Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nissan Micra Cam Chain
337 views
Skip to first unread message
Kirky
Apr 21, 2012, 4:28:22 PM4/21/12
to
Hi,
My other half has deceided she wants a 1.0 Nissan micra.
I've seen a 2003(53) 1.0 car for sale with 33k miiles and was
wondering what the deal is with cam chains on them?
When do they require changing and are what are the symptoms of a car
which has a stretched belt in need of replacement(I read somewhere
that the stretch?)
Also how much does the chain replacement cost and is it something a
home mechanic can do, I've done numerous cam belts but never a cam
chain.
Thanks
Rob
My other half has deceided she wants a 1.0 Nissan micra.
I've seen a 2003(53) 1.0 car for sale with 33k miiles and was
wondering what the deal is with cam chains on them?
When do they require changing and are what are the symptoms of a car
which has a stretched belt in need of replacement(I read somewhere
that the stretch?)
Also how much does the chain replacement cost and is it something a
home mechanic can do, I've done numerous cam belts but never a cam
chain.
Thanks
Rob
Message has been deleted
Rob
Apr 21, 2012, 8:03:41 PM4/21/12
to
On 22/04/2012 6:31 AM, SteveH wrote:
> without needing attention.
>
> If it's on its way out, it'll sound like a knackered Ford Fiesta.
chains have a fair life - belts on the other hand are critical and must
be changed before the recommended intervals.
> Kirky<theb...@uboot.com> wrote:
>
>> I've seen a 2003(53) 1.0 car for sale with 33k miiles and was
>> wondering what the deal is with cam chains on them?
>
> I wouldn't worry - it'll more than likely do another 100k miles or more
>
>> I've seen a 2003(53) 1.0 car for sale with 33k miiles and was
>> wondering what the deal is with cam chains on them?
>
> without needing attention.
>
> If it's on its way out, it'll sound like a knackered Ford Fiesta.
chains have a fair life - belts on the other hand are critical and must
be changed before the recommended intervals.
Chris Whelan
Apr 22, 2012, 3:14:50 AM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:03:41 +1000, Rob wrote:
[...]
> chains have a fair life - belts on the other hand are critical and must
> be changed before the recommended intervals.
That's not really a full picture. Ford cam belts have had a
10year/100,000 mile change interval for more than a decade, and some
models have now had that increased to 120,000 miles. They rarely fail
early.
Some cam chains can fail before 100,000 miles. Some VW models are prone
to this. The cost of replacing the chain is usually significantly higher
than changing a belt; for some models, when the chain rattles it's not
cost effective to replace it.
Some Toyotas use plastic sprockets with a chain. The sprockets have been
known to fail around three years/50,000 miles.
Both belts and chains are critical; failure of either on almost all
modern engines will cause similar significant damage. On balance, there
may be more damage done if a chain breaks, and the repair costs are
likely to be higher due to the greater amount of dismantling required.
Over all, belts are a better solution from a number of points of view. If
only owners had a better understanding of maintenance needs, and perhaps
more importantly costs, belt driven cams would have continued as the
preferred method.
Chris
--
Remove prejudice to reply.
[...]
> chains have a fair life - belts on the other hand are critical and must
> be changed before the recommended intervals.
10year/100,000 mile change interval for more than a decade, and some
models have now had that increased to 120,000 miles. They rarely fail
early.
Some cam chains can fail before 100,000 miles. Some VW models are prone
to this. The cost of replacing the chain is usually significantly higher
than changing a belt; for some models, when the chain rattles it's not
cost effective to replace it.
Some Toyotas use plastic sprockets with a chain. The sprockets have been
known to fail around three years/50,000 miles.
Both belts and chains are critical; failure of either on almost all
modern engines will cause similar significant damage. On balance, there
may be more damage done if a chain breaks, and the repair costs are
likely to be higher due to the greater amount of dismantling required.
Over all, belts are a better solution from a number of points of view. If
only owners had a better understanding of maintenance needs, and perhaps
more importantly costs, belt driven cams would have continued as the
preferred method.
Chris
--
Remove prejudice to reply.
Message has been deleted
shazzbat
Apr 22, 2012, 4:11:32 AM4/22/12
to
"SteveH" <itali...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1kiy2fa.l88790bl0mbfN%itali...@gmail.com...
> Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Over all, belts are a better solution from a number of points of view.
>
> Erm, I'd disagree with that.
>
>> Over all, belts are a better solution from a number of points of view.
>
>
Me too. I'd also take issue with "belt driven cams would have continued as
the preferred method."
Camshafts were driven by chains long before belts. And of course where it's
really vital, they are gear driven.
Steve
Duncan Wood
Apr 22, 2012, 4:14:38 AM4/22/12
to
Chris Whelan
Apr 22, 2012, 4:24:03 AM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:34:47 +0100, SteveH wrote:
> Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Over all, belts are a better solution from a number of points of view.
>
> Belts are the cheap solution to save the manufacturers a few quid - and
> are well known for early failure.
There have been some cases of early failure, yes. These were often VX,
where they tried to keep up with Ford by doubling the change interval
from 36k to 72k without making any improvement to the design. Needless to
say, many failed around 40k, leading to a hasty retreat!
Other VX failures were caused by a large batch of faulty water pumps,
which were prone to seizing. Some Renaults also did this. Driving the
water pump from the belt is never going to be a good idea.
These failures were hardly the 'fault' of the use of a belt drive!
The other advantages of a belt are quietness, and the likelihood that
valve timing will stay in spec over the belt's lifetime. Chain stretch is
much more difficult to overcome.
