Well, the roads are certainly busy...

Am just curious, in which town are you, actually?

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Peter Bozz" <fake-user@fake.email.address> wrote in message
news:40a3156d$0$576$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> > In what town are you in? Randstad...?...
> >
> > DAS
>
> I'm in the Randstad, yes.
> Admittedly, not the best place to live in.
>

 

That's interesting. Since all of the brands of cars which I have owned have
had them, I just assumed ...

Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do timing
belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the BMWs w/o
timing belts have which perform that function?

Thanks, Bob

"C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8a578a8.0405120739.4788e46c@posting.google.c om...
> "eBob.com" <eBob.com@totallybogus.com> wrote in message
news:<yAenc.173370$Gd3.47702269@news4.srv.hcvlny.c v.net>...
> >
> > I had a '95 A6(2.Q wagon
> > The timing belts have been somewhat expensive as I recall, but every
> > car needs that at rougly 60K.
>
> Not if they don't *have* them. Most BMWs don't.
> --
> C.R. Krieger
> (Been there; drove that)
>

 

On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:22:37 GMT, "eBob.com"
<eBob.com@totallybogus.com> wrote:

>That's interesting. Since all of the brands of cars which I have owned have
>had them, I just assumed ...
>
>Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do timing
>belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the BMWs w/o
>timing belts have which perform that function?
>
>Thanks, Bob

Timing belts or chains connect the crankshaft to the camshaft(s). As
the crankshaft turns, the cams are rotated to open and close the
valves.

In the old days they always used chains. Chains tend to be a little
noisier - not much, just a little. In an attempt to eliminate the
sound, very slight additional vibration, and to cut production
costs, many manufacturers started using timing belts. Because it's
a high stress application, timing belts typically go 60K miles
although some now go 100K miles. Chains last well over 100K miles
in most engines.

The failure of a timing belt can range from "you stop and call a
tow truck" to "you just destroyed your valves, pistons, and are
looking at $3-6K in repair costs". That depends on engine design
and is related to a whole bunch of other issues. That is,
it's not that engineers can't design engines that fail gracefully
when the belt goes, it's that it forces other compromises to
use that type of design. Replacement of a timing belt ranges
from $250 to $600 with most engines.

 

In article <NwLoc.45839$CC4.16822079@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
eBob.com <eBob.com@totallybogus.com> wrote:
> Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do
> timing belts do?

Better name is cam belt - as it drives the camshaft. It may well drive
other things as well like the waterpump on some designs.

> (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the
> BMWs w/o timing belts have which perform that function?

They went back to chains with the twin cam engines. The rubber band to
drive the camshaft didn't arrive - globally - until about '70 - before
that most used chains, although there were other ways.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

Dave Plowman dave.sound@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn

 

"eBob.com" <eBob.com@totallybogus.com> wrote in message
news:NwLoc.45839$CC4.16822079@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
> That's interesting. Since all of the brands of cars which I have owned
have
> had them, I just assumed ...
>
> Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do timing
> belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the BMWs w/o
> timing belts have which perform that function?
>
> Thanks, Bob
>

Bob,

Timing belts operate the "overhead cams", which are the things that open and
close the valves that let fuel and air into each cylinder of the engine (the
"intake valves") and let the exhaust out of the cylinders ("exhaust
valves"). The valves need to open and close in sync with the operation of
the pistons and the rest of what is going on in the engine. In some cars
this is done using a belt. Belts are quieter and (usually) less expensive,
but less durable than the alternative of using a chain. Some engines with a
timing chain can be almost as quiet as those with a belt, but it has to be
carefully engineered. Chains can wear too, and when that happens they tend
to get very noisy. Belts usually give no notice that they are about to
break like a wearing chain does. The problem is when the belt or chain
breaks, the engine stops. In some engines, the pistons keep moving for a
few seconds - just long enough to crash into the now stopped valves which
potentially destroys the engine (this is known as an "interference" engine).
Other engines are designed so that there is still enough room so that the
valves and pistons don't crash together when this happens (this is a
"non-interference" engine).

Some engines based on older designs don't use belts or chains, but they
usually only have two valves per cylinder (one intake and one exhaust)
instead of the typical four valves per cylinder that modern (and usually
more efficient), overhead cam design engines allow. (Some of the preceding
is personal opinion.)

Walt Kienzle

 

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsic5a05ndklncomdgrbd7h3ba5rq8ap053@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:22:28 +0200, "JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol
engines
> >available, given similar power figures.
>
> Do they? 330i: 225HP, 20/28 with automatic. Honda Accord: 240HP,
> 21/30 with automatic.
>

I do not think HP is a very good indicator of engine efficiency, do you?
And mpg will only work if the two cars the engines are in are the same (of
the same weight and coefficient of drag).

-Fred

 

On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:22:37 GMT, eBob.com <eBob.com@totallybogus.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do timing
> belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the BMWs w/o
> timing belts have which perform that function?

