Are there any 'everyday' cars without cambelts or with a 'non-interference' engine design?

[Pinman]

Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
design ? Thanks for any replies.

[diy-newby]

"Pinman" <lkj....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194878554.5...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
> use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
> design ? Thanks for any replies.
>

Why?

Is this also to exclude non-serviceable chain driven engines? My previous
Golf was chain driven (a non serviceable part)

[Chris Whelan]

Pinman wrote:

There are many new engines that are cambelt-free, but I don't know of a
definitive list anywhere online.

For example, Ford's new engines, used in the latest Focus/Mondeo et al use
chain-driven camshafts.

I doubt if any recent engines are non-interference; the performance
requirements would preclude that sort of design.

Note that having the camshaft driven by a chain is no guarantee of improved
longevity with reduced maintenance! For example, the cambelt change
interval for the last generation of Ford engines (Zetec) was 100,000 miles;
this has proved pretty reliable. At least one VAG engine, with a chain cam,
may well need the chain changing at the same sort of interval, but at much
greater cost.

Although only anecdotal, my brother had the (plastic) sprocket shatter on
his chain-driven Corolla just inside the three year warranty. Damage was
the same as if it had a broken belt. The dealer didn't seem too
surprised...

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

[Mrcheerful]

"Pinman" <lkj....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194878554.5...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
> use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
> design ? Thanks for any replies.
>

ford ka pushrod, (not ohc)
Any thing twin cam will be interference

Best bet is to get a shortlist of cars you like then check on the engine
design. I would rather go for a chain drive ohc such as a Toyota engine,
even then it is interference if the chain breaks. Belts are ok usually if
they are changed correctly on schedule.

Or go a bit retro and get a 1300 escort mark three with the usually non
interference CVH or something with a pinto engine, they are usually ok if
the belt breaks.

RX8 mazda , no belts, no valves.

Trabant, wartburg

Early lexus LS400 is non interference.

[SteveH]

diy-newby <as...@asas.com> wrote:

VR6, I assume?

It's very much a serviceable part with a recommended check and change
interval.

Not cheap to do, either.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

[SteveH]

Pinman <lkj....@yahoo.com> wrote:

Just about all Nissan 4-pot petrol engines are chain driven and seem to
last forever without a change.

[Iridium]

"Pinman" <lkj....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194878554.5...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
> use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
> design ? Thanks for any replies.
>

Things with the 2.2 16v VX engine are chain driven.

Why does it matter? Over the whole cost of owning a car, a cambelt change
is pretty insignificant... And most intervals are very long these days.
And if you're worried about such a cost, you're unlikely to be buying a car
with a very expensive to change belt (FWD V6s and the like) because they
tend (sweeping generalisation) to be more performance/luxury cars and more
expensive to run. Most belts aren't too expensive all in IME (under Ł200,
VAG 1.8 T, VX 2.0T etc etc)

--
Dan
Mk1 Clio V6

[diy-newby]

"SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1i7h2zg.12sdqd17yl9vlN%st...@italiancar.co.uk...

V6 4mo. According to VW it's a non-serviceable part.

[Ivan]

"Chris Whelan" <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote in message
news:v3_Zi.11398$ib1...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

Surely a much better solution would be for manufacturers to design vehicles
where the timing belt was a simple 20 minute job to replace, in the same way
as Vauxhall designed a front wheel drive vehicle in which the clutch could
be replaced in under an hour.
Call me an old cynic, but it's almost as if they don't actually mind their
car is winding up in the scrap yards after five or six years because they're
too expensive to repair!

[Peter Hill]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:58:43 +0000, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
wrote:

>Pinman <lkj....@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
>> use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
>> design ? Thanks for any replies.
>
>Just about all Nissan 4-pot petrol engines are chain driven and seem to
>last forever without a change.

Needs qualifying with all CURRENT or
All new Nissan engines introduced from 1991 onwards are chain but some
run out models still had belt engines up to '96 when the 300ZX
finished.
Just about everything introduced from about '81 to late 80's was belt.
CA16/18/20 in Sunny ZX coupe/hatch, Silvia, 200SX, Bluebird, VG30 in
anything that had 3L engine, E13/15 in Sunnys, MA series in Micra.

