Belt vs. chain for cam drive

[Mike Arman]

>From those pages:  "The toothed belt previously to be found on the
>engine's front end has been replaced by a chain drive to its rear."
>About  Time, hoping they do this to ALL their engines.  No ultra pressure
>hydraulics, no timing belts, etc.  Yeah.
>



I'm not entirely convinced that the chain drive is an improvement,
especially as it is located on the rear of the engine, where there is NO
access to it unless you pull the engine (and tranny).

My perception of the problem is this - since the chain is out of sight, out
of mind, the only time any attention will be paid to it is when it breaks
or skips some teeth, and then the damage to the rest of the engine will be
horrendous. Take a look at the W-12 picture, and you can just see the chain
at the rear of the engine . . . and notice how complex that engine is.

At least the rubber belt is fairly easy to change, and (at least on the I-5
engines) not expensive. Heck, we change oil, don't we? Changing the belt
every 60,000 miles is just good preventive maintenance. Changing the chain
is going to be a HUGE job, and like as not, won't get done until it breaks,
and then the entire engine will be scrap metal.

Result - Audis will go down in value, quickly. Why? The "older" ones will
be in the junkyards because no one will pay the huge amount needed to fix
the engines - and by "older", I'm talking about cars that may be only five
years old! 100,000 miles in five years is no big deal any more - and here's
a car which is five years old, and needs $15,000 worth of engine work to be
a $20,000 car. Ouch.

As the word gets out that there are LOTS of late model Audis in junkyards
because once out of warranty, no one can afford to fix them, the resale
values of the ones that still do run will plummet, and the depreciation
will increase drastically.

Don't get all excited if this scenario sounds familiar - the last time it
happened, there was NOTHING wrong with the cars, and it almost killed Audi
in the US market. This time, there will be a great deal wrong with the
cars, and the non-existent resale values will be based in hard financial
fact, not television fiction.

I think Audi is making a mistake by not considering the entire life cycle
of their product. Once the warranty is expired (and sometimes even while it
is still in "effect"), they want the cars to simply evaporate off the face
of the earth, thank you. As a result, older Audi's are tough to sell and
don't bring much money, and this hurts the sales of new ones because people
KNOW they are going to get hosed at trade-in time.

Mercedes has a slightly smarter approach. They seem to be interested in
making parts and service available for anything they have ever built, and
as a result, there are more "classic" Benzes running around. People then
say "Hey, those cars run forever and hold their value, too - I want one!",
and a 90s vintage MB which cost just a little more than a 90s vintage Audi
when new sells for a LOT more now, and it isn't really a better car.
Example: compare the current selling prices of a 1991 190E and a 1991 90.
Mercedes is thus perceived to have value, and they get ferocious top dollar
for their cars, wheras Audi, whose flagship cars are similarly priced, has
a tough time.

Solutions - 1) design for durability beyond the day the warranty expires -
this supports the market and price point for the cars still IN warranty. 2)
Support the out of warranty vehicles. A pristine twenty-year-old example of
your marque is a darn good advertisement, and you can make money selling
all those parts, too!

And I'm SURE Audi isn't listening, but I feel better now . . .


Best Regards,

Mike Arman