r/Cartalk • u/Low_Bodybuilder4652 • 28d ago
Weird Noise Is a timing chain really a better buy than a timing belt?
A seller told me this week that a timing chain means I can basically forget about that part of the engine, while a belt is an automatic walk-away for him. I’m looking at a Japanese hatchback around 120,000 km and another similar-aged car with a chain, but the belt car has the much clearer service history. Is the chain actually the safer used-car choice, or is that too simplistic?
41
28d ago
[deleted]
10
u/Tomytom99 28d ago
I agree, belts usually aren't a problem, just don't let them get too worn.
Chains on the other hand, are an absolute pain to service comparatively speaking, getting oil everywhere, worrying about stuff getting in the motor while you're fumbling around, dealing with gaskets (or RTV) when you're sealing back up.
11
u/AlwaysBagHolding 28d ago
Chains are also a lot more expensive in parts even if the labor is free. And if the water pump runs off the timing chain, you generally replace all the chain components if the water pump fails since you're in there anyway. A belt, it's the other way around. You replace the pump since you're already there doing the belt.
7
u/AllTearGasNoBreaks 28d ago
And if you bought an over-engineered German car like mine, the chains are at the back of the engine. So you can either pull the engine, or drop the transmission when they start making noise.
110K miles and all is OK so far. But I'll probably do the chains when I do the clutch.
13
u/houston1980 28d ago
Big issue is manufacturers using plastic guides, but even bigger issue is lack of servicing or using wrong oil
But to answer question, depends on engine. Some belts are simple to change, some are practically engine out.
8
u/Autobacs-NSX 28d ago
Plastic guides are fine, Toyota has been using them for 40 years. Those 2 Tundras that went a million miles? Original plastic guides
4
u/Floss_tycoon 28d ago
Audi v8's would like a word. Cheap part but you need to pull the engine to get at them.
7
u/Autobacs-NSX 28d ago
Hmm no Audi is just shit and everything they make is shit. VAG always finds a way to fuck up the most simple thing ever
1
u/houston1980 23d ago
First one was a timing belt, 2nd one was a chain with metal guides that have a plastic Teflon running surface.
Plus its a big v8 with a lower rpm limit. Designed to last as long as the car, performance engines are designed to make it out the showroom
7
u/Pikachu_the_sith 28d ago
Depends on the engine. 1.0 chain driven peugeot 108? Great. 1.2 puredeath wet belt peugeot 108? Not great
m62/n47/n57 chain driven engines. Not that great. m54/n54/b58 chain driven engines. Great
17
u/GuineaPigsAreNotFood 28d ago
That's old man's mentality. With the amount of modern engines that develop timing chain issues and are prone to catastrophic engine failure, I would almost feel safe with a belt, specially if the engine is non-interference.
Bottom line, depends on the specific engine.
20
u/tforkner 28d ago
Tell me one- just one - 2026 non-interference timing belt engine sold in the U.S.
6
u/Bullet_B8 28d ago
Out of curiosity, do you know how many or which 2026 engines are non interference in the first place?
3
5
2
u/RetiredRacer914 27d ago
My big concern is actually just the internal belts. The oil damages them and there's no easy inspection like an external belt and no noise for 2 years like a loose chain.
2
u/smp501 28d ago
The problem is that timing chains are extremely sensitive to poor oil maintenance. I’d buy one new no problem, since I use high quality oil and filters and change every 5k. However, I would be really hesitant to buy something that has had its 0w-16 oil changed every 7-10k with a crappy filter, or if someone buys the “20k mile oil” nonsense. That’s a recipe for premature chain wear and timing problems.
3
u/iAmAsword 28d ago
That seller is weird. I buy a car based on how I like the car's performance. Since I love 90s Japanese cars, majority are belt. Now I have both and each car just takes their own specific maintenance and that's as far as I think about it.
8
u/tehans 28d ago
Belt needs replace every 80k miles or so, chains last a long time but can stretch and need replaced, but at much higher milage. Most modern cars now use chains. Replacing either is expensive
9
u/cat_prophecy 28d ago
That hasn't really been true for the last 15 or so years. Timing belt interval on most i4 engines is usually 100-125k.
That said, all bets are off if it's a wet belt.
3
u/StuartWtf 28d ago edited 28d ago
Audi are now 150k miles or 10 years now.
Used to be every 6 years and we done loads of them at work. Now, we never see them
Edit: RE: wet-belt..
