[s-cars] Timing belt vs Gears vs Chain

[Dave Forgie]

Gentlemen:  There is nothing wrong with the toothed rubber timing belt.  It is
light. Is only one moving part. It is relatively inexpensive.  Gears or chains
are heavier.  Have more moving parts and would be much more expensive.  Do you
think a chain wouldn't wear and break (into many little pieces of shrapnel)?
Do you think gears (if you could figure out a way to span about 18 inches with
them) wouldn't wear and have all sorts of "lash" problems (it would give a
whole new meaning to "variable valve timing" (it would be randomly variable -
always a good thing (NOT!))).  Rubber timing belts need to be changed before
they fail and they need to be protected from outside damage.

This debate should not be about the timing belt.  It should be about protecting
the timing belt from damage if/when the serpentine belt breaks/disintegrates.

Dave F.

Eric_R_Kissell at whirlpool.com wrote:

> "Calvin & Diana Craig" <calvinlc at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course all this would be solved if the damn manufacturer wasn't too
> cheap
> >to use a chain or timing gears in the first place.
>
> Which opens the door for a debate as to why Audi (& Volkswagen) chose a
> timing belt rather than a chain or gears.
>
> What are the advantages of a timing belt over other options?
>
> What are the disadvantages of a timing belt over other options?
>
> In my job that we have to balance all of the design criteria and cost is
> only one consideration. Has Audi chosen the timing belt alternative for any
> reason other than cost? Is the cost actually less than other alternatives?
>
> Eric