror
stories I have heard about chains, definitely
make me hope that Honda doesn't cave to the
pressure... Unless they can design one that won't
need to be replaced.

t

"disallow" <loewen_t at yahoo.ca @> wrote in message
news:a087acc57f0e368c5e7f83eda9c4b963@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com...
> hope not. Timing belt is a helluva lot easier to
> replace than a chain, cheaper too.
>
> Alot of fuss is made over the Timing belt. After
> doing it on my own on my 98 civic, I realized
> its not such a big deal. And some of the horror
> stories I have heard about chains, definitely
> make me hope that Honda doesn't cave to the
> pressure... Unless they can design one that won't
> need to be replaced.
>
> t
>
Count me in on that sentiment. Worn chains can jump or break, and when the
wear increases beyond the snubber capacity the chains tend to wear the
timing chain housing out from the inside out. It is a common and frustrating
failure mode in '80s Toyota engines. I traded our '84 Dodge with the
Mitsubishi Silent Shaft 2.6L engine because the timing chain was worn out at
90K miles, and replacement would cost more than the car was worth.

Mike

disallow wrote:
>
> hope not. Timing belt is a helluva lot easier to
> replace than a chain, cheaper too.
>
> Alot of fuss is made over the Timing belt. After
> doing it on my own on my 98 civic, I realized
> its not such a big deal. And some of the horror
> stories I have heard about chains, definitely
> make me hope that Honda doesn't cave to the
> pressure... Unless they can design one that won't
> need to be replaced.


Too late. The iVTEC 4-bangers have timing chains. If they put iVTEC on
the V6, they'll probably use a chain as well.

>
> t

--
================================================== =====
A very modest collection of Honda tech info can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/ng_randolph

Well that sucks. Though I'm not an engineer,
hopefully Honda had their reasons for doing
this, and it wasn't just a cave to pressure from
everyone who is scared of timing belts.

t

"disallow" <loewen_t at yahoo.ca @> wrote in
news:7603b66467228bb297e4cee5295c6998@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com:

> Well that sucks. Though I'm not an engineer,
> hopefully Honda had their reasons for doing
> this, and it wasn't just a cave to pressure from
> everyone who is scared of timing belts.
>


It's in response to Toyota, who made the move to chains some years ago. The
idea is to be able to claim longer service intervals.

The reason chains are getting a bad reputation is because in the old days
nobody expected their OHV engines to last much longer than 100K miles, and
most chains were good up to at least that figure.

However, engineering was paramount. A good, short, OHV chain would last a
long, long time. A long OHC chain on the other hand, might last less than
100K before eating through the chain cover or breaking. Some OHC engines
had chains that were single-row, in addition to their excessive length,
both of which were very bad for longevity (think Triumph Stag 2.5L V8).
Conversely, the 1972-82 Toyota 2T and 3T OHV engines had robustly designed
double-row chains. With regular oil changes they would eventually get very
noisy, but still easily last over 200K.

With people now getting over 200K regularly on all kinds of engines (with
decidedly variable maintenance), they're getting to the limits of chain
life, hence the problems you see. Also, some manufacturers used fiber
sprockets in an attempt to quieten chain noise. Phenolic is not the most
durable material out there.

Toyota's current designs shorten their OHC chains by running the other cam
off a gear from the chain-driven one (like their belt-driven engines).


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

disallow wrote:
> Well that sucks. Though I'm not an engineer,
> hopefully Honda had their reasons for doing
> this, and it wasn't just a cave to pressure from
> everyone who is scared of timing belts.
>
> t
>
i'll bet you that's exactly what /did/ happen. look at all the whining
about belts in recent threads. it's one of those situations where
chains have been out of the picture so long, all the new kids have no
experience with all their problems and think they're some kind of "great
new idea".

