“Is it all because of money?”
How much did Ford save per car on a little piece to keep the Pinto from exploding on rear impact?
I dont know…the tank ruptures were because of a longer bolt used in the tank area (a cheaper than something bolt of course)…it would tear open the tank in a rear collision…and they also made it so the tank would slide forward too? I don’t know maybe I am imagining all this…but it seems like it rings a bell with me.
Yeah A BOLT…
I don’t know what the real cost of manufacturing would be when comparing the belt setup to a chain setup but I’d wager it would be nowhere near 50 bucks.
Manufacturers have made an art out of shaving production costs. Think about this. Harbor Freight will sell a pair of jackstands for 15 bucks or something like that and that includes not only the entire manufacturing costs but also shipping overseas to the U.S. along with the entire distribution process from warehouse to handling on multiple truck lines and then on into the handling and stocking in the store itself.
When the customer buys them HF has not only made a decent profit but they’re also covering return costs for whatever reason if someone is not happy.
Some factory in China must be turning these things out for 40 cents a pair or something.
Many years ago I was privy to the approx. actual cost of a Subaru part that was being replaced pretty regularly on a campaign. These parts were manufactured in Japan and shipped to a port in Seattle where they were then distributed to the dealers.
The dealer cost on that part was about 65 dollars and customer pay retail was about 98 dollars.
Under warranty the dealers are reimbursed at the 65 dollars + 25% markup. After having to buy more of these than Subaru originally figured they cut the dealer cost from 65 down to the actual cost of 6 bucks. At 6 dollars + 25% the dealer was losing because a 1.50 didn’t pay for the paperwork processing.
If Subaru sold that part to the dealer for 6 dollars (made in Japan, shipped overseas, and the distribution process involved) one can only imagine what it really cost them to manufacture that part.
It’s always about the money, down to the last 1/1000 of a single penny. A few thousandths here, a few hundreths there, a nickle here, and you’re talking serious money on a half a million cars.
You are SO right man… I thought the same thing but didnt have the guts to say it. WHen you are talking BIG business…small things are almost impossibly cheap bec of their volume. You def know what I mean… I said $50 just to make a real world feel to it…it more like…say 10 bucks or less? Over the course of 2 million cars?
JEEZUZ…I’m getting mad again. You mean on my Beautiful Honda H22A 4cyl They used a Belt to save money? I mean that engine was 2.2L - 4 valves per cyl - Put out 240 HP - and rev’d to 8000RPM… Nat aspirated.
I always thought that the belt was there bec of the centrifugical forces at 8000RPM…not cost. Silly me.
The only thing I know about timing belts is they are heavier, require a lubrication system and more engineering. The common point of failure is owner or car maker inflicted elongated oil changes.
That being said I assumed wrong my Acura MDX had a timing chain. It sticks to Honda’s mantra V6 has to be a belt no chains…
Hey there Raj…I think you confused your terms in your post… I KNOW you meant that the T-CHAIN…needs lube, is heavier…etc
The your statement at the end is also Contradictory… Are you trying to confuse me my man?
Are you saying that the MDX has a chain? I thought it had a belt bout 90% sure it does…or did… The you say Honda’s V6 mantra is a belt…but you said your MDX had a chain… LOL>…U CONFUSING ME…or maybe I’m just getting tired?
The ideal solution would be herringbone gear sets, which are very durable and very expensive.
High performance racing engines tend to have helical gear sets, but noise and cost is not an object here.
I’ve only ever had one car with timing belts, a Mitsubishi with the infamous balancing shafts.
Timing chains are a good compromise and give plenty of warning when they start to wear out. I proactively replaced one on a 305 Chevy V8 at 160,000 miles when it got noisy. I replaced it with a sturdier type with double gear sets and chain. They lasted until we sold the car with over 300,000 miles on it.
Definitely…You gotta love the warning you get from a chain… There are just too many + 's to a chain… I think all of the guys “In the know” are all on the same page with this one.
I was just shocked to find out that the only reason…or the primary reason we have to deal with belts…IS COST to the mfg… That really burns me up, I tell you…
@Blackbird, the flu is killing me…I should not be posting and more resting.
I agree that chains are more durable than belts. I think any interference engine should have a timing chain. I do my own auto repair work so the cost of replacing a belt doesn’t amount to much $20. for a belt and a few hours of my time, but I’ve had a couple belts break on my '88 Escort over it’s 518K+ miles. One of them sheared teeth off due to the water pump seizing and another one simply wore out prematurely. Luckily this was a non interference engine. With this previous experience I don’t think I’d ever buy a car with an interference engine and timing belt combination. I drove a '76 Chrysler V8 over 230K miles and never had any problems with the timing chain. I sold the car to friend who then drove it for a couple more years without any problems.
