I can't come up with an answer, why some great and powerful engines use timing belts instead of chains. Yes, they are cheaper and probably easier to replace, but isn't there some kind of risk, putting a belt on a powerful engine. What are the pros and cons of timing belt instead of timing chain?
Easy: Junky car companies make junky products and don't care about their customers so they use whatever is the cheapest to make
For example, a 1998 Corolla has a timing chain and a brand new Jetta with a turbo engine has an interference design and has a timing belt which costs thousands to change. Shows quality.
The reason I wrote the post is that a few days ago I found out that the 3SGTE engine uses timing belt. I knew that it was used in the GT4 Celica for example, but there's no reason for it to be quiet or cheap. It is a Free-Running engine, but still there's no reason to design it with a belt.
In that case the manufacturer knows better than I do there is always a reason. There is also the fact that designing an engine with a timing belt is easier because it could fit better than a timing chain.
Cars used to be purely chain driven way back when in the day. But as engine design progressed, timing belts became more desirable because chains were too heavy.
Take for instance an older push rod engine and a newer overhead cam engine. That’s when belts became more popular, since the belt/chain had to travel further, it was more practical to use belts.
As technology progresses even more, chains got better, and became more popular where now they are both prominently on many many vehicles.
There are trade offs to be made, belts are lighter, quieter, and easy to snake through weird configurations. Chains are louder, and more challenging to snake through weird configurations, but are lower to no maintenance.
The thing with chains is that you really need to keep up with oil changes more religiously, because chains rely on the oil to be clean and as to not gum up the chains. Belts run dry, but have higher interval changes than chains.
I never really thought much about belt versus chain... until I had to change the timing belt of my Honda Accord 1999. It was a PITA.
If I am on the market for another car that I plan to keep for a long time, I am definitely looking for a car with a timing chain. It’s not a deal breaker, but much preferred. I don’t want to deal with changing another timing belt again. Or even pay $$$$$$ to get done. The shop wanted so much money to get it done, and I can see why. It’s a PITA.
1) because it's quieter
2) because it's a way for them to reel you back in periodically to wring out your wallet. It's never just a belt. They'll sell you water pump and whatever else they can get away with.
The biggest con is that if you have a rubber belt and an interference engine, if the belt snaps it will ruin your motor.
Every 100k miles or so the belt, water pump, and idler pulley need to be replaced as a precaution against that. And as @mountainmanjoe said, you can expect them to try and sell you all kinds of services you don't need as well.
The main reasons companies use them are noise and price. Mostly price.
Joe and Mod Man have the answer. Belts are cheaper than chains, guides and tensioners.
I think it’s based on engineer’s taste.
some people love red onions, someones love purple onions.
