Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by Skippy722
No they're not. Metal durability > rubber/nitrile/whatever mix durability
Ok, Skippy.
If a belt fails, it's typically YOUR fault because YOU neglected maintenance. If a chain fails, it's more or less random, and a design failure.
Less lubricated and moving parts with a belt. They run quieter and don't contribute to oil shearing.
I'd rather have a reliable part with a known life than a "lifetime" part that could fail whenever because it was poorly designed. I'd rather my 911 have a timing belt or two and have to drop the engine every 80k than the multi-chain, multi-tensioner, multi-failure point system it has now. Same with my Audi. Timing chains on the rear - awesome design! What was wrong with the belt on the front?
I personally trust a chain more. Both have their pros and cons. I just think a belt has more cons than good.
Originally Posted by Skippy722
No they're not. Metal durability > rubber/nitrile/whatever mix durability
Ok, Skippy.
If a belt fails, it's typically YOUR fault because YOU neglected maintenance. If a chain fails, it's more or less random, and a design failure.
Less lubricated and moving parts with a belt. They run quieter and don't contribute to oil shearing.
I'd rather have a reliable part with a known life than a "lifetime" part that could fail whenever because it was poorly designed. I'd rather my 911 have a timing belt or two and have to drop the engine every 80k than the multi-chain, multi-tensioner, multi-failure point system it has now. Same with my Audi. Timing chains on the rear - awesome design! What was wrong with the belt on the front?
I personally trust a chain more. Both have their pros and cons. I just think a belt has more cons than good.