Yep this is common with chains…and the prolonged warning they give you before failure is priceless.
Sorry to hear about the Flu Raj…rest up…The Flu sucks
Ford man…"I agree that chains are more durable then belts"
That is the common perception, but don’t hold your breath. It may not be true in the near future. Rope has taken over for cables, line has taken over for wire and in motor cycles, belt drives have replaced chains in some applications because…they require less maintenance and because of it, may last longer. Metal is no longer the strongest kid on the block. Carbon fiber and others are utilized to great advantage saving weight and being more long term durable because of corrosion problems with metal. I no longer agree that steel is better, all the time. As a sailer, my life has become easier and safer because of the replacement of steel with plastics and fibers in blocks and lines. I don’t feel it’s too far fetched to think that the biggest reason for using instead of belts may be more heat related then anything else.
I hate to break the news to you guys, but yes, it’s about money. OK4450 commented on a field called “value engineering” that was very popular in automotive design circles. Engineers work with the designers and manufacturing engineers to shave every nickle they can off the cost of manufacturing a vehicle. And it does add up. In 99% of the cases the savings are passed onto the consumer via an affordable purchase price. In the case of timing chains vs timing belts cost was passed on to the consumer rather than savings. It kept the initial price down, but at a much higher cost of long term ownership.
I can’t really accept the notion that pistons can’t be cast with reliefs to avoid bending valves when the engine jumps time. The minuscule dents would have no significant effect on the compression. The manufacturers seem to take some pride in their car’s need for special attention.
For The Most Part, Timing Belts Are Silly. They’re A “Maintenance Headache,” Cost-Wise And [In]Convenience-Wise And I Even Do My Own Timing Belt Replacements. I’m Down To One Vehicle With A Timing Belt. Then No More.
Want to know what’s sillier than timing belts every 120,000 miles ? (My cars all had/have 120,000 mile replacement intervals for timing belts.) . . .
. . . Cars that need timing belts more often, say at 100,000, 75,000, or 60,000 miles. We drive a couple of our cars over 30,000 miles per year. That means I’d forever be screwing around changing belts.
What for ? Now we’ve got timing chains on almost all our cars and they have lasted indefinitely (200,000 - 300,000 miles). I might add that if I wanted to change a chain, it’s not a whole bunch different than changing the belt.
Resist thinking that timing belts aren’t silly or aren’t maintenance headaches if you’d like, but I’ve got better things to do with my time and my money. I did 3 oil changes simulataneously last saturday. That’s plenty of maintenance.
CSA
I also prefer timing chains over belts. On my present car and the previous one, I opted for the six-cylinder engine, rather than the 4-cylinder mostly because the six has a chain. (Okay–I also wanted the added power!)
And, yes, timing chains do normally provide a long-enough warning via their rattling so that it is possible to avoid engine damage. My first exposure to this was on a friend’s 4-cylinder Pontiac Tempest ('61 or '62 model). The engine in this car was–literally–half of the smallest Pontiac V-8 of that era, so when you looked under the hood, you saw a short engine block that took up very little space–albeit in a leaning position as a result of its origins. The visual effect was sort of like a mini Slant Six.
For some reason (most likely the badly unbalanced nature of that “half a V-8”), the timing chain on these engines would go only about 30k miles before beginning their loud rattling against the inside of the chain cover. I don’t know exactly how much early warning they provided, but luckily he never experienced a broken chain. However, during the time that I knew him, he did replace the timing chain twice during a period of about 4 years, which must have made that ill-conceived engine one of the most labor-intensive mills ever made.
I can see a belt lasting longer on a motorcycle than a chain that’s exposed to the elements.
Then there’s bicycle chains.
I ride a bike to work each day and nothing bothers me more than to see someone riding a nice bike and the chain sounds like a nest of baby birds because they’ve NEVER EVER lubricated the chain, or anything else.
“same” I whole heartedly agree that the switch to belts may be about the money…,but I equally believe the switch back to chains on the part of Toyota amount others may also be about the money. As I mentioned earlier, there are reasons that only the engineers and bean counters are privy to. Though some of us may prefer chains over belts, at some point when the difference in operating life is negligible, the preference will be because we like the idea of steel over plastic and rubber and not because the switch is meaningful. For now, I agree it is.
LOL…Circuitsmith…this has been an item that me and my friends (we all have, ride and appreciate nice bicycles) ALL make fun of…
We often watch people ride by on 3-4K dollar bikes and like you said…its as tho they cant conceive of actually lubricating the chain AT ALL…STUPID…SO STUPID…you have to spell it will a “T”… STUPIT !