Accuses all automotive engineers of being idiots.
… Can’t figure out how to use the quote system.
5 Likes
Sure, I spent over $1500 to have the timing belt and hydraulic tensioner replaced. Why design the timing belt with a hydraulic tensioner?? Stupid!!!
Did you post to the wrong thread ?
1 Like
I think he’s trying to make the point that all engineers are stupid.
Buck, how would YOU design the timing belt tensioner?
2 Likes
This is why-
The hydraulic system is mainly used on applications with high loads and/or angular vibrations, where a mechanical automatic tensioner cannot provide sufficient damping or tensioner movement.
http://www.mechanexpert.com/hydraulic-vs-mechanical-tensioners-a-technical-tip-from-gates/
I would use either a timing chain or an indexed gear drive rather than a cheesy timing belt which are prone to premature failure.
Gears are best, but timing belts are much less expensive to produce. Chains are a great middle ground. I suspect that manufacturers shave returned to chains because of all the complaints and problems associated with belts. And, in truth, most of them are caused by the changing of the belt rather than the belt itself. There are a lot of guys out there that don’t take the time to do the job properly.
Re: belts, I’ve long believed that it was pathetic to sell cars that needed scheduled maintenance as expensive as a timing belt change anyway just to keep the cost of manufacture as low as possible. There comes a point where cost-cutting goes too far. I’ve long believed that timing belts are that point.
2 Likes
PREMATURE failure. I’ve seen timing belts fail…but NEVER prematurely. What stats do you have to back up this claim?
2 Likes
Wait, Ralph Nader’s calling. What’s that Ralph? The Corvair? Pinto? Gremmlin? Pacer? Edsel???
Yes my Sportage had only 54K miles on it when the hydraulic tensioner failed. The seals dried up and the hydraulic fluid leaked out. So I not only did I have to replace the timing belt, but the stupid hydraulic tensioner as well.
I think it’s fairly telling that you have to go back more than 40 years to come up with a rebuttal, especially when it’s a rebuttal to a point that highlights the poor quality and manufacturer response in the old days.
I’m not sure what your intentions are around here and will charitably allow for the ever-slimming possibility that you are not simply here to troll at a laughably inexpert level, but thus far the only result is a board full of people unimpressed by your blatherings.
4 Likes
So you have ONE…Not like there’s a plethora of them. I’ve also seen them last 2-3 times longer then they should have.
2 Likes
Published 10:35 a.m. ET April 24, 2018 | Updated 7:45 a.m. ET April 25, 2018
Audi’s China Syndrome: DETROIT — Audi is recalling about 1.2 million cars and SUVs worldwide because the electric coolant pumps can overeat and possibly cause a fire.
The recall covers the 2013 to 2016 A4, the 2013 to 2017 A5, the 2012 to 2015 A6, and the Q5 SUV from 2013 to 2017. All have 2-Liter turbocharged engines.
Yes it would have lasted longer if they didn’t use a hydraulic tensioner.
Alright. Show us how smart you are. Go build a car. Right now. As you are so exacting in standards, I expect it will be safer and more reliable than anything on the road. Failure means you’re full of it, so try not to screw up. Let us know how that goes.
3 Likes
Ah…that’s a completely illogical conclusion. You don’t know of it was the hydraulic tensioner design or just poor quality in manufacturing. What is the failure rate the hydraulic tensioner for in that vehicle? Or any vehicle that uses a hydraulic tensioner.
My point is that the whole automotive industry (Sales/Service) is just one gigantic money grab. Designers purposely under design components so they fail at a certain point, so that they can stick the consumers with exorbitant repair costs.
That’s stupid. The designers don’t get paid when I take my car in for repair. The mechanic does, and the mechanic is probably getting the parts from NAPA, not the dealership. You’re not the first person to spout the idiotic conspiracy theory that the designers do X-bad-thing to a car in the name of vaguely-defined future profit motives, but it’s really obnoxious.
My favorite is the claim by total dopes that manufacturers purposely keep fuel efficiency poor so that you have to use more gas. As though the manufacturer gives a flying rip that Shell makes a few bucks more off of you every month.
It’s laughable. You really need to apply some critical thinking to your beliefs before you start spewing them all over the internet. What’s next, chemtrails?
2 Likes
If that’s the case then why have vehicles become more reliable? No manufacturer can build the perfect vehicle without it costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Every vehicle built (with the exception of exotic vehicles) is designed with cost in mind.
What kind of reliability are you looking for? Since 1987 - we’ve owned 5 vehicles with well over 300k miles and each one had less then $2000 in total repairs for the life of the vehicle. My wifes 96 Accord’s first repair was at 240k miles and it cost me $4. I’m not talking about standard preventative maintenance on wear items like brakes, tires battery…etc. Maybe you should buy more reliable vehicles.
3 Likes
I guess you’ve never heard of lobbyists? The automotive industry has hundreds of lobbyists who do there bidding for them. They can’t or don’t want to meet projected MPG goals so they have there lobbyist repeal the regulations. My 33 year old camaro which has a “Smog” motor gets just about the same MPG as today’s “Green Fuel-Efficient” vehicles. There hasn’t been a significant increase in fuel economy in over 30 years.