24 Dec
2004
24 Dec
'04
1:41 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-12-24 at 10:13 -0500, james wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-24 at 09:13, Joe R. wrote:
My '72 Triumph's lubricates the chains primarily through tiny holes in
the tensioners; component wear tends to be less of an issue than any
contamination to the oil supply which could block the holes. Chain
replacement interval is 15k miles too (whereas most modern belts will do
30k or more).
Belts or chains isn't really an issue - both have their strengths and
weaknesses. Providing replacement's done within the service interval
(and in anything other than a mid-engined car it tends to be an easy and
cheap DIY job!) there shouldn't be any problems unless something else is
seriously wrong with the engine which is causing extra stress or
premature wear...
Hmm, to keep this vaguely on topic I should post a picture up somewhere
of the oil lubrication system on John Harper's Bombe rebuild at
Bletchley sometime; the engineering's pretty incredible stuff.
cheers
Jules
The '68 chevy didn't use a timing
belt, it used a timing chain. Just
like all the REAL American cars! Personally I wish they all still did. I
hate these stupid rubber timing belts! All they're good for is generating
revenue for the delaers when they slip or break and you end having to buy
half of a new engine or a new car.
Not all foreign (non US) cars use rubber band drive.
Both my Suzuki's (96 4cyl and 2002 6cyl) use a chain. Some Mitsubishi's
do too. Some (mitsu's) have convoluted giant wandering chains that need
oil-pressure powered tensioners that raise hell as the engine gets
older.