I wonder why the best engines in the world use chains.
or gears not belts.
I wonder why all of those trucks that do 500,000 miles before a major
overhaul use chains.
There must be something to they not trusting belts.
Belts are cheaper , quieter and the dealers are guaranteed some schedule
maintenance money.
They must be replaced at a range of 60 to 100 K miles based on manufacturers
recommendation usually owners take them into the dealer for that type of
service.
I had a new car in 1974 and 50 miles from the dealership the belt slipped
and stranded me on the highway.

I hope Honda starts to put them on the V6's soon.


"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
newsLWdnbwowIR6cxbfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> disallow wrote:
>> Well that sucks. Though I'm not an engineer,
>> hopefully Honda had their reasons for doing
>> this, and it wasn't just a cave to pressure from
>> everyone who is scared of timing belts.
>>
>> t
>>
> i'll bet you that's exactly what /did/ happen. look at all the whining
> about belts in recent threads. it's one of those situations where chains
> have been out of the picture so long, all the new kids have no experience
> with all their problems and think they're some kind of "great new idea".
>

"DIANNE BARKER" <devaux56@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ID8me.3423$zb.3240@trndny06...
>I wonder why the best engines in the world use chains.
> or gears not belts.
> I wonder why all of those trucks that do 500,000 miles before a major
> overhaul use chains.
> There must be something to they not trusting belts.
> Belts are cheaper , quieter and the dealers are guaranteed some schedule
> maintenance money.
> They must be replaced at a range of 60 to 100 K miles based on
> manufacturers recommendation usually owners take them into the dealer for
> that type of service.
> I had a new car in 1974 and 50 miles from the dealership the belt slipped
> and stranded me on the highway.
>
> I hope Honda starts to put them on the V6's soon.
>
>
Chains can be engineered to last a long time, but very few in passenger cars
are. The last car I had that used a chain needed the chain (actually,
chains) replaced at 90K miles and the car wasn't worth the labor at that
point. Step one was to remove the engine from the car because there wasn't
room to remove the cover in the car.

Before there were belts the stories of jumped and broken chains were as
common as the belt stories today.

Mike

DIANNE BARKER wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> newsLWdnbwowIR6cxbfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
>
>>disallow wrote:
>>
>>>Well that sucks. Though I'm not an engineer,
>>>hopefully Honda had their reasons for doing
>>>this, and it wasn't just a cave to pressure from
>>>everyone who is scared of timing belts.
>>>
>>>t
>>>
>>
>>i'll bet you that's exactly what /did/ happen. look at all the whining
>>about belts in recent threads. it's one of those situations where chains
>>have been out of the picture so long, all the new kids have no experience
>>with all their problems and think they're some kind of "great new idea".
>>
>
> I wonder why the best engines in the world use chains.
> or gears not belts.

what engines are those dianne? are you referring to 2500 rpm diesels?
are you talking head mounted or block mounted cams? how long is the
chain run? single row?

> I wonder why all of those trucks that do 500,000 miles before a major
> overhaul use chains.

so you /are/ talking about trucks? you're not talking 100bhp/liter 9000
rpm honda engines?

> There must be something to they not trusting belts.

that's the same argument that's kept detroit stuck on solid axles for
about 100 years past their end of life. we don't use horses for
traction any more, so there's no need to use horse-drawn technology on a
car.

> Belts are cheaper , quieter and the dealers are guaranteed some schedule
> maintenance money.
> They must be replaced at a range of 60 to 100 K miles based on
manufacturers
> recommendation usually owners take them into the dealer for that type of
> service.

to a manufacturer, the cost between a chain & a belt is practically
identical. when you factor in fewer oil seals & simpler gasket
procedures, the chain's probably cheaper.

> I had a new car in 1974 and 50 miles from the dealership the belt
slipped
> and stranded me on the highway.

what manufacturer? be specific. by that logic, no one would every fly
in case a plane crashed.

>
> I hope Honda starts to put them on the V6's soon.
>
>

as stated in other threads, belts offer the substantial advantage of
much better cam timing. in a higher preformance/low emissions engine,
this matters. unless chain wear can be compensated for with variable
valve timing, belts are the way to go.