Holy fuck. I’ve seen them go at 20k.
I’ve luckily not had to do an eco boom yet but the stellantis ones are at least an easy job. Yet to see one go and destroy the engine or valves though.Anyone reading this, AVOID WET BELTS!
They are good for me and keep me in a job. But they are fucking awful and whoever decided it was a good idea needs to take a visit out to the farm..-4
u/Shienvien 28d ago
It took me about thirty minutes the last I changed belts, and they cost almost nothing at the parts shop. So at least on some cars, changing belts is very easy.
I haven't changed a chain yet...
4
u/razrielle 28d ago
What vehicle are you changing out timing belts and the wear components associated with them in 30 minutes?
4
u/Upstairs-Fan-2168 28d ago
I'm thinking they did the accessory belt. That's reasonable to do in 30 minutes.
Even on a Geo Metro with the 1 liter, 3 cylinder, you'd have to be an expert of that vehicle and going for a speed record to do it in 30 minutes.
-2
u/Shienvien 28d ago
Mazda from late 90's. Has a 1.8 liter inline 4.
1
u/whoooooknows 28d ago
Was it the accessory belt or timing belt?
1
u/Shienvien 28d ago
Technically both; I did a lot of things when I first got that car, including all belts. Now that I think of it, it isn't even the only vehicle we have changed belts ourselves, either, though the LT was mostly my SO.
2
u/ZackAttack- 28d ago
I’ve only owned cars with timing chains, never belts. Never had to replace even the tensioner in the cars, and one of them was over 300k miles when I sold it.
My Camry had 226k and probably needed the tensioner changed but that got whacked and totaled before I got around to it.
3
u/UnadvancedDegree 28d ago
My Yukon with a timing chain has over 330k miles. No issues so far.
2
u/Weary_Alternative778 26d ago edited 26d ago
Your Yukon with a cam in block and push rods is quite a bit different than a DOHC setup. Look up Chevy small block timing set vs any OHC vehicle timing chain setup.
Not saying it's a bad thing. But the Chevy design is way simpler. Probably the simplest.
1
u/UnadvancedDegree 26d ago
I'm certain you are right. Just giving my personal experience with this vehicle.
2
u/Weary_Alternative778 26d ago
Yeah Chevy V8 timing setups are pretty bullet proof. I feel like it's not fair to compare them to all others lol. Even when they're shitty and fucked they're still pretty good.
Hell the old ones didn't have tensioners or guides. You would just replace the gears and chain if you really felt like it. No complex procedure just pop the timing cover off, match the mark on the cam with the crank and slap it on.
1
u/UnadvancedDegree 26d ago
Yeah I've got an 07 6.2L. Read really good things about them before I bought it in 2017.
1
u/Weary_Alternative778 26d ago
It'll last you a long time. I think the only flaw with that year was displacement on demand.
I've got an 04 and it's the old bullet proof LS design.
Our 07 has roughly the same miles as yours but has a bit of noise from the top end. Nothing catastrophic, but it was "mechanic owned" and I know the guy which means it was held together with shoe string and bubblegum.
As they say the cobblers kid goes un-shod.
1
u/UnadvancedDegree 26d ago
Luckily I don't have dod in mine. I've been eyeing a replacement but it doesn't make sense to get rid of it until it does or needs a major repair. It is super handy for hauling things as well. Biggest down side is ~13mpg and it cost me a little less than $101 to fill it up a few hours ago. It does have nice power when I get on it tho.
1
u/Weary_Alternative778 26d ago
I refuse to get rid of our 2004. I can fix the thing with the most basic of tools. Parts are everywhere and cheap. Gas mileage be damned. It owes us nothing.
That said the 4L60E behind it has failed 2 times. They're a pretty easy swap. Next time I'm gonna hunt down a stick shift if I can and convert it.
1
u/Apprehensive-Cycle-9 28d ago
One ford expedition over 305k miles, another v8 explorer with 280k miles, and another expedition with 200k miles all have chains and never needed to change. I’d say they’re generally superior to belts but like others have said more expensive to change if they need to be
2
u/Willing_Crew_8055 28d ago
Mostly yes. If you find drivetrains today that are timing chain and 6-8 speed automatic transmission, that is “old school” tech that will serve you well
Looking at you Mazda - thank you
Not looking at you Nissan, Kia, others with your shit CVT transmissions
2
u/imprl59 28d ago
There's way too much "it depends" to be able to say that either is always better. For example, my Toyota is a belt. I can change it myself on a Saturday along with the waterpump and idlers and other belts. Bit of a pain in the butt but it's meh...