Nissan have never had issues with premature belt failure before the
service interval. Belt failure on most other makes was due to them
driving things off the back of the belt and/or those things or
tensioner rollers seizing causing rubbing that overheated the belt.
Nissan SR20 does have issues with variable inlet timing causing chain
rattle on startup, that costs £700 in parts to fix so most people let
it rattle.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

[Tim S Kemp]

Iridium <iridi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Things with the 2.2 16v VX engine are chain driven.

IIRC there's two different types, and one of them is belt driven.

--
House for sale: <http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-16198333.rsp>

[Tim S Kemp]

My Merc is chain, as is every other current model as far as I can remember.
And I use it every day.

[Graham2]

<snip>

> Surely a much better solution would be for manufacturers to design
> vehicles where the timing belt was a simple 20 minute job to replace, in
> the same way as Vauxhall designed a front wheel drive vehicle in which the
> clutch could be replaced in under an hour.
> Call me an old cynic, but it's almost as if they don't actually mind their
> car is winding up in the scrap yards after five or six years because
> they're too expensive to repair!

So you go and buy another one of course !
;-)
Graham

[mike. buckley]

In message <1194878554.5...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Pinman <lkj....@yahoo.com> writes

>Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
>use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
>design ? Thanks for any replies.
>

2003 VW Polo 1.2 is chain driven cams and non-interference. We know cos
the bloody thing jumped and put the timing out, took the AA 3 visits to
diagnose and tow to VW garage, and then two months for VW to come up
with the part.

Fuckers.

--
Mike Buckley
RD350LC2
http://www.toastyhamster.freeserve.co.uk - deleted by Orange - f*ckers - then
randomly reinstated - wtf!
http://www.toastyhamster.plus.com
BONY#38

[Mrcheerful]

"mike. buckley" <mi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RkWh7NMj...@hotmail.com...

> In message <1194878554.5...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Pinman
> <lkj....@yahoo.com> writes
>>Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
>>use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
>>design ? Thanks for any replies.
>>
>
> 2003 VW Polo 1.2 is chain driven cams and non-interference. We know cos
> the bloody thing jumped and put the timing out, took the AA 3 visits to
> diagnose and tow to VW garage, and then two months for VW to come up with
> the part.

It would be interference if the chain went completely. Every twin cam AFAIK
is.

[mike. buckley]

In message <0Eh_i.46802$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Mrcheerful <nbk...@hotmail.com> writes

Dealer said it had jumped off completely and was miles out. We'd have
been more fuming if they'd not done it for free on goodwill (dealer
serviced all its life).

Is the 1.2 a twin cam?

[Pete M]

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate
Mrcheerful,<nbk...@hotmail.com> managed to produce the following words
of wisdom

Mazda MX-5's don't seem to be. I've replaced snapped belts on a few now and
never had an issue with interference.

--
Pete M - OMF#9
"Save your breath for cooling your porridge!
W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo
Scorpio Ultima 24v
Tatra 805

[Mrcheerful]

"mike. buckley" <mi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:2WsIXXPI...@hotmail.com...

> In message <0Eh_i.46802$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Mrcheerful
> <nbk...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"mike. buckley" <mi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:RkWh7NMj...@hotmail.com...
>>> In message <1194878554.5...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Pinman
>>> <lkj....@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
>>>>use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
>>>>design ? Thanks for any replies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 2003 VW Polo 1.2 is chain driven cams and non-interference. We know cos
>>> the bloody thing jumped and put the timing out, took the AA 3 visits to
>>> diagnose and tow to VW garage, and then two months for VW to come up
>>> with
>>> the part.
>>
>>It would be interference if the chain went completely. Every twin cam
>>AFAIK
>>is.
>>
>>
>
> Dealer said it had jumped off completely and was miles out. We'd have been
> more fuming if they'd not done it for free on goodwill (dealer serviced
> all its life).
>
> Is the 1.2 a twin cam?
>

mike buckley said 'cams' so it sounds as if it is.

