I see one huge problem with this experiment. More tensile strength does not necessarily translate as being made of materials that last longer. The idea that a stronger material will be better at withstanding the heat and elements any better than the weaker material is a big assumption I wouldn’t make.
It’s not just mileage either. Time is also a factor along with environmental condtions.
A stone stock belt will work just as well as anything made for this car there are far more important and critical things to worry about on this vehicle than what the belt application is.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t visit horseracing tracks, don’t play Lotto, and have never been inside a casino either.
My area of expertise is the engineering of tires, but I’ve picked up some info about rubber chemistry along the way. Nevertheless, the reason most tires fail is not because of their strength. It is because the material properties changed over time - particularly concerning the adhesion of the rubber to whatever fabric is being used for reinforcement - and unfortuantely this is time/temperature dependent. I would not expect hydrogenated nitrile to perform any better than than EPDM when it comes to aging. The time/temp is going to take its toll no matter what you do.
I strongly suspect that the real reason “Racing” timing belts are built “stronger” is that high lift cams require more force to turn, so the belt has to be stronger to be able to transmit more torque. This does nothing for the fatigue properties of interest - the adhesion of the rubber to the reinforcing cords.
The larger loads placed on the belt each time a cylinder fires in a souped up engine also work directly against the added loading from a high lift cam, and modified lift and durations also require stronger valvesprings to prevent “floating” of the valves, again working directly against the stronger “pushes” from the bigger bangs in the cylinders.
In short, even adding a supercharger or turbocharger without changing the cam increases the load…and can you imagine what N2O does? Yikes!
All in all, I’d guess that the tensile loads placed on the belts on souped up engines can be much larger than those placed on stock applications, the amount of added load being directly related to the budget of the “tuner”.
Sounds to me like Jesmeds is determined to do it. But thats part of the fun of being born a boy. Post us again in 150k miles or when the belt breaks–whatever happens first.
I’m surprised Gates offers a racing timing belt for a CR-V. Does this motor also come in cars that would be set up as race cars? Civics or Accords?
Thanks for all the feedback here…first off, let me assure the worriers that I probably won’t put a racing belt on…mainly because my current (stock) belt is only one year (10k miles) old, and at the rate I drive, it’ll be another 5 years before I get to the 60k Honda-recommended replacement interval for “severe” conditions (and by the way, Gates, who makes the stock belt, recommends a 105k mile interval), and in 5 years I’ll probably have forgotten about racing belts entirely. What I was hoping to find was some hard data on the life expectancy of “racing” belts from you other gearheads out there…and what I learned is, no one has any hard data, only opinions. And if Gates has any hard data, they’re not telling. All they say is that the racing belt should be replaced at the shortest interval recommended by the car mfr. Hopefully someone else can do the experiment and report back in 5 or 10 years…