Honda Car Forum

Consider that I only spent $400 Canadian for a timing belt, water pump
and coolant replacement after 100,000km. The belt/chain issue doesn't
seem to be a deciding factor.

However, if you plan on designing an engine that doesn't require
maintenance..belt would be the way to go.

I put 250,000 km of hard driving on my 3.1L Corsica that was chain
driven. That car had an extremely durable engine &
transmission..(however the rest of the car was crap). Maintenance cost
for the Corsica was significantly lower (when compared to my Civic
Hatch) since I never took the GM to the dealership nor did I do any of
the recommended maintenance. That car got only oil changes and a
transmission flush at about 80,000km. During it's life span, It needed 3
rebuilt alternator ($65 each), a New water pump.

Pars
98 Hatch

tomcas wrote:
>
> Given that both are great cars I'd lean towards the Toyota because its
> engine won't crash like the Honda if the timing belt breaks.
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> > We are thinking on buy a new car. I had several civics and I was looking at
> > the new corolla. Toyota has $500 rebate, but Honda has a 1.9% interest rate.
> > Both look like good cars, and I know Toyota is as dependable as the civics.
> > I am looking for opinions on the corolla, what do you think about both cars?
> > I know invoice price on corollas, but all of them include extra "packages"
> > which is hard to know what's a good price for the packages.
> > I need a dependable car which I will keep for around 6 years, and of course
> > residual value is important.
> > Thanks for your opinions.
> >
> >
> >

Corolla doesn't have a coupe with 5 star safety rating. So, we're only
comparing sedans. Both the Civic Sedan and Corolla sedan are evenly
matched. The deciding factor would be the manufactor/dealer incentives
and minor personal taste. Personally, If I were in the market for an
econo sedan, I'd get the older version of the Honda Sedan (good thing
for me that I already have one *grin*)

Pars
98 Hatch

Robert wrote:
>
> We are thinking on buy a new car. I had several civics and I was looking at
> the new corolla. Toyota has $500 rebate, but Honda has a 1.9% interest rate.
> Both look like good cars, and I know Toyota is as dependable as the civics.
> I am looking for opinions on the corolla, what do you think about both cars?
> I know invoice price on corollas, but all of them include extra "packages"
> which is hard to know what's a good price for the packages.
> I need a dependable car which I will keep for around 6 years, and of course
> residual value is important.
> Thanks for your opinions.

In article <5J9Ua.946$e4.743@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>> In article <Np5Ua.941$e4.417@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
>> "Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>>> Toyota has been making interference engines for a while. I tested
>>>> it on my 88 Tercel when I changed its timing belt. The pistons did
>>>> bump the valves when I hand turned the crankshaft.
>>>
>>> NO Tercel was ever an "interference" design. (3A, 3E, or 5E). Did
>>> you have a diesel? ;^)
>>>
>>
>> It was an October 1988 Tercel, 3E (single barrel carb), drivability
>> mods (didn't help), AC mods, and it absolutely was an interference
>> engine.
>
>Ok, then you account for why in the Gates Belt cataloge that NO such
>distinction exists. We also have our resident career Toyota techinician
>stating Tercel was only a non-interference engine. ;^)
>
>http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=981
>
>Click on "Timing Belt Replacement Guide." ONLY vehicles with an
>asterisk next to the make/model are interference engines.
>
>Toyota has a very strong tradition (with a couple exceptions) of their
>belt drive engines being non interference.


I don't know how to explain it, but it was an interference engine. The
compression was 215psi. It cracked spark plugs every 20K miles. I
adjusted the air intake thermostat down to 80F and it still had problems
with pre-detonation (not timing related) and run-on. Maybe the engine
was put together wrong.

On 24 Jul 2003 14:59:44 -0700, bri1600bv@hotmail.com (brianb) wrote:

>"Robert" <rsvn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<GZwTa.102701$TJ.6119668@twister.austin.rr.co m>...
>> We are thinking on buy a new car. I had several civics and I was looking at
>> the new corolla. Toyota has $500 rebate, but Honda has a 1.9% interest rate.
>> Both look like good cars, and I know Toyota is as dependable as the civics.
>> I am looking for opinions on the corolla, what do you think about both cars?
>> I know invoice price on corollas, but all of them include extra "packages"
>> which is hard to know what's a good price for the packages.
>> I need a dependable car which I will keep for around 6 years, and of course
>> residual value is important.
>> Thanks for your opinions.
>
>
>They are similar but I would say that the Civic has more engine noise,
>is made to rev a little higher, and has a better clutch if you want a
>manual transmission. It's thought to have a better suspension, dual
>wishbone, etc.

Alas the double wishbone in the front of a Civic is no more with the latest
version. Like most other economy cars and a fair number of even expensive
ones, MacPherson is to blame for the struts now used there.

>The Corolla is quieter, mine can't really be heard at 60-70 mph.
>
>I have an older Corolla though. The new ones have a high door, so you
>kind of feel like a little old lady behind the wheel. I like to have
>windows open and have my upper arm resting on the window well, with my
>forearm vertical and fingers on the upper part of the door. I
>couldn't do that in the new Corolla, so I didn't like it.
>
>Plus the new Corolla looks ungainly and awkward.

