Do timing chains need to be replaced?

NIMAN

I own a Honda FR-V, 08, 1.8 petrol.
As far as I know, it has a timing chain rather than a belt, and I remember hearing before that this was a big plus, as they didn't need changed.

But I'm wondering does that mean 'ever'? Are they meant to last the life of the car?

colm_mcm

Not unless they wear out. It would be uncommon on your engine.
That said if you never serviced it you'd be endangering the chain.

colm_mcm

colm_mcm wrote: »

Not unless they wear out. It would be uncommon on your engine.
That said if you never serviced it you'd be endangering the chain.

Well when you say that surely it must be in danger/checked 140,000 miles plus?

NIMAN

Its serviced annually, and has 135,000 km on it.

So looks like no need to worry about it for now.

As a side note, if timing chains don't need changed, and timing belts do and can cause serious damage when they fail, why are belts even used at all?

Del2005

Micheal Hallowed Crucifix wrote: »

Well when you say that surely it must be in danger/checked 180,000 miles plus?

One of the advantages of a chain is they rarely fail without warning, usually you'll hear it rattling long before it goes.

Del2005

NIMAN wrote: »

As a side note, if timing chains don't need changed, and timing belts do and can cause serious damage when they fail, why are belts even used at all?

They are cheaper to manufacture, when making hundreds of thousands of vehicles every penny counts. Manufacturers don't cover timing belt failure so it doesn't cost them if it fails. The majority of people only look at cost of purchase when buying, just look at the amount of people who bought diesel for the cheap tax who've had massive repair bills here then ad in several billion other suckers.

NIMAN

Surely a metal chain couldn't add much to the cost of a car?

The Sidewards Man

Chains can crack, what damage it would do to the likes of the ops car I do not know.

Del2005

NIMAN wrote: »

Surely a metal chain couldn't add much to the cost of a car?

Not to one car. But if you plan on making hundreds of thousands then it'll make a big difference to your bottom line.

CiniO

NIMAN wrote: »

I own a Honda FR-V, 08, 1.8 petrol.
As far as I know, it has a timing chain rather than a belt, and I remember hearing before that this was a big plus, as they didn't need changed.

But I'm wondering does that mean 'ever'? Are they meant to last the life of the car?

Not neccesserily for the life of the car, but for the life of the engine they should.

Let's say your engine might need major work at 600k km, and chain should be fine until then, but if you plan on doing another 600k km, you better change the chain during engine refurbishment, as it might not make it to 1.2million km.

savagethegoat

CiniO wrote: »

Not neccesserily for the life of the car, but for the life of the engine they should.

.

had to smile....rather like my watch which has a lifetime guarantee....when the mainspring breaks, it slashes your wrist...

grogi

NIMAN wrote: »

Its serviced annually, and has 135,000 km on it.

So looks like no need to worry about it for now.

As a side note, if timing chains don't need changed, and timing belts do and can cause serious damage when they fail, why are belts even used at all?

Belts are quieter.

H3llR4iser

NIMAN wrote: »

Its serviced annually, and has 135,000 km on it.

So looks like no need to worry about it for now.

As a side note, if timing chains don't need changed, and timing belts do and can cause serious damage when they fail, why are belts even used at all?

As far as I know, it's a compound of a number of things. As some pointed out, a belt system is often cheaper which on an economy of scale, counts a lot. The cost isn't just that of the chain - the whole apparatus is more elaborate and expensive, from the sprockets to the tensioners, the lubrication system (engine oil has to be circulated in the chain cover) and variators if any. They're so different they aren't mutually interchangeable - you can't just "upgrade" a belt driven engine by putting a chain on it, even replacing the sprockets with appropriate ones.

It also makes attention to maintenance more critical - most belt driven engines also use the belt to drive the water pump, so whenever the belt is changed the pump is usually changed as well; it's often not the case on chain driven engines, where the pump would often be driven by the utilities belt. If the owner doesn't pay careful attention to maintenance, it's relatively easy to do some severe heat damage in case the pump fails.

Also oil changes become even more important - old oil will not lubricate the chain properly, causing it to overheat...

...and an overheated chain will stretch, often resulting in poor performance without any obvious warning. Some more recent ECUs detect the issue and point it out, but on older cars it would go unnoticed. Replacing a stretched chain can cost a few thousands, depending on the engine. In general, chains are not eternal as they do suffer from thermal and mechanical fatigue. They last way longer than belts, but a high mileage engine would need a replacement. Some state 200.000Km, some 150.000, some 300.000 - some others just say "never", like they say about gearbox oil change...

In a nutshell, for a high-performance, expensive, perfectly maintained vehicle, chain is the way to go. For your average turn-the-key-and-go-until-it-dies econobox, the belt makes more sense as it keeps everything simpler and cheaper.

SpannerMonkey

grogi wrote: »

Belts are quieter.

hahahaha youd be doing very very well now to tell the difference between the 2 for noise .

and no timing chains are not changed on a regular basis you can generally hear them rattling if they are on the way out . was a common fault on bmws from 2007 -2010

JohnBoy26

Chains aren't problematic on those honda engines. I wouldn't worry one bit about it, just keep fresh oil in the engine and it should last the life of the car.

shietpilot

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

hahahaha youd be doing very very well now to tell the difference between the 2 for noise .

and no timing chains are not changed on a regular basis you can generally hear them rattling if they are on the way out . was a common fault on bmws from 2007 -2010

Indeed. The whole "quieter" thing is just what manufacturers want you to think. In reality belts are much cheaper and that's why they use them. In the 2008+ Focus/Mondeo 1.8 TDCI engines they replaced the chain with a belt and it is causing huge problems with pre-mature snapping. Why would Ford invest money and change a perfectly good, reliable and working chain set-up in those engines? The answer is simple really - they save a lot of money by designing a belt and using that instead.

JohnBoy26

shietpilot wrote: »

Indeed. The whole "quieter" thing is just what manufacturers want you to think. In reality belts are much cheaper and that's why they use them. In the 2008+ Focus/Mondeo 1.8 TDCI engines they replaced the chain with a belt and it is causing huge problems with pre-mature snapping. Why would Ford invest money and change a perfectly good, reliable and working chain set-up in those engines? The answer is simple really - they save a lot of money by designing a belt and using that instead.

That belt isn't like your conventional timing belt though. It's a cassette submerged in oil. All of those 1.8's have a regular timing belt too that's on the outside of the engine, including the older version that had a chain. The chain on the 1.8 tdci is suppose to be replaced at 200k anyway, although tbf I've seen them run for much longer without any issue.

shietpilot

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

That belt isn't like your conventional timing belt though. It's a cassette submerged in oil. All of those 1.8's have a regular timing belt too that's on the outside of the engine, including the older version that had a chain. The chain on the 1.8 tdci is suppose to be replaced at 200k anyway, although tbf I've seen them run for much longer without any issue.

Yeah but my point still stands. It's all about costs for the manufacturers. They wouldn't design a belt submerged in oil for the craic.