OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
No, but a properly designed tensioner system can avoid it, unless you are talking about phaser rattle, and then that's just Ford buggering something up.
Am i the only one really disliking SUVs?
- Thread starter OM605
- Start date
No, but a properly designed tensioner system can avoid it, unless you are talking about phaser rattle, and then that's just Ford buggering something up.
The chains rattle on the pulleys, as they lose tension there. Only the first and last link is under tension I find with worn chains.
Sometimes they even hit the casing or valve cover
Sometimes they even hit the casing or valve cover
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Hasn't been my experience with the 5.4L's we've owned (that were not victims of Ford's use of old moulds) but I know similar things happened with GM's HF V6, so as I noted, it comes down to design.
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,261
All the talk of timing chain failure?!
Never had any timing chain failure in any vehicle.
75 Malibu
78 Malibu
1985 Mustang GT
1987 Mustang GT
1996 Crown Vic with almost 400,000 miles
2015 Ecoboost Escape
Never had any timing chain failure in any vehicle.
75 Malibu
78 Malibu
1985 Mustang GT
1987 Mustang GT
1996 Crown Vic with almost 400,000 miles
2015 Ecoboost Escape
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Yeah same here. I had no idea timing chains ever failed.All the talk of timing chain failure?!
Never had any timing chain failure in any vehicle.
75 Malibu
78 Malibu
1985 Mustang GT
1987 Mustang GT
1996 Crown Vic with almost 400,000 miles
2015 Ecoboost Escape
I've seen more timing chain failures (though not broken, but often the engine doesn't run right or sounds like it's about to quit) than I have had to deal with timing belt failures. And for a long time here in europe, timing belts were in the majority of engines. Chains had a revival but seems newer designs are going back to belts.
Badly designed tensioners or guides, or sometimes sludged up oil makes the tensioner stick.
How could this fail?
Sometimes belts are more reliable...
Last edited:
I like chains, but i have to admit, i might rather have a belt than some of these crazy long multi tensioner chains.
Looks like rust on the front of the crank in the above pic.
Is that belt diagram of a Ford Lima? That might be cheating.
My parents had an '86 Ranger with a Lima. The timing belt broke at around 10:30-11 AM one morning and the truck was back from the shop later that day.
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
They’re typically very reliable, but sometimes they do have problems.
My Jeep’s was worn and set a misfire code. Once it got a new chain without all the slack, it was fine. Had 130k miles or so.
Am i the only one really disliking SUVs?
You might not be the only one but your sure in the minority. Look around any parking lot. People love em. I had an 2011 Explorer. That big hatch door was awesome. Easy to load big stuff. Dog hopped in and out no worries. Nice sitting spot under there after a long hike. They're what "cars" look like now.Manufacturers build what people buy...
SOHC Neon lol, but same idea. I guess a DOHC v6 timing belt would be more comparable but still relatively simple.Is that belt diagram of a Ford Lima? That might be cheating.
My parents had an '86 Ranger with a Lima. The timing belt broke at around 10:30-11 AM one morning and the truck was back from the shop later that day.
Manufacturers make what a surprisingly small subset of people buy.
Places like Wisconsin are at times 10-1 used to new car sale ratios.
Half the cars on this block are well over 20 years old
Two of my neighbors daily drive 80’s k cars
One 80’s Century down the street, white with a fuzzy burgundy interior
When I was seriously looking for a new to me reliable vehicle in late 1999 and early 2020 first I researched what brands were the most reliable. That narrowed it down to Toyota and Honda. I wanted a car, 2 door or 4 door for the better gas mileage and because I have always driven cars or station-wagons. I test drove a used Accord because that was the biggest car Honda had, and it was a bone-rattler that my bad back would not be able to live with, and it had way too much road noise for me to ever be able to enjoy my music in it. Toyota had too many things going on with the new and different designs of there transmissions according to the Toyota forums, and there used prices were unreasonable. So I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I needed to look at a bigger vehicle, like a SUV. I did not want a turbo so I looked for a 2016 Honda CR-V with a clean Car-Fax (no accidents) and a Car-Fax history of regular oil changes, and I found one. Test drove it, and it rides nice for my bad back, the seat is comfortable enough, and it has heated lumbar, it absorbs bumps in the road nice for my bad back, and actually gets better gas mileage than out 2001 Impala was getting, and it has a USB port to put a flash-drive in for my music.
