I still think timing belts are better than chains in most daily drivers

Last month a customer brought in a 2012 Accord with a snapped timing chain at 140k miles, and it got me thinking. Am I the only one who prefers replacing a belt every 60k over hoping a chain lasts and then dealing with this kind of mess?

2 comments

2 Comments

alicea2614d ago

Man I totally get that! I had a 2005 Camry with the 2AZ-FE and the chain started rattling around 130k. Ended up costing me like 1500 bucks to fix it plus the tensioner and guides. Meanwhile my old Civic with a belt I'd swap for 300 bucks every 60k and never worried about it again. Honestly for a car you plan to keep past 100k miles I'd take the predictable maintenance over the gamble any day.

claire95814d ago

Whoa, 1500 bucks for a chain job on a Camry? That makes my blood pressure spike just reading it. I mean, I get that chains are supposed to be "lifetime" parts, but when that lifetime ends up being 130k miles and costs five times what a belt replacement does, it feels like a raw deal.