Re: Clutch Cargo WAS: Object

On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:17:02 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>HVS <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>(I've just had my existing car die:  a 12-year-old Citroen that's 
>>given absolutely sterling service since we bought it secondhand a 
>>little over 8 years ago.  Had something over 100,000 miles on it, 
>>and seemed to be happy to go on for longer -- but the cam belt went 
>>on it last Friday, and it's just not worth the cost of fixing the 
>>damage that's caused.)
>
>I've been told many times by people that I respect that you can ignore
>a timing CHAIN, but any car with a belt needs it replaced every
>100,000 Km (65K miles?).  If you leave it be, you may find that a
>reliable car isn't worth the cost of fixing the resulting damage.

Not all cars with a belt are "interference" type engines.  Some (I'm
pretty sure that includes Toyota) don't allow the valves to collide
with the pistons, so a broken belt would immobilize the car without
damaging the internal parts.

Here is a link to a PDF from Gates, one of the better known
manufacturers of replacement belts...

http://www.gates.com/downloads/download_common.cfm?file=428-1466_web.pdf&folder=brochure

"Timing belt-equipped car engines can be classified as either
free-running or interference, depending on what occurs if piston/valve
synchronization is lost due to a failed timing belt. As illustrated
below, an interference engine usually sustains damage if
synchronization is lost. This could result in very expensive engine
repairs."