But chain replacement is rare, 200k+ miles typically, right? Not something either of my cars will see. And yes, I know there are problematic chain setups, often caused by disintegrating plastic guides.
For the longest time I was on the side of timing belts because it was something I could fairly easily on most cars. We tend to keep our vehicles over 300k miles and I believed that I’d be replacing that chain before I got rid of it. In 2005 I bought a 2005 4runner - which had a chain. We got rid of that vehicle with over 300k miles and the original chain. Same with my wife’s 07 Lexus and my 2014 Highlander.
Given that practically every modern vehicle will do 200,000 miles with just the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance, why would anyone buy a vehicle requiring a $2,500 belt replacement every 80,000 - 100,000 miles?
And yes, the cost of replacing a timing chain is probably more than the cost of replacing a belt but instead of having to replace the belt every 80,000 - 100,000 miles, at $2,500+ a pop, my chain at 180,000 miles is running just fine thank you.
Where are you getting that 2500.00 cost ?
Because the cost to replace a timing chain is more than the cost of 3-4 timing belts. You keep your vehicle long enough the cost of replacing a timing chain will cost you more over time.
If they could only make an engine that’s non-interference, so you wouldn’t have to worry about the timing belt, until it ultimately gives out. Oh wait, they did, for many years, and people didn’t take care of those models, and ran them into the ground.
few people are pining for 1997 Camrys
with the exception of one of our regulars 
Manufacturers went to interference engines to increase efficiency and power.
I’m OK with that tradeoff.
Yes but by the time the chain has worn out, over 200,000 miles, you’re probably approaching the end of the “expected life” of the vehicle and many more expensive repairs, the point at which you have to make the economic “repair or replace” decision.
Regarding the “wait until it fails” approach for a non interference engine, it makes a certain amount of sense except you don’t know when failure will occur. On a busy Beltway during rush hour? In the middle of a winter night with your kids in the car in the middle of nowhere?
I suspect my wife’s second call after calling for a tow would be to a divorce attorney. 
Says who? We’ve kept 5 vehicles OVER 300k miles. 2 over 350k miles and one close to 500k miles. I’ll agree that most people do not keep their vehicles that long. But some do and timing chains do last a long time and could outlast a vehicle.
Heh, I have a 10R80 transmission, that’s the advice an independent shop gave me. Don’t change the fluid, just wait until it fails and replace with a new transmission. I chose to not take their advice, had the dealership service the transmission at 30,000 miles.
My Dad’s 1970 Pontiac needed a timing chain and gears at 35K miles… The dreaded nylon gear!
My '85 Merkur got a timing belt at 7 years. Super easy DIY job. No oil, muss or fuss but it was a longitudinal engine with decent room in front of the engine.
I have never had to do timing chains on any of my cars (except the race car, but I don’t count that!). Frequent oil changes with synthetic oil does wonders for the life of the chains and guides.
Rather than a timing chain, my 1960 Falcon used timing gears. That was the good news.
The bad news was that the “fiber” timing gear stripped when the car was 19 years old, and the book value of the car was so low that it didn’t make good economic sense to repair the engine.
Because I still needed a backup car for the days when my Volvo was in the shop, I replaced the Falcon with a used VW Karmann Ghia, and that VW proved to be very reliable. The only repair in the 5 years that I owned it was the replacement of the accelerator cable.
A full tank of gas would double the value, right?
Pretty much!
I am guessing this was a 6 cylinder, right? My Pontiac 6 (actually a Chevy) also had timing gears but both were metal.
A Chevy 6 was similar to the Ford 300, you could beat on it with a sledge and it would not run any worse or any better… they just run forever.
Yes, there was just one 6 cylinder for the 1960 Falcon. For '61, they had an optional, larger 6, which was a bit less of a road hazard.
144 cubic inches of weakness. Upgraded to 170 cid of weakness… but a little less weakness 
That sums it up!
My '64 1/2 Mustang had the ‘big’ 170 cid - friends laughed at my attempts to keep up with their V8s.