All in all, so far it has been a very reliable vehicle, only requiring an oil change so far, and I plan to do as much of the scheduled and preventative maintenance that I can myself. I think that the higher amount of area above the tire areas give the designers of the vehicle more area to include shock absorbance. And the larger tires handle bumps in the road better than the smaller tires on the Accord. I wish my legs were stretched out in front of me like they were when I drove my 1985 Olds 88 coupe with the seat all the way back, but other than that is has been a very good vehicle to have. It has more room than the full size station-wagons we had in our family years ago, and for the amount of interior space it has it gets great gas millage. It is somewhat limited in it rated total interior cargo weight of only 850 Lbs, and towing weight of 1,500 Lbs, and I am sure that you should subtract trailer tong weight from the available cargo weight if you ever tow anything. But it has enough capacity for what we now require.
I am very glad I stayed away from a 2017 or newer with the turbo because they can require replacement because of carbon build-up when the miles get high, and also because of all of the concerns with fuel in the oil that the turbo direct injected Honda 1.5 Liter has.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I seriously looked at sedans first, but came to the conclusion that a 2016 Honda CR-V was a better vehicle.
All in all, so far it has been a very reliable vehicle, only requiring an oil change so far, and I plan to do as much of the scheduled and preventative maintenance that I can myself. I think that the higher amount of area above the tire areas give the designers of the vehicle more area to include shock absorbance. And the larger tires handle bumps in the road better than the smaller tires on the Accord. I wish my legs were stretched out in front of me like they were when I drove my 1985 Olds 88 coupe with the seat all the way back, but other than that is has been a very good vehicle to have. It has more room than the full size station-wagons we had in our family years ago, and for the amount of interior space it has it gets great gas millage. It is somewhat limited in it rated total interior cargo weight of only 850 Lbs, and towing weight of 1,500 Lbs, and I am sure that you should subtract trailer tong weight from the available cargo weight if you ever tow anything. But it has enough capacity for what we now require.
I am very glad I stayed away from a 2017 or newer with the turbo because they can require replacement because of carbon build-up when the miles get high, and also because of all of the concerns with fuel in the oil that the turbo direct injected Honda 1.5 Liter has.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I seriously looked at sedans first, but came to the conclusion that a 2016 Honda CR-V was a better vehicle.
Last edited:
Its like everyone knows that the wagon is best car body style, but for numerous reasons feel its important to jack it up a few inches, call it an SUV and pay 20% more for it? I guess if you live in a snowbelt 1 or 2" more clearance maybe useful a couple times a year, or if you soft road it, but I think enough people just get the impression that an SUV is safer and being higher is nice to be able to see while your tailgating? I dunno, I seem to be able to see in my Focus just fine but whatever, people can get what they want... I think its funny how the roof rack rails on our Outback are purposely designed to make the car look taller from the side.
I am not 100 % sure, but it may be that the fuel economy ratings that vehicle manufacturers have to meet include station-wagons in the car category, and if they made and sold a lot of full size station-wagons they could not stay within the required ratings, but the SUVs fall into the truck category and if they make and sell a lot of them they can still meet there requirements, because that does not hinder there stricter car total rating. In fact it may help the truck category rating because they get better MPGs than full size trucks, and therefore increase the MPGs that that category is getting.
Maybe someone know more about this than I do, but that is one of the things I think might be pushing manufacturers to want to make SUVs. And of course now that the public wants them, of course they will make what sells, especially if it does not hurt the ratings they have to meet.
Last edited:
Manufacturers do not really care what people buying used vehicles are buying. Your example is also the exception, not the norm. Average age of a vehicle in the US is 11.9 years, that’s the 2008 model year.