Timing belts go from the crankshaft to the camshaft(s), turning the cams
to open and close the valves at the appropriate times. Some cars use
timing belts, and are subject to frequent replacements, expensive
probelms if the belts break, and so on. They are quieter, though.

Other cars, such as most (all non-V6) Saab engines and apparently some
BMW engines, use a timing chain rather than a belt. It will wear and
stretch over a few hundred thousand miles, but catastrophic failures of
timing chains are very rare...they usually get very rattly for a very
long time before anything goes wrong, giving the driver plenty of time
(months) to do something about it.

Earlier, Saab used timing gears in the V4 engines, which were again
noisier than a rubber band (oops, "belt") but give more positive
and reliable timing.

I don't know which Audi uses, but I personally will avoid any engine
with timing belts. Internal engine components, which you can't visually
inspect, aren't something I'm willing to put up with.

Dave Hinz

 

eBob.com wrote:

> That's interesting. Since all of the brands of cars which I have
> owned have had them, I just assumed ...
>
> Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do
> timing belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do
> the BMWs w/o timing belts have which perform that function?

A timing belt drives the camshaft and valves, by taking power from the
crankshaft. The other alternative is a chain and sprockets, which all newer US
model BMWs have. A few cars like Ferraris have gear driven valvetrains.

The only US model BMW engines with timing belts are the "small six" engines,
which are in the 80s 3 Series, and some 5 series cars -- the 325e, 325i, 528e,
and early 525i. The rare 524td is also a small six w/ a belt.

Matt O.

 

"Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<kO-dnYD8aaAWxD_dRVn-iQ@adelphia.com>...
> "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a8a578a8.0405120803.38a3bf9f@posting.google.c om...
> > Of the lot, I
> > found the Audis (at least all of them after the first 4000/90Q) to be
> > the most boring. Even my Fiat 128 was more entertaining - when it
> > ran. ;^)
>
> Oh, oh. That sure looks like flame bait posted to an audi newsgroup to
> me...

It might be, coming from someone who hasn't *been here* as many years
as I have. You'll notice not many of our regulars have taken me up on
that remark.

Hey, compared to most other cars, I *liked* my Audis! It's just that
I didn't happen to *own* most other cars. I *do* happen to have owned
and/or driven lots of *very* entertaining cars over the years, so my
perspective is quite different from most Audi devotees.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Still cranky)

 

"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c7tjo4$jjf$1@news.ya.com>...
> "C.R. Krieger" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:a8a578a8.0405120803.38a3bf9f@posting.google.c om...
> > "JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > While the BMWs you *don't* see are the 'Xi AWD cars that beat you
> > there ...
>
> If it's really slippery, and given the same driver and tyres and similar
> engines, Quattro still beats your Xi.

Uh ... yeah; whatever. BTW, I don't have an 'Xi. It's an '88 535is.
RWD. LSD. If it's *really* slippery, it's a Jeep Grand Cherokee ...
because the Audi won't start!

> > And some of us know that twisty roads, autocrossing, and driving speed
> > events on race tracks wears out the *front* tires a lot more than it
> > does the rears - unless your idea of 'spirited driving' includes lots
> > of burnouts. It's worst on FWDs.
>
> And some other ones of us know that if you go drifting on an M3, which is my
> point, and what really good drivers and real BMWs are best at, my argument
> still holds perfectly true.

*Drifting*? WTF are you talking about? Either it's that 'Rice
Rocket' trend from Japan (for which a response is beneath my dignity)
or the last book you read on performance driving was written a decade
before Mario Andretti won a world championship. I don't know if I
qualify for your definition of a "really good driver", but I *do*
instruct for BMW and Audi club driving schools. You don't 'drift' an
M3! If you do, you're taking your life in your hands because the
recovery runs a surprisingly high probability of snap rolling the car!
I've been directly involved in racing and speed events since about
1988 and my experience says that your argument is diametrically
opposed to fact.

> > Actually, the end of *my* BMW life will have included driving Audi
> > Quattros (including turbos) for 14 years, lots of fun FWDs *and* lots
> > of RWD and a few AWD BMWs - not to mention our current Jaguar X-Type
> > AWD (a 3.0 5-speed Sport, so you can forget trotting out your tired
> > old 'but they're slow and have bad autoboxes' line). Of the lot, I
> > found the Audis (at least all of them after the first 4000/90Q) to be
> > the most boring. Even my Fiat 128 was more entertaining - when it
> > ran. ;^)
>
> Quite possibly true, but Audis may still probably be the safest of all of
> those.

A stunning non sequitur. Even if it weren't a hopelessly desperate
attempt to change the subject, *who the hell cares*? Driving *any*
car is inherently unsafe! My BMW doesn't have *any airbags* - and I
*like it* that way! So why don't you just stay home while those of
who know what it is to *enjoy* driving (something *not* from
Ingolstadt or Neckarsulm or stuffed with more high explosives than a
fireworks display) do so? Here's something for you to chew on: BMW
507.
--
C.R. Krieger
Life's too short to drive boring cars.