Is there a new car which doesn't look ungainly? Well maybe the Infiniti
G35 but most family cars look like a wheelbarrow going down the road. Is
there some reason for the high beltlines other than stylistic - maybe
safety related, in conjunction with side/curtain airbags? If it's just
style, IMO it's a complete and utter, catastrophic failure.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <5J9Ua.946$e4.743@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
> "Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, then you account for why in the Gates Belt cataloge that NO such
>> distinction exists. We also have our resident career Toyota
>> techinician stating Tercel was only a non-interference engine. ;^)
>>
>> http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=981
>>
>> Click on "Timing Belt Replacement Guide." ONLY vehicles with an
>> asterisk next to the make/model are interference engines.
>>
>> Toyota has a very strong tradition (with a couple exceptions) of
>> their belt drive engines being non interference.
>
>
> I don't know how to explain it, but it was an interference engine.

Kevin... give it up. You don't understand something about "interference"
and I don't have enough years left in my life to ferret out your
misunderstanding. :^)
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to
be wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Philip® wrote:
> Hondas are still belt driven, except for the S2000. What does that
> suggest? ;^) Chain drives seem to be synonymous with interference.
> --
>
> Philip


Hondas along with the Nissan belt driven units are colliders. I know the
newest Nissans have become non


--





Hey, do you smell that? Smells like something died?
Is it dogshit on the bottom of your feet?
Nope, its just Uday and Qusay!
I slept better last night knowing they have assumed
room temperature!
Looking forward to seeing these rotting corpse of these thugs
on TV!

Yes, 'tis true the diesels and 4.7L V8 gas will attempt to make solid
parts occupy the same space at the same time (crunch). But the gasoline
engines listed for American Tercels are not interference.
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to
be wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)


tomcas wrote:
> http://yarchive.net/car/timing_belt.html
> I'm not sure of it's accuracy. I seem to recall the toyota diesels and
> one model (must have been the Tercel) that would crash.
>
> Philip® wrote:
>
>> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>
>>> In article <Np5Ua.941$e4.417@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
>>> "Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Toyota has been making interference engines for a while. I tested
>>>>> it on my 88 Tercel when I changed its timing belt. The pistons
>>>>> did bump the valves when I hand turned the crankshaft.
>>>>>
>>>> NO Tercel was ever an "interference" design. (3A, 3E, or 5E). Did
>>>> you have a diesel? ;^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It was an October 1988 Tercel, 3E (single barrel carb), drivability
>>> mods (didn't help), AC mods, and it absolutely was an interference
>>> engine.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, then you account for why in the Gates Belt cataloge that NO such
>> distinction exists. We also have our resident career Toyota
>> techinician stating Tercel was only a non-interference engine. ;^)
>>
>> http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=981
>>
>> Click on "Timing Belt Replacement Guide." ONLY vehicles with an
>> asterisk next to the make/model are interference engines.
>>
>> Toyota has a very strong tradition (with a couple exceptions) of
>> their belt drive engines being non interference.
>> --
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> "If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all
>> tending the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis
>> not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
>> - John Locke (1632-1704)

MDT Tech® wrote:
> tomcas wrote:
>> http://yarchive.net/car/timing_belt.html
>> I'm not sure of it's accuracy. I seem to recall the toyota diesels
>> and one model (must have been the Tercel) that would crash.
>
> All Toyota diesels were interference, but diesels don't have much of a
> combustion chamber to achieve the high squeeze to ignite fuel oil.


1984/85 1.8L diesel lists as non-interference. Hmmm! The odd man out!
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to
be wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

In article <3hiUa.1064$e4.786@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,
"Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>> In article <5J9Ua.946$e4.743@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
>> "Philip®" <chipstate@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, then you account for why in the Gates Belt cataloge that NO such
>>> distinction exists. We also have our resident career Toyota
>>> techinician stating Tercel was only a non-interference engine. ;^)
>>>
>>> http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=981
>>>
>>> Click on "Timing Belt Replacement Guide." ONLY vehicles with an
>>> asterisk next to the make/model are interference engines.
>>>
>>> Toyota has a very strong tradition (with a couple exceptions) of
>>> their belt drive engines being non interference.
>>
>>
>> I don't know how to explain it, but it was an interference engine.
>
>Kevin... give it up. You don't understand something about "interference"
>and I don't have enough years left in my life to ferret out your
>misunderstanding. :^)

Despite how it should have been, the valves and pistons did bang
together when the crankshaft was turned by hand without a timing belt.
I had even re-tried it a few times, but much slower, to see if that's
what was happening.

Philip® wrote:
>
> 1984/85 1.8L diesel lists as non-interference. Hmmm! The odd man out!
> --


Interesting!


--





Hey, do you smell that? Smells like something died?
Is it dogshit on the bottom of your feet?
Nope, its just Uday and Qusay!
I slept better last night knowing they have assumed
room temperature!
Looking forward to seeing these rotting corpse of these thugs
on TV!