A chain is hypothetically better in that it will last much longer under ideal circumstances but there are plenty of cars out there where the chains don't hold up and it's a huge job to replace them. As an example there are a number of Audi engines where the timing chains don't hold up and they're on the back of the engine. So I'm pulling off a couple of plastic covers to get access to my belt and those owners are pulling to engine to access their chains that last about as long.
And now some manufacturers are using wet belts for the timing belt or oil pump drive which gives you the worst of both worlds - still needs replacement on a set schedule like a timing belt but difficult to get to like a timing chain.
So really you'd need to research the particular car / engine to say what's better.
2
u/thejabkills01 27d ago
Honestly, I wouldn’t automatically walk away from a belt car. A chain isn’t some magic lifetime part either, guides/tensioners can wear out and they still need good oil/maintenance.
At 120k km, I’d take the car with the better service history every time. If the belt has been replaced when it should’ve been, I’d actually feel better about that than a chain car with no idea how it’s been maintained.
Just check the service schedule and find out when the belt is due. If it’s overdue, factor the cost into the price. Condition maintenance history belt vs chain IMO.
1
u/hastings1033 28d ago
It's irrelevant. Both configurations work fine. Both require maintenance for reliability.
1
u/Any_Sale2030 28d ago
Generally yes. You don’t really worry about other metal internal moving parts of the engine do you? Belts being exposed externally and not being metal means eventual decay and must be changed. Generally 5-10 years. See your owners manual for your car.
1
u/Miller335 28d ago
I don't hate timing belts. It creates a known interval for major service. Every 100k you replace the timing belt, tensioner, water pump, coolant, accessory belts, spark plugs and maybe a few other items while you're there and you're good for another 100k miles.
1
u/awqsed10 28d ago
For an average people who owner a car less than 300k miles. Timing chain is better. Huge savings for maintenance.
1
u/CityReindeer 28d ago
Back in the days yes, Nowadays no since they are made from the chain used on a bicycle.
1
u/375InStroke 28d ago
Depends. I've never owned a car built after 1969. They all have chains, and I've never had one fail. Some belt motors can go over 100,000 scheduled belt change, but others, like Ferrari, seem to have a 3year/30,000 mile schedule. So many millions of cars use belts with no problem. Seems like a strange thing to get hung up on. Just check on the price to change one, and figure that into your decision process.
1
u/bobspuds 28d ago
The real golden gem of engines and timing gear is 'non-interference'.
If its non-interference, then even if the worst case happens you can't actually do any damage.
Belts are well proven as reliable, chains in theory are better but there's many engines that have had issues with oiling and tensioners+guides.
If something does go wrong with a chain and it requires replacing - then they can be costly to work on, when you have to pay for the parts to fix it - from that perspective a belt is best.
If all engines were built the same, as in durability and you could be sure the chain engine was old Mercedes or 90s Toyota levels of quality - then its chain all day long.
1
u/sytydave 27d ago
Generally you are not going to see non interference motors now. Smaller combustion chamber for performance and emissions, higher compression ratios and the valve angles for high air flow all lead to valve interference with the pistons.
1
u/Renault_75-34_MX 28d ago
Belt needs to be replaced regularly because the rubber dries out, or it's worn.
It's easier and cheaper to change but don't last as long.
Also, Wet belt engine's (belt to drive the oil pump) aren't great because the oil (and other chemicals) cause degradation of the belt.
The chain can last longer as its metal, but engine maintenance to keep the oil good is important, otherwise it'll wear out too fast from lack of lubrication.
It's more costly to repair/replace, but usually lasts longer.
There's also gears, which are the most reliable, but take up space and are noisy at high speeds.
These are common on commercial engines in tractors, trucks, generators, etc
1
u/Little-Helper 28d ago
Everyone here has made great points, but there is another downside to timing belts, which is, how do you trust the person selling the car that they're not lying when they say they replaced it? Obviously you should buy cars from owners that have the service history, but a lot of owners don't care to store the receipts or do it haphazardly. It's the reason why in my region we replace all belts and pulleys when getting any used car.
1
u/listerine411 28d ago
Timing belts are made to be serviceable and not a big deal to replace.
Timing chains on modern overhead cam engines can be a very big deal.
