Re: Timing chains vs belts

Steve Leung (sleung@sikorsky.com)
Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:54:31 -0500

The significant cost difference is not in the belt versus chain. A
replacement chain for an XN6 engine is $17 which is less than most
belts. The only difference I can see is the belt does not need
lubrication. There's NRE cost to the manufacturer in designing a
lubrication system for the chain (oil passages). By using belts, they
turn cost savings into extra profit in belt replacement costs (parts and
labor) and engine rebuild if the belt breaks. How's that for a double
whammy?

davidtowle@lycosmail.com wrote:

Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:42:24 -0400 (EDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Internetdoctor: "Air-con for Peugeot 605 SV 24
1990"
Previous message: Austin Hoover: "bio"
Maybe in reply to: Steve Leung: "Timing chains vs belts"

I believe the reason is cost (significant difference) but noise plays
some role also.

Dave Towle 87 505 SW

---- you wrote:
> What are the pros and cons of timing chains versus belts?
> Why do most modern car engines use belts rather than chains?
> Is it a matter of cost? noise? performance?
> Are belts built in obsolescence?
>
> Steve