On 8/01/2022 10:05 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:25:09 +1100, Noddy wrote:
>
>>
>> No one makes a perfect car, and singling out one manufacturer for
>> problems while ignoring those of everyone else is nothing short of
>> juvenile name calling.
>
> Gawd! It's bad enough that you're a hyper-hypocrite Der Der, but do you
> have to be so insanely half-witted about it?
>
> "Anyone who genuinely considered handing over their coin for a new Alfa
> on the basis of it being a "reliable" choice is about as pig ignorant
> dumb as you can get while still having a pulse".
>
> "Alfa has ever made a "magnificent" car in the entire 100 odd years
> they've been in business, and certainly they have *never* made anything
> that could even *remotely* be considered reliable."
>
> Buffoon.
>
>
> alvey
>

NoddyLiar handing out free kicks... what else is new.

On 8/1/22 6:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 8/01/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 8/1/22 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 8/01/2022 11:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:22 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> it would be a poorly designed engine if the timing chain needs
>>>>>> replacing that soon/often.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely
>>>>> to be made by the engine manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
>>>>
>>>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is nothing
>>>> new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in modern
>>>> cars is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has had issues
>>>> with stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and others, have had
>>>> problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes have proven less
>>>> than stellar while virtually everyone who has made a DSG style
>>>> gearbox has had some degree of trouble. Holden had *many* problems
>>>> with their V6 engines not the least of which was massive oil
>>>> consumption and timing chain issues. Subaru are known for their head
>>>> gasket dramas and Mazda's istop system is *plagued* with problems.
>>>
>>> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to a
>>> 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no
>>> problems with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.
>>>
>>>
>>  From what I remember, it was only the 2.5 litre engine that had a
>> head gasket issue.
>
> The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
> motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went away.

I wasn't thinking that far back. The only thing I can recall doing on
one of those early model Subarus was driveshafts. That must have been
back in the 80s. Anyway, wet liners are a pain in the arse to work with.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/1/22 7:12 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 8/1/22 6:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/01/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 8/1/22 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 8/01/2022 11:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:22 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> it would be a poorly designed engine if the timing chain needs
>>>>>>> replacing that soon/often.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely
>>>>>> to be made by the engine manufacturer.
>>>>>
>>>>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is
>>>>> nothing new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in
>>>>> modern cars is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has
>>>>> had issues with stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and
>>>>> others, have had problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes
>>>>> have proven less than stellar while virtually everyone who has made
>>>>> a DSG style gearbox has had some degree of trouble. Holden had
>>>>> *many* problems with their V6 engines not the least of which was
>>>>> massive oil consumption and timing chain issues. Subaru are known
>>>>> for their head gasket dramas and Mazda's istop system is *plagued*
>>>>> with problems.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to
>>>> a 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no
>>>> problems with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  From what I remember, it was only the 2.5 litre engine that had a
>>> head gasket issue.
>>
>> The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
>> motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went away.
>
> We also have owned 3 Subbies and never had an engine problem of any sort.
> 2006 Impreza, 2010 Forester and 2015 WRX, only issue we had of any
> significance with any of them was the Forester jumping out of gear due
> to a worn selector that was replaced under warranty.
>
The 2.5 litre Subarus would typically blow the head gaskets at ~100k. My
friend in Woolgoolga only managed to get his up to 90k before it blew.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/01/2022 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:

>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely to
>>> be made by the engine manufacturer.
>>
>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
>>
>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is nothing
>> new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in modern cars
>> is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has had issues with
>> stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and others, have had
>> problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes have proven less than
>> stellar while virtually everyone who has made a DSG style gearbox has
>> had some degree of trouble. Holden had *many* problems with their V6
>> engines not the least of which was massive oil consumption and timing
>> chain issues. Subaru are known for their head gasket dramas and
>> Mazda's istop system is *plagued* with problems.
>
> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to a
> 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no problems
> with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.

It's just luck of the draw. Some people have problems up the wah-zoo and
some don't. There's no rhyme or reason to it. We've all heard of
"Friday" and "Monday" cars....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 13:14:04 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 8/1/22 1:05 pm, alvey wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:25:09 +1100, Noddy wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> No one makes a perfect car, and singling out one manufacturer for
> >> problems while ignoring those of everyone else is nothing short of
> >> juvenile name calling.
> >
> > Gawd! It's bad enough that you're a hyper-hypocrite Der Der, but do you
> > have to be so insanely half-witted about it?
> Darren can't help himself - it comes naturally to him. Had he not been
> such a half-wit, he might actually have qualified for an apprenticeship
> and not had to *invent* a career in the automotive industry. He started
> with a lie about an apprenticeship in the aviation industry that he
> could not possibly have had - and he's been compounding the lies ever
> since. Man, are the lies stacked deep in Noddy World.
> >
> > "Anyone who genuinely considered handing over their coin for a new Alfa
> > on the basis of it being a "reliable" choice is about as pig ignorant
> > dumb as you can get while still having a pulse".
> >
> > "Alfa has ever made a "magnificent" car in the entire 100 odd years
> > they've been in business, and certainly they have *never* made anything
> > that could even *remotely* be considered reliable."
> >
> > Buffoon.
> >
> Darren takes *buffoon* to unprecedented heights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nah, unlike you pair of clowns he *doesn't* need an oxygen supply.
> >
> > alvey
> >
>
>
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 20:12:06 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
> >> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there that these
> >>>>>> engines will be reliable?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen. Far to
> >>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using that
> >>>> design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon according to
> >>>> some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly poor reputation
> >>>> for building anything that is reliable.
> >>>>
> >>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
> >>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
> >>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
> >>>>
> >>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
> >>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
> >>
> >>
> >> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they were
> >> supposed to last the life of the engine.
> >>
> >> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should have
> >> recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing at around
> >> 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling track record.
> >>
> >> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain and
> >> see for yourself.
> >
> > This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
> > failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive chain
> > rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life failures with
> > cheap third party chains.
> >
> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
> with "cheap replacement chains".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cheap O/E has fuck all to do with cheap *replacements*....
>
>
> > https://yd25.com.au/index.php/services/diagnose-timing-chain-fault/manual-method
> >

On 9/01/2022 1:10 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 20:12:06 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:

>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
>> with "cheap replacement chains".
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Cheap O/E has fuck all to do with cheap *replacements*....

Maybe Jerky can put up his evidence to show where they were actually
falling over at 40 thousand km's from new? He's "heard" of them, but I
wonder if he's ever actually *seen* one?

Then again, as an "accessory fitter" I wonder if he's ever seen anything
more elaborate than a snorkel or set of mud flaps....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/1/22 10:51 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 1:10 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 20:12:06 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
>>> with "cheap replacement chains".