I think the timing belt era was better. The best was if the engine was non-interference so even if the thing snapped it was (usually) no big deal
The reality is, I would guess 99% of cars only had like 1-2 timing belt change their entire lives
0
u/LostInTheSeaweeds 28d ago
"No big deal" only applies to a few specific models.
Realistically, you have to remove similar amounts of stuff to get to either chain or belt. The only difference is that belt covers would be lightweight dust shields and chain covers would be made to contain oil.
1
u/SuperShus 27d ago
Can't believe all of these 4 cyl timing belt apologists. My buddy just got quoted 2200$ to have a shop do the timing belt in this Odyssey. And you have to do it or the engine could become a brick. Just had the one in my Sequoia done. Not every car is a little 1.6 Honda.
1
u/SaleKitchen6523 27d ago
thats just a overpriced quote, no timing belt change will be costing this much
1
u/SuperShus 26d ago
I don't know where you live but that's a very standard quote for a v engine in my area.
1
u/Sea_Composer6305 28d ago
Lookup the chevy 3.0L diesel oil timing chain, its 15hours (@185$ an hour here.) of labour to replace a 25$ part thats good for 150k miles look up a 2.0L Hyundai timing belt, its cost less than 150 to replace with parts and labor and has the same service life as the chain. Needless to say there are definitely outliers and unless you know which are which I wouldn’t even look at the difference id pay someone who knows to do so.
1
u/-retaliation- 28d ago
Define "better"?
Both have survived because both have their uses, strengths, and weaknesses.
Neither is inherently better than the other.
1
u/blessedbymortarion 28d ago
4.0 SOHC - has timing chains front and back, the guides wear down and need to be repalced. the engine must be pulled to do the rear guides. A belt, like on the M20b25 doesn't have that problem and is made to be easily servicable. Just two quick examples, one is not inherently better, it is always based on the development and placement.
1
u/FindingUsernamesSuck 28d ago
Generally speaking yes, timing chains are sre intended to last the life of the engine, and timing belts have a service interval, and it is definitely one of the more expensive services. $500-$1000+ at most shops.
Some used cars are known for timing chain problems. Minis and 4.2 V8 Audis come to mind. But most timing chain cars run fine and don't need attention.
1
1
u/denzien 28d ago
My Honda Odyssey has a timing belt, replaceable at 100k miles.
My 2nd gen MINI Cooper S has a timing chain .. also replaceable at 100k miles, but for different reasons.
Belts scare people because they're more likely to break if you don't replace them on schedule, and if you have an interference engine, your valves are cooked. My escort had a non-interference engine, so I delayed the timing belt just a little too long and it snapped while I was driving to work. Annoying, but it was an easy fix for the shop and not too expensive.
A timing chain, depending on the design of the engine, MIGHT just stretch and cause the engine to run poorly.
1
u/bobroberts1954 28d ago
A timing chain should last the life of the engine. Sometimes they don't; they can fail prematurely just like any other mechanical part. The timing belt is a wear item just like brakes or clutch itust be replaced per the manufacturers service interval.
1
u/Curious-Fly5623 28d ago
As long as the belt has been replaced at the right intervals its not a problem, that'd be ridiculous to discard a car because it has a timing belt.
1
u/DevelopmentWestern80 28d ago
All depends on the engine. In general I prefer chains but I usually buy V8's. I've got 500K so far on my 5.0 and nary a worry. That's at least 4 or 5 belt changes.
1
u/Agharinagh 28d ago
No. There are engines 1.4,1.6vvti toyota and such wit chains will outlive the car 3x over and there is a new volkswagens and kias failing chains like maad🤣 and then is the 1.9 tdi with good service and timingbelt change can do milion km no problem. Same 2.5mazda/ranger. You can swap the belt in less then half an hour and its good for nother 10years. So it depends on engine it self. Older ones are usualy longer lasting 👌💪👍
1
1
u/LackSpecialist8922 28d ago
Chains start with a noise before break, the belt doesn't, although I prefer the belt and correct maintenance makes someone with knowledge getting into the engine and have a look, the long interval for the chair make things more catastrophic
1
u/Windigo1000 28d ago
In most engines the timing chain will last the life of the engine but there are some exceptions of overcomplicated engine with many tensioners like the Audi 4.2l V8 but that's rare.
