![]() It’s going to cost you a lot more than $1850 to change cars, so if there’s nothing else wrong with the car, get the chain replaced. (It’s very easy on all powertrain components.) You drive roughly double the national average, so I’m assuming you do a lot of highway driving, which is very easy on DCTs. If there’s no evidence of an impending DCT failure, then that’s just an irrational fear. It’s quite an involved disassembly and reassembly process. The cost you’ve been quoted is not excessive. After that, it’s just scrap metal.Īnd 145,000km is a reasonable service life for any timing chain, frankly. If a chain or a belt breaks, it will catastrophically destroy most engines because the piston(s) will hit the valves. Belts overcome this problem - they don’t stretch. The stretching throws off the valve timing and gives the engine control ECU poor data about the ignition timing, etc, because cam position is derived from crank position and assumes a limited amount of stretch in the chain (ie - the computer can’t tell the chain has stretched excessively, so it tells the spark to fire at the wrong time relative to the position of the valves). Plus, they have different wear and failure mechanisms.īelts tend to fail by breaking without warning, hence they do durability testing in R&D and arrive at a conservative replacement schedule.Ĭhains stretch (ie - they give you some warning they’re getting ready to fail). ![]() If you operate under the false presumption that chains are better than belts, you’re denying reality, which is that both work just fine, but the detail of the design and the execution really matters. It highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of how engineering actually works - because there are good chain designs and bad ones. Not trying to rip you a new one, mate, but I always hate it when people make statements like this: "Always been a big fan of chain over belt.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |