Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:36:01 GMT From: Bob <uctraingDESPAMnopsamanet.com> Subject: Re: Help - motor crashed on 94 V6
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 03:38:18 GMT, brandon1nopsamultant.com (Brandon) wrote: > Grunff <grunffnopsam.com> wrote: > >>However, it is a simple fact that the vast majority of current >>production cars (at least European and Japanese - I'm not familiar with >>US cars) use belts, not chains. This is for economic reasons, nothing else. > >Well...mostly. I won't argue that point. However, belts are quieter, smoother, and >reduce recieprocating weight, which means 'quicker' accelleration of the engine. And >don't require lubrication. BUT, they do wear out quicker. It's a trade-off. Replace >them as a matter of normal maintaince, and they do their job just fine. I agree with conclusions on the "advantages" of belts. But, with a 60K interval on most cars, a $300-$500 replacement cost, and the potential damage to an "interference" engine, I think it's a poor tradeoff. Bob
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