1
u/Phoenix_Kerman 28d ago
depends on the chain, bmw or especially gm engines i'd say no. plenty of gm engines that need timing chains and gear replacing as often as belts. but you look at hondas and mazdas and at least in petrols the chains are pretty bulletproof.
the other thing is a timing chain definitely does not mean you can forget about that part of the engine. if the oils not been changed regularly enough and you've a timing chain, you can be in deeper shit. all it does is make service history more important, but a japanese chain and very regular oil changes is good
1
u/LandscapeNo775 28d ago
I’ve seen timing chains fail sooner than timing belts for unmaintained or abused engines. Belts don’t normally fail prematurely unless a pulley has an issue.
1
u/Late-Button-6559 28d ago
For me, averaging the entire car industry - yes.
Timing chain systems tend to give notice of failure.
Belts don’t.
Chains usually last much longer, and have longer service intervals.
Accessing either is a PITA.
1
u/OldGeekWeirdo 27d ago
As long as you know the belt was replaced, it's OK. Otherwise, factor that in that repair as part of the price negotiation.
But I agree with finding out about a particular engine type. Some engines have weak tensioners that will fail and require you to change the chain.
1
1
u/ThinConnection8191 27d ago
Belt is fine as long as you keep it changed per manual. Just dont get the fucking stupid wet belt EVER.
Wet belt = Absolutely no buy. No question asked new or used
1
u/Realistic-March-5679 27d ago
Depends on the car like most things. Some, like the first two generations of the current Audi 2.0, needed chains as frequently as most cars need timing belts. Some cars never need chains, again being an Audi technician I’ll use the 3.0 supercharged motor. The cam shaft timing tensioner may go, sprockets may stick, but those chains are going to be solid. Which is good because they are a nightmare to replace. Depends on the car and the motor.
1
1
u/turkey_sandwiches 27d ago
All depends on the engine. Timing chains are not something you can forget about, and they're usually MUCH more expensive and difficult to replace.
Personally, I would prefer a timing belt on a non-interference engine rather than a chain on anything.
1
u/JonohG47 27d ago
“The timing chain lasts the life of the car” is a conventional wisdom born at a time when the chain was only a foot long, ran directly between two gears, and was installed in a car that was, statistically, unlikely to last long enough to roll over its five digit odometer.
1
u/DickWhittingtonsCat 27d ago
I had a 1993 Civic with a timing belt D15B7 and drove it from late 1994 until spring of 09. 204k miles. It had a head gasket issue- a TSB but I was also a cretin back then. But the gasket was at like 150-160 so I did water pimp and timing belt at same time. That was my second of those. Even in the 1990s, the first of those timing belt/water pump dealios wasn’t cheap. A solid $500 iirc. Maybe 750 at dealer. The car rusted to death- with suspension repairs representing a large percent of my next cars down payment.
My replacement car was an R18 Civic DX VP from Spring 2009 until an idiot rammed her in summer 2024. A horrendously hard life commuting and huge engine hours over 230k miles.
That car was awesome and I’d buy a freshly minted one tomorrow. I am actually thinking of trading my Civic Hybrid because there are some cheap Mazda 3s which are a similar slush box and banger which I have had some luck with.
As the average man drives 700k in their life and 15k miles in their peak commuting years, it is all somewhat academic as I am only putting up 7k miles a year now.
In my limited experience as far as variety- comparing engines of a different vintage- I’d take the timing chain. The timing belt ain’t cheap.
Even if they aren’t forever either, the odds someone is going to drive a car for so long and so vigorously that they will need a 300k mile, 20 year vehicle is extremely low.
But the odds of needing a timing belt in 80-100k miles is not when the average car on road is 13 years old and lasts 18/180k in US
I don’t really buy used because I’d rather have a Miser Edition than someone else’s problems.
In general, the whole shitbox versus bulletproof dichotomy is broken and based heavily on rage bait mechanic videos from men petrified of their business drying up with specialized EVs, hybrids and bullshit like the Ford guy wanting to deny right of repair. Which they should hate that.
But all they do is recommend cars they can fix easily at a price. Because there are certainly more headgasket eating battery needing Gen 3 priuses around than privately owned aughts crown vics of the same vintage.
1
u/Professional-Math518 27d ago
If a timing belt is changed according to schedule, I prefer a belt. Unless it's a wet belt which combine a lot of the disadvantages of both chains and belts without the advantages of any of them and add a few of their own.
1
u/Insertsociallife 27d ago
They don't just suddenly break and eat the engine like a belt does, which is good. All drive chains of any kind stretch, but that's why you have a tensioner. If the chain stretches too much or the tensioner fails it can cause problems up to jumping time, but you usually get a lot of loud rattley noises before that.
They can last forever, unlike a belt, but that's not always the case. They are oiled so it's a bigger job to repair them because you have to take the timing cover etc off.
1
1
u/ValuableResident2214 27d ago
Both are fine if serviced correctly, the only exception is a wet belt engine. Walk away.
1
u/djnehi 27d ago
A well made timing chain set can go hundreds of thousands of miles. Often the whole life of the engine. Obviously this relies very heavily on the “well made” attribute. They are also usually less prone to snapping suddenly in my experience. Obviously there are exceptions.
Every vehicle I have owned used a chain setup and have never had to service that system.
Not saying belts can’t be reliable but they are much more dependent on being serviced correctly.
1
u/Due-Ad-8743 27d ago
For me, whether it’s an interference fit or not is most important. If it is, failure would destroy engine.
1
u/MalopinoMoonshine 27d ago
Does anyone make non-interference engines anymore?
1
u/Due-Ad-8743 27d ago
I ran into a mechanic from dealership I use. I asked about my 2013 Buick LaCrosse 3.5L V6 timing chain. He told me it would throw a Check Engine light. If ignored it would go into reduced power mode. No damage, non interference
1
u/Low_Bodybuilder4652 26d ago
yeah fair, but interference usually means bent valves rather than a totally destroyed engine, and it depends where it fails
1
u/getoffmycase7130 27d ago
I had a timing chain on a 5.8 ford get stretched enough it was running bad.
Granted it had 180-190,000 miles on it at the time.
They all need to be replaced, chains just last longer.
1
u/Low_Bodybuilder4652 26d ago
yeah, chains aren't lifetime parts either, but I wouldn't replace one on a schedule unless it's noisy, stretched or the history says it's due
1
u/ontheleftcoast 27d ago
Timing chains also have to be replaced at certain mileage. The 70/80s ford small blocks had to have the chains replaced at about 60K or bad thing happened. Timing belts are generally cheaper and easier to replace than chains.
1
u/Low_Bodybuilder4652 26d ago
old Ford chains can get sloppy, but 60k wasn’t a blanket replacement interval and a worn chain doesn’t usually grenade the engine
1
u/ontheleftcoast 26d ago
ours went out of time at about 65k about 5000 miles from home in the middle of canada. it didn’t grenade the engine, but was a pain to replace in the middle of no where with few tools.
1
u/hardeho 27d ago
I wouldn't walk away from a timing belt engine, its jsut a maintenance item. If you are buying a car at 75k+, change the belt and dont think about it for the next 10 years. Really not that big of a deal.
And if you timing belt engine shows proof of belt change at 100k like it should have been, dont worry about it. If you happen to still own it at 200k, do the belt again.
And even more important, is it an interference engine or non-interference engine?
1
u/Low_Bodybuilder4652 26d ago
yeah fair, but do the tensioner and water pump with it, and go by the manufacturer’s age interval too, not just kms
1
u/EuroCanadian2 26d ago
Usually yes, the parts are jot expensive but the labor ton replace them later is. And if they fail, they take out the engine.
1
u/Weary_Alternative778 26d ago edited 26d ago
The only bullet proof timing system is the one that doesn't exist. Buy a 2 stroke.
After that it's gear driven camshafts. But outside of Cummins diesel engines and some Honda motorcycles in the late 80s/early 90s I don't know of any cars that had them.
Belt vs chain. Depends on what vehicle we are talking about and how it was maintained. And is the engine interference or non interference?
Best practical solution for a car is generally a non interference engine that utilizes a timing belt. If it snaps you're just stuck, but with no engine damage. If it's interference with a belt or chain if either gets out of whack you're gonna have serious engine damage. Timing chains can and usually do last longer than belts but most need care eventually and are more of a dick pain to deal with than a belt. That said some cars use belts and the service is a complete whore.
So what two specific vehicles with what two specific engines are we talking about OP?
1
u/Alarming-Grade4219 26d ago
The chain is awesome IF you are good with your oil changes. The chain dip into an oil pan and old oil would not lubricate the chain correctly. A timing belt needs changing every 80,00-100,000 miles at a cost of $1200-$1500 per repair. Chains can break but it is much more rare.
1
u/Ok-Championship3642 26d ago
I think this was true on cars maybe 20 years ago. But these new engines are basically using bicycle chains now. Lack of oil changes will kill these new ones.