[Mrcheerful]

"Pete M" <pete....@blueSPAMFREEyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhcbjb$l0f$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

> Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate
> Mrcheerful,<nbk...@hotmail.com> managed to produce the following words
> of wisdom
>> "mike. buckley" <mi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:RkWh7NMj...@hotmail.com...
>>> In message <1194878554.5...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Pinman <lkj....@yahoo.com> writes
>>>> Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that
>>>> don't use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a
>>>> 'non-interference' engine design ? Thanks for any replies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 2003 VW Polo 1.2 is chain driven cams and non-interference. We know
>>> cos the bloody thing jumped and put the timing out, took the AA 3
>>> visits to diagnose and tow to VW garage, and then two months for VW
>>> to come up with the part.
>>
>> It would be interference if the chain went completely. Every twin
>> cam AFAIK is.
>
> Mazda MX-5's don't seem to be. I've replaced snapped belts on a few now
> and never had an issue with interference.
>

autodata agree, 'very unlikely' to suffer damage. So there is a car for the
OP !!

[Pete M]

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate
Mrcheerful,<nbk...@hotmail.com> managed to produce the following words
of wisdom

> "Pete M" <pete....@blueSPAMFREEyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

>>> It would be interference if the chain went completely. Every twin

>>> cam AFAIK is.
>>
>> Mazda MX-5's don't seem to be. I've replaced snapped belts on a few
>> now and never had an issue with interference.
>>
>
> autodata agree, 'very unlikely' to suffer damage. So there is a car
> for the OP !!

Actually, thinking about it, the MX-5 motor was based on the engine in the
323, so maybe the OP should get a late '80s Mazda....

[Tim S Kemp]

Pete M <pete....@blueSPAMFREEyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Actually, thinking about it, the MX-5 motor was based on the engine
> in the 323, so maybe the OP should get a late '80s Mazda....

Yeah but they're all dull, other than the MX-5.

--
You can now get six points for not remembering who was driving your car
- sick of guilty until proven innocent? Petition here

<http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/pointsreview/>

[Pete Smith]

In article <v3_Zi.11398$ib1...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com says...

> > Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
> > use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
> > design ? Thanks for any replies.
>
> There are many new engines that are cambelt-free, but I don't know of a
> definitive list anywhere online.
>
> For example, Ford's new engines, used in the latest Focus/Mondeo et al use
> chain-driven camshafts.
>
> I doubt if any recent engines are non-interference; the performance
> requirements would preclude that sort of design.
>

Hate to break it to you, but only the Mk 3 Mondeo was chain. The new Mk 4 is
belts (At least on the diesel). The Ford TDCI fitted to the Transit & Mk 3
Mondeo was chain, but the TDCI in the Focus, being a different engine, was a
belt.

Pete.

[Chris Whelan]

Pete Smith wrote:

Ah, I'd assumed the OP was only asking about petrol, in which case the
Mondeo has used the chain-cam Duratec engine since 2000 AFAIK.

[Pete M]

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Tim S
Kemp,<ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> managed to produce the following words
of wisdom

> Pete M <pete....@blueSPAMFREEyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Actually, thinking about it, the MX-5 motor was based on the engine
>> in the 323, so maybe the OP should get a late '80s Mazda....
>
> Yeah but they're all dull, other than the MX-5.

If his buying criteria is based entirely on cambelts then the car isn't the
only dull thing in the equation, is it?

[big dom]

"Chris Whelan" <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote in message

news:ocm_i.4034$1x....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

> Pete Smith wrote:
>
I doubt if any recent engines are non-interference; the performance
>>> requirements would preclude that sort of design.
>>>
>>
>> Hate to break it to you, but only the Mk 3 Mondeo was chain. The new Mk 4
>> is belts (At least on the diesel). The Ford TDCI fitted to the Transit &
>> Mk 3 Mondeo was chain, but the TDCI in the Focus, being a different
>> engine, was a belt.
>>
>> Pete.
>
> Ah, I'd assumed the OP was only asking about petrol, in which case the
> Mondeo has used the chain-cam Duratec engine since 2000 AFAIK.

v6 mondeo's have always been chain driven.

saabs have always used chains (except the diesel and V6...)

[Tim..]

"diy-newby" <as...@asas.com> wrote in message news:fh9to5$iad$1...@aioe.org...

>
> "SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1i7h2zg.12sdqd17yl9vlN%st...@italiancar.co.uk...
>> diy-newby <as...@asas.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Pinman" <lkj....@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1194878554.5...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Are there any 'everyday' cars manufactured in recent years that don't
>>> > use cambelts - or if they do use one, have a 'non-interference' engine
>>> > design ? Thanks for any replies.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Is this also to exclude non-serviceable chain driven engines? My
>>> previous
>>> Golf was chain driven (a non serviceable part)
>>
>> VR6, I assume?
>>
>> It's very much a serviceable part with a recommended check and change
>> interval.
>>
>> Not cheap to do, either.
>> --

> V6 4mo. According to VW it's a non-serviceable part.
>

I can assure you that the chain in the VR6 is very much a service item!!!

Tim..

[mike. buckley]

In message <Kyj_i.46900$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,

d'oh! my bad.

[Adrian]

big dom ("big dom" <jsmit...@yahoo.com>) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> saabs have always used chains (except the diesel and V6...)

yeh, but they're vauxhalls anyway... <hides>

[Steve Walker]

In message <ZJSdnSAyX9m...@eclipse.net.uk>, Tim S Kemp
<ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> writes

>Pete M <pete....@blueSPAMFREEyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Actually, thinking about it, the MX-5 motor was based on the engine
>> in the 323, so maybe the OP should get a late '80s Mazda....

>Yeah but they're all dull, other than the MX-5.

And the RX-7, which didn't have a cambelt either (or a cam chain or any
cams for that matter). Not exactly "everyday", though.

--
Steve Walker

[lex]

replying to Pinman, lex wrote:
yeah, in the old days there was the toyota 12R engine- no chain or belts, taxi
companies in phils love it for its low maintenance.

--
posted from
http://www.motorsforum.com/maintenance-uk/re-punto-annoyance-180718-.htm
using MotorsForum's Web, Mobile and Social Media Interface to
uk.rec.cars.maintenance and other automotive groups

[pedr...@lycos.com]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 12:26:14 AM UTC+9, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> ford ka pushrod, (not ohc)

Not many pushrod engines the last 10 years.
I think newer emission control regulations made dual variable camshafts
de rigeur.

[Mrcheerful]

Now that cam belts are rated for 150,000 miles or ten years (in some
cases) the arguments against them are not so strong.

[Chris Whelan]

Chains wear too, and replacement is a much bigger job than changing a belt.
It's also not unknown for a chain to break, or a (plastic) sprocket to
shatter.

[newshound]

Bah this newfangled plastic, it will never catch on

:-)

[Chris Whelan]

newshound wrote:

[...]

>> Chains wear too, and replacement is a much bigger job than changing a
>> belt. It's also not unknown for a chain to break, or a (plastic) sprocket
>> to shatter.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Bah this newfangled plastic, it will never catch on
>
> :-)

Heh!

Brother had a plastic cam-chain sprocket fail on a Toyota that was less than
three years old...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <HbgGx.287978$AW2.1...@fx11.am4>,

Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
> > Now that cam belts are rated for 150,000 miles or ten years (in some
> > cases) the arguments against them are not so strong.

> Chains wear too, and replacement is a much bigger job than changing a
> belt.

You'd hope so - but some makers seem to have arranged for it to be just as
difficult to change a belt. On some cars, it's an engine out job.

> It's also not unknown for a chain to break, or a (plastic) sprocket to
> shatter.

Pushrod engines with a much shorter chain could go on for ever. But are
there any pushrod designs left?

--
*OK, so what's the speed of dark? *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <HbgGx.287978$AW2.1...@fx11.am4>,
> Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Now that cam belts are rated for 150,000 miles or ten years (in some
>>> cases) the arguments against them are not so strong.
>
>> Chains wear too, and replacement is a much bigger job than changing a
>> belt.
>
> You'd hope so - but some makers seem to have arranged for it to be just as
> difficult to change a belt. On some cars, it's an engine out job.
>

Did one on our Capri years ago, and it was a doddle. Did our Fiesta
last year, and it was a complete PITA.

[Mrcheerful]

A very nice Chrysler V8 6.4 is in the 300 RT for Australia

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <YvhGx.294524$ur5.2...@fx20.am4>,

Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Pushrod engines with a much shorter chain could go on for ever. But are
> >> there any pushrod designs left?
> >>
> >

> A very nice Chrysler V8 6.4 is in the 300 RT for Australia

Yes - I'd guess if any it would be a nice big V8. ;-)

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

[Davey]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:29:36 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <YvhGx.294524$ur5.2...@fx20.am4>,
> Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Pushrod engines with a much shorter chain could go on for ever.
> > >> But are there any pushrod designs left?
> > >>
> > >
>
> > A very nice Chrysler V8 6.4 is in the 300 RT for Australia
>
> Yes - I'd guess if any it would be a nice big V8. ;-)
>

"Everyday"?

--
Davey.

[mbj...@y7mail.com]

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 7:57:27 AM UTC+8, Davey wrote:
> > > A very nice Chrysler V8 6.4 is in the 300 RT for Australia
> >
> > Yes - I'd guess if any it would be a nice big V8. ;-)
> >
>
> "Everyday"?
>

Maybe not in the UK, but large RWD cars are still considered "everyday" in
Australia. The LS3 V8 is quite common in the Holdens (rebadged as Vauxhall VXR
or whatever).

[Davey]

But note the name of this newsgroup!

--
Davey.

[Mrcheerful]

The thread drifted to:

[Peter Hill]

On 04/09/2015 14:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <HbgGx.287978$AW2.1...@fx11.am4>,
> Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Now that cam belts are rated for 150,000 miles or ten years (in some
>>> cases) the arguments against them are not so strong.
>
>> Chains wear too, and replacement is a much bigger job than changing a
>> belt.
>
> You'd hope so - but some makers seem to have arranged for it to be just as
> difficult to change a belt. On some cars, it's an engine out job.

These days there isn't a spanner gap between inner wing and timing cover
of a FWD I4. Over 40 years ago BMC/BL got an I6 in the FWD ADO17 2200
"Landcrab" and ADO 71 Princess. ADO17 had a front track width of 1422mm
and ADO71 1473mm. Current FWD cars have over 100mm more front track
but still have no engine clearance. Passat front track is 1553mm.

>> It's also not unknown for a chain to break, or a (plastic) sprocket to
>> shatter.

Variable phasing gubbins fails on a lot of them. Doesn't damage the
engine but it makes some noise.

> Pushrod engines with a much shorter chain could go on for ever. But are
> there any pushrod designs left?

You don't need a pushrod OHV to have non interference.
Non interference OHC engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_B_engine#B3

Due to the noise and poor life (less than forever) Rolls-Royce wouldn't
countenance a chain on I6 or V8, they had gear cam drive.

Honda had to fit gear drive to V4 DOHC VFR750/800 due to the inverted
HiVo chain having serious issues on VR750. Caused by same design issues
as Honda CB250/350K4 broke cam in half, CB250/360G5, CJ250/360 snapped
end off tensioner blade if revved to 10K (9.5K redline, found 6 in the
sump) and CX500 twins sheared tensioner blade bolt. The belt drive
Pan-European V4 didn't have these issues as the belt can take the cam
drive shock loads. Plastic sprockets can't take the impact loads, not
even on I4 and possibly not a 6.

Rolls-Royce had a cam damper on I6. Put another 6 bumps on the cam in
addition the 12 that it had for the valves. "cam balancer was
incorporated to eliminate rattles of the five gears at the front of the
engine (Fig. 13)."
http://www.rrec.org.uk/Cars/Rolls-Royce_Motor_Car_Engines/History_of_a_Dimension.php

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <msefm9$gj9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Peter Hill <peter...@skyshacknospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Due to the noise and poor life (less than forever) Rolls-Royce wouldn't
> countenance a chain on I6 or V8, they had gear cam drive.

Think you'll find that was only earlier versions of their V8. And a decent
chain is likely to last as longs as the cam and followers anyway.

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

[johannes]

On 03/09/2015 05:36, lex wrote:
> replying to Pinman, lex wrote:
> yeah, in the old days there was the toyota 12R engine- no chain or
> belts, taxi
> companies in phils love it for its low maintenance.
>

A chain chain last a forever, my previous Saab sold at 280,000 no problemo

[Chris Whelan]

johannes wrote:

[...]

> A chain might last a forever, my previous Saab sold at 280,000 no problemo

I've corrected your post for you ;-)

The timing chain on any BMC et al 'A' series lump would be lucky to not need
replacing before 50k miles. Admittedly that was a lousy design, but a chain
nonetheless.

More recently, VW designed a V6 with the cam-chain drive in between the
engine and box. The chain would be absolutely shot by 100k, and replacement
meant pulling engine and box from the vehicle, then separating them.
Additionally, the engine sprocket was machined directly on the crankshaft,
and was usually found to be knackered when the chain was being replaced.
Older vehicles would be beyond economic repair at that point.

From an engineering POV, a properly designed belt driven camshaft is
preferable, and can easily outlast the average life of the vehicle. They
only got a bad press because of penny-pinching earlier designs, and the
failure of owners to replace them at correct intervals.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <5ZBGx.315406$Ch1....@fx40.am4>,

Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
> The timing chain on any BMC et al 'A' series lump would be lucky to not
> need replacing before 50k miles. Admittedly that was a lousy design,
> but a chain nonetheless.

You replaced it because it broke - or just got noisy? I've had lots of A
series engined vehicles over the years and never had a failure. Noisy,
yes. But usually drowned out by the tappets. ;-)

> More recently, VW designed a V6 with the cam-chain drive in between the
> engine and box. The chain would be absolutely shot by 100k, and
> replacement meant pulling engine and box from the vehicle, then
> separating them. Additionally, the engine sprocket was machined
> directly on the crankshaft, and was usually found to be knackered when
> the chain was being replaced. Older vehicles would be beyond economic
> repair at that point.

Plenty of badly designed chain drives around.

> From an engineering POV, a properly designed belt driven camshaft is
> preferable, and can easily outlast the average life of the vehicle. They
> only got a bad press because of penny-pinching earlier designs, and the
> failure of owners to replace them at correct intervals.

The correct interval being the vehicle lifetime? ;-)

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

[Chris Whelan]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[...]

> You replaced it because it broke - or just got noisy? I've had lots of A
> series engined vehicles over the years and never had a failure. Noisy,
> yes. But usually drowned out by the tappets. ;-)

I was referencing 'A' series generally; I used to look after a number of
them for others. Never had a failure as in one breaking, but they would idle
badly and lack normal power when the chain wore. It was really down to there
being no tensioner in the design.

I had a frantic call from a work-colleague once saying his Moggy wasn't
running properly, and he was due to go on holiday in a few days time. I
collected it, and it was on three cylinders, with terrible top end noise and
little power. Popping the rocker cover off revealed the valve clearances had
opened due to wear so much that a push-rod had become disengaged! I adjusted
all the clearances; the adjusters were near the end of their threads, so the
valves could have hardly been opening. I advised him not to use it, but he
went on holiday anyway, and said it was the best it had run in ages!

[...]

>> From an engineering POV, a properly designed belt driven camshaft is
>> preferable, and can easily outlast the average life of the vehicle. They
>> only got a bad press because of penny-pinching earlier designs, and the
>> failure of owners to replace them at correct intervals.
>
> The correct interval being the vehicle lifetime? ;-)

I did say *can* :-)

[johannes]

On 05/09/2015 14:18, Chris Whelan wrote:
> johannes wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> A chain might last a forever, my previous Saab sold at 280,000 no problemo
>
> I've corrected your post for you ;-)

It seems to reason that a steel chain is more durable than a belt made
of rubber like material ;-)

[Mrcheerful]

cam belts are very much more complicated, even very old V belts have
mutiple cores of strong string like stuff, serpentine belts have
incredibly fine steel rope inside, cam belts are amazingly tough and
they rarely actually break, loss of tension is the usual problem. in
the old days loss of teeth due to age and contamination was common
(think Pinto lumps) but that doesn't seem to happen now.

[Davey]

Only because you mentioned an Australian design.

--
Davey.

[Mark]

Mrcheerful wrote:

> cam belts are very much more complicated, even very old V belts have
> mutiple cores of strong string like stuff, serpentine belts have
> incredibly fine steel rope inside, cam belts are amazingly tough and
> they rarely actually break, loss of tension is the usual problem. in
> the old days loss of teeth due to age and contamination was common
> (think Pinto lumps) but that doesn't seem to happen now.

At least with the Pinto you could change the belt by the side of road if it
broke
the reason i know this is i went out to buy a new belt to fit and the old
one broke half way home

[johannes]

But think really long term e.g 25 years. Rubber like material seem to
deteriorate with age.

[Mrcheerful]

I answered the question: "But are there any pushrod designs left?" note
the word 'any'

[Mrcheerful]

On the road was less common. Pinto ones often went at home, first start
of the day when the oil was thick, the extra force needed for the belt
driven oil pump took the teeth off the belt at the crank pulley.
I have changed the early 2 litre ones with minimal tools at the
roadside, later ones needed a puller for the multi belt crank pulley,
which was not really a toolbox item. 1600 pintos bent the valves, but
at least they were easy and affordable to fix.
Most ordinary cars are now not economic to fix if the belt goes.

[Chris Whelan]

Mrcheerful wrote:

[...]

> 1600 pintos bent the valves

Are you sure about that? I thought it was the 2-litre engine that was
interference.

My 1.6 Pinto-engined Transit stripped its belt when pulling away at a set of
traffic lights when away from home, and a local garage towed it in and
replaced the belt all within two hours!

[Mrcheerful]

Definitely sure. I changed literally dozens of failed 2 litres without
any bent valves, while 1600s usually bent them. The engine was made
with low or high compression, the Transit would have had low compression
and more room for valve to piston clearance, hence your one missing.
Cortinas (the most common fitting that I had dealings with) had the high
compression version and often had bent the valves (usually only a
couple) so it may have been a bad luck thing too !

[Chris Whelan]

Mrcheerful wrote:

> On 06/09/2015 08:42, Chris Whelan wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 1600 pintos bent the valves
>>
>> Are you sure about that? I thought it was the 2-litre engine that was
>> interference.

[...]

> Definitely sure. I changed literally dozens of failed 2 litres without
> any bent valves, while 1600s usually bent them. The engine was made
> with low or high compression, the Transit would have had low compression
> and more room for valve to piston clearance, hence your one missing.
> Cortinas (the most common fitting that I had dealings with) had the high
> compression version and often had bent the valves (usually only a
> couple) so it may have been a bad luck thing too !

Ah OK. Understood.

[Peter Hill]

Ford claim cam belt in oil on Ecotec 1L triple is "for life". I suspect
there is a substantial gap between the public's definition of "for life"
and Ford's.

Does that mean that like the Zetec 1.25L didn't have O/S bearings they
won't be stocking spare cam belts?

[Mrcheerful]

IIRC the 1.25 zetec is a Japanese engine (Yamaha iirc), in general it is
hard to find and very expensive to get a crank regrind to Japanese oem
specs. so probably it was not worth making different thickness crank
bearings, just sell a new crank with std bearings, while replacement
belts would always be standard size and available for new engines and
rebuilds.
I used to run a Suzuki Motorcycle main agency, and when the 650/4 engine
came out it had a plain bearing crank, we only ever sold one, and that
bike had 200k on the engine and was used as a courier bike all its life,
so probably the incidence of needing crank regrinds was so low that
alternate shells were just a waste of time and money.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <WsEGx.374443$Rq5....@fx33.am4>,

Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
> I was referencing 'A' series generally; I used to look after a number of
> them for others. Never had a failure as in one breaking, but they would
> idle badly and lack normal power when the chain wore. It was really
> down to there being no tensioner in the design.

There are tensioners - rubber rings. However, most tensioners only take up
the slack on the non driven side, so ain't going to do anything as regards
valve timing drift with chain wear. Or more importantly ignition timing if
the dizzy is driven off the cam.

But I've never had one where there was any noticeable performance fall off
through chain wear, if the ignition timing was correct. Sure it hadn't
jumped a tooth?

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <msfc66$n3s$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Not so. The belt is reinforced. Might be possible to use a textile with
less stretch than steel.

--
*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist.

[Chris Whelan]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <WsEGx.374443$Rq5....@fx33.am4>,
> Chris Whelan <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
>> I was referencing 'A' series generally; I used to look after a number of
>> them for others. Never had a failure as in one breaking, but they would
>> idle badly and lack normal power when the chain wore. It was really
>> down to there being no tensioner in the design.
>
> There are tensioners - rubber rings. However, most tensioners only take up
> the slack on the non driven side, so ain't going to do anything as regards
> valve timing drift with chain wear. Or more importantly ignition timing if
> the dizzy is driven off the cam.

