Sean's Blog

In being a huge car nut since I subscribed myself to Motor Trend when I was 9 years old, I’ve gotten to know quite a bit about cars, in most every aspect, including engines. Whether they’re a regular old OHV engine, or an OHC (or, in the case of the flat-4 in my Subaru, two side cams, hah) engine. Whether it has variable valve timing. Whether it’s naturally aspirated, turbocharged, or supercharged. Et cetera.

And one of the other things I notice is whether an engine uses a timing belt or a timing chain. Generally speaking, timing chains are perceived as being better, but why? They generally don’t require maintenance or replacement, as belts do. Or do they? My first car—a 1990 Nissan 240SX—had a timing chain. Said timing chain destroyed its first engine (or at least the engine that was in it when I bought it) when the tensioner failed and allowed the chain to rattle against the front cover of the engine, which had coolant passages in it, which led to coolant in the oil, which led to the bearings on the crank seizing up. I put a rebuilt engine in, and the tensioner on that one failed too, and needed replacement. Likewise, I’ve heard of issues with the tensioners on the F20C in the Honda S2000, and I was just reading about issues certain B6 S4s have with their tensioners.

In short, despite their supposed superiority and lack of “required” maintenance, I see no real advantage to chains over belts. They’re each pretty likely to cost you a fair amount of money: It’s just that in one case, it’s a generally-accepted aspect of ownership, whereas it seems to surprise the owners of cars with chains.

Of course, you could just say screw it and get a car with a rotary engine. In that case, I trust you’ll learn to love apex seals…