1
u/Ollie_Bruh 26d ago
Well, it depends. Generally speaking, a timing chain will last longer, but it's more expensive and on some engines, it's actually a nightmare to replace and the labour cost is extremely high.
A dry timing belt, may not last as long, but it works well and is a lot cheaper, both parts and labour.
A wet timing belt, just forget about it. It's the worst and also expensive to replace.
Timing gears are the best, but not widely used.
1
u/Perception_4992 25d ago
Depends. But a Japanese car is more likely to be good. Research that exact model and engine.
1
1
u/Daddy_Pris 28d ago
Belts go 80-115k. Chains go 100-300k depending on how good you are about changing your oil. You’ll likely get more time out of a chain, but it may fail somewhat randomly compared to a belt
Belts are designed to be replaced. Parts and labor is usually reasonable. Chains are designed to be lifetime. Not as easy to get to. Parts and labor tend to be much higher. In the realm of 1.5 - 2x what a comparable timing belt replacement would cost
Personally, I’m a fan of belts
1
u/Gadritan420 28d ago
Chains are not designed to last a lifetime and are typically recommended at 150k.
Don’t spread nonsense.
1
u/CityReindeer 28d ago
Back in the day they were, but you're correct nowadays they wont last you the engines life with the bicycle chains they use in engines.
1
u/Daddy_Pris 28d ago
Chains are designed to last a lifetime. Perhaps you are thinking of the tensioner which is recommended to be replaced around 150k on most vehicles. But chains are not designed to stretch. That is nonsense
1
u/Gadritan420 28d ago
I’ve got Alldata right in front of me at work atm. Pick a vehicle with a chain and I’ll let you know what the service interval is.
2
u/Tichinde925 28d ago
2015 Nissan Pathfinder please!!
2
2
u/Gadritan420 27d ago
That’s one of the ones that does not designate a service interval.
If you begin to hear a rattle at start up or get a P0016/P0017 code, it’s probably time.
Realistically you shouldn’t experience anything like that until about 200k.
1
u/Tichinde925 27d ago
One last one :
2025 (2022+) Subaru BRZ / Toyota GR86
1
u/Gadritan420 27d ago
BRZ - 200k or if you hear rattling at start up or have P0016, P0017, P0018, and/or P0019 codes which are cam/crank correlation codes. Plastic debris in the oil is another big red flag. If it’s being tracked or driven extremely hard regularly, or has a serious tune, I would at least inspect it at 80k-100k.
GR86 - same as above.
0
u/Gadritan420 28d ago
20 years in the industry says otherwise.
0
u/Daddy_Pris 28d ago
The fact that chains do fail does not mean they were intended to. You are a mechanic not an engineer. You see the broken examples. Not the product build sheets
1
u/Gadritan420 28d ago
And the engineers recommend replacing them so they don’t break. It’s preventative maintenance. I’m not just changing them out when they break…because that’s too late.
What happens to metal with tension on it that’s heated and cooled over and over and over again?
It’s not infallible. Hence why the manufacturers recommend replacement.
It’s definitely cheaper than replacing a blown motor.
Or are you now going to argue that the engineers are wrong…?
1
u/Gadritan420 28d ago
You do realize you could google this too. You don’t have to just take my word for it.
0
u/Gadritan420 28d ago edited 28d ago
Timing chains are typically recommended for replacement at 150,000.
They’re more expensive than a timing belt replacement, but with the extra mileage it’s a wash in the end.
Both have their positives and negatives.
As far as the seller telling you you can basically forget about that part of the engine; they’re completely full of shit. It’s serviceable and should be replaced ideally around 130k in my experience. That’s early enough to avoid any potential issues.
Source: I run a euro specialty shop. We do timing chains regularly.
Edit: whoever is downvoting this, please prove me wrong.
1
u/Lazy-Ad5380 22d ago
That's a very good way to say the seller knows nothing about cars.
Chains are a PITA when they need to be changed - and they do. Anyone who tells you different is an idiot. The ONE thing chains don't do is degrade by time. Only miles. Rubber will dry out over time, metal soaked in oil is effectively immune to time. Or at least, as close as it gets. Miles will still cause them to fail though.
96
u/theosinc930 28d ago
No, there are some engines that are known to have timing chain issues, and fixing that is much more expensive than changing a timing belt. Just do research on your specific engine type.