The 'O' ring that fitted in a groove around the sprocket was there to try to
quieten the chain noise; it didn't really help to tension a chain as it
wore, and in any case was not fitted to all engines.

It wasn't the case that poor performance was caused by a drift in ignition
timing because you could just re-time it to compensate. The problem was that
the timing jumped around as the camshaft wasn't driven consistently. You
could actually see the effect if you tried to set the timing with a strobe;
the marks would be jumping around all over the place.

The 'S' engine had a duplex chain, which lasted much longer before it caused
a problem. Later 'A Plus' engines finally had a tensioner fitted.

> But I've never had one where there was any noticeable performance fall off
> through chain wear, if the ignition timing was correct. Sure it hadn't
> jumped a tooth?

Dead sure! I would doubt that an 'A' series would even run in that
eventuality as they didn't run too well when all was correct!

[johannes]

On 03/09/2015 05:36, lex wrote:
> replying to Pinman, lex wrote:
> yeah, in the old days there was the toyota 12R engine- no chain or
> belts, taxi
> companies in phils love it for its low maintenance.
>

Here is the mostly 'complete' answer:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/chain-cam/

[Adrian]

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 10:17:08 +0100, Peter Hill wrote:

> Ford claim cam belt in oil on Ecotec 1L triple is "for life". I suspect
> there is a substantial gap between the public's definition of "for life"
> and Ford's.

Will it be like Vauxhall's "lifetime" (100k or change of owner) warranty?

[Peter Hill]

Ford didn't sell a 1.25 Zetec crank, they sold a short engine. You could
buy pistons, rods and big end bearing separately but not a crank without
a block.

It was a cast iron KENT block, Ford were too cheap to build a new line.
Yamaha stiffened the poor thing up so it could take the power the Yamaha
head made by bolting a die cast aluminium sump to it and a bearing
girdle was used. To make an engine run smooth requires a tight control
on main bearing clearance. They had 20 different thickness of bearing
shells to get the main bearing clearance due to the utter inability of
the knackered 50 year old Ford production line to hold tolerance when
boring the main bearing housings in the block. Then Ford made claims
that due to using lasers to gauge the thing they couldn't be re-ground
as it must not be disassembled. But having lasered it they had to
disassemble it to put the crank in.

My Nissan CA has 5 bearings for OEM assembly. When regrinding the crank
the under size bearing bore has to be measured with bearings installed
in the block and caps and girdle torqued correctly. Then the crank is
ground to a size that gives the required clearance.

Clearance = 0.021mm - 0.048mm. (wear limit 0.1mm)
Tolerance 0.027mm.

Main journal 52.951mm - 52.975mm
Tolerance 0.024mm.

Standard bearing thickness tolerance 0.004mm x 5 grades.
Total range 0.02mm.

Under size -0.25mm, thickness 1.947mm-1.960mm.
Tolerance 0.013mm.

I don't know the housing sizes in the block but that is made to a
tolerance as well. The required clearance tolerance is much less than
crank and shell thickness and adding tolerance of housing will increase
the tolerance range.

Simply wading in grinding the crank 0.25mm under size is a route to
scrap. If the machine shop doesn't ask for the block, bearing caps and
new bearing shells they don't know what they are doing and may as well
be a bunch of monkeys with a grinding machine. Pick up your crank and
RUN AWAY!

Same goes for a rebore. There are 5 grades of OEM piston and bore,
0.01mm steps for a total bore tolerance of 0.05mm.
Grade "A" 83.00mm - 83.01mm bore takes a 82.975mm - 82.985mm piston.
That gives clearance of 0.015 to 0.035mm. Which is what the rebore has
to match as well. So again just wading in with a boring machine to
+0.5mm on the 83mm nominal won't deliver the right piston fit. The
piston has to be measured and the bore sized +/-0.1mm to give the
correct clearance.

It's not new Japanese rocket science. Rover used selective fit for 3.5
V8 pistons. Didn't need lasers, they air gauged the bore and pistons to
grade them.

[Fredbair]

replying to Mrcheerful, Fredbair wrote:
Fiat punto have non interference engines I was told from the year 2000 to
the facelift change

--
for full context, visit http://www.motorsforum.com/maintenance-uk/punto-annoyance-47689-.htm