Over the life of the vehicle, the cost to the owner *could* be less, as
long as the design is right. For example, many cars are scrapped with
less than 100k, and even 'high-milers' with 200k on them would have
needed only one belt change at perhaps half the cost of changing a chain.
> Ford may be confident in quoting 120k miles - but if your belt snaps
> outside of warranty at 100k miles, I very much doubt they'd pay for the
> damage.
Nor Toyota when the plastic sprocket fails, or VW when chain replacement
means engine/box splitting and a new crankshaft, of course.
> One big advantage of chains is that you get plenty of warning before
> they let go.
Yes, you do. However, the sort of owner who ignores belt change intervals
is most likely just to turn the radio up when the chain gets noisy...
Of course, the real reason for the debate actually is nothing to do with
the way the cams are driven, but about how we demand more performance for
less fuel costs. 25 years ago, a broken cam belt on my old Pinto-engined
Transit took a garage 30 minutes to fix, and cost me 20UKP, including
recovery!
> Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Over all, belts are a better solution from a number of points of view.
>
> Erm, I'd disagree with that.
Well, I did say from a number of POV - not for every reason.
> Belts are the cheap solution to save the manufacturers a few quid - and
> are well known for early failure.
There have been some cases of early failure, yes. These were often VX,
where they tried to keep up with Ford by doubling the change interval
from 36k to 72k without making any improvement to the design. Needless to
say, many failed around 40k, leading to a hasty retreat!
Other VX failures were caused by a large batch of faulty water pumps,
which were prone to seizing. Some Renaults also did this. Driving the
water pump from the belt is never going to be a good idea.
These failures were hardly the 'fault' of the use of a belt drive!
The other advantages of a belt are quietness, and the likelihood that
valve timing will stay in spec over the belt's lifetime. Chain stretch is
much more difficult to overcome.
Over the life of the vehicle, the cost to the owner *could* be less, as
long as the design is right. For example, many cars are scrapped with
less than 100k, and even 'high-milers' with 200k on them would have
needed only one belt change at perhaps half the cost of changing a chain.
> Ford may be confident in quoting 120k miles - but if your belt snaps
> outside of warranty at 100k miles, I very much doubt they'd pay for the
> damage.
Nor Toyota when the plastic sprocket fails, or VW when chain replacement
means engine/box splitting and a new crankshaft, of course.
> One big advantage of chains is that you get plenty of warning before
> they let go.
Yes, you do. However, the sort of owner who ignores belt change intervals
is most likely just to turn the radio up when the chain gets noisy...
Of course, the real reason for the debate actually is nothing to do with
the way the cams are driven, but about how we demand more performance for
less fuel costs. 25 years ago, a broken cam belt on my old Pinto-engined
Transit took a garage 30 minutes to fix, and cost me 20UKP, including
recovery!
Tim..
Apr 22, 2012, 10:29:08 AM4/22/12
to
"Kirky" <theb...@uboot.com> wrote in message
news:781acc15-df6d-4455...@m31g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
lunched the engine, wrapping around the crank sprocket and blowing the
casing apart.
On the K12, stretching is very common, especially the earlier models. The
chain AND the guides themselves are very prone to wear, espeically on low
mileage cars that havent had regular enough servicing. Has the car in
question had 6 monthly oil changes?
Anyhow, symptoms will be a rattle upon cold startup before oil pressure
extends the tensioner, loss of power due to the timing being out, and when
really bad EML light on with a crank / cam sync fault code and limp home
mode.
If you remove the oil filler cap and look down at the tensioner and its more
than a finger nail protruded the chain is fairly worn.
The larger 1.2, and 1.4 and 1.6 in the almera suffer in exactly the same
way. You are looking at about £300 to replace the chain and guides.
Tim..
Mr Pounder
Apr 22, 2012, 1:19:07 PM4/22/12
to
"Kirky" <theb...@uboot.com> wrote in message
news:781acc15-df6d-4455...@m31g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Mike Tomlinson
Apr 22, 2012, 3:17:06 PM4/22/12
to
En el artículo <KdOkr.39932$Od1....@fx32.am4>, Chris Whelan <cawhelan@p
rejudicentlworld.com> escribió:
>Some Toyotas use plastic sprockets with a chain.
They just don't learn, do they? Or is this a deliberate ploy to sell
new engines when the sprockets fail?
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
rejudicentlworld.com> escribió:
>Some Toyotas use plastic sprockets with a chain.
new engines when the sprockets fail?
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Mike
Apr 23, 2012, 2:52:02 AM4/23/12
to
"shazzbat" wrote in message news:jn0efq$m2n$1...@news.albasani.net...
Remember the Series 1 Morris Oxford. The fibre camshaft gear wheel used to
strip their teeth?.
Mike
strip their teeth?.
Mike
Mrcheerful
Apr 23, 2012, 3:19:40 AM4/23/12
to
Chris Whelan
Apr 23, 2012, 3:29:42 AM4/23/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:19:40 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
[...]
>> Camshafts were driven by chains long before belts. And of course where
>> it's really vital, they are gear driven.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Remember the Series 1 Morris Oxford. The fibre camshaft gear wheel used
>> to strip their teeth?.
>>
>> Mike
>
> and revisited by Ford on their V4 and V6 engines
Ditto certain Volvo models..
[...]
>> Camshafts were driven by chains long before belts. And of course where
>> it's really vital, they are gear driven.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Remember the Series 1 Morris Oxford. The fibre camshaft gear wheel used
>> to strip their teeth?.
>>
>> Mike
>
> and revisited by Ford on their V4 and V6 engines
Rob
Apr 23, 2012, 3:39:50 AM4/23/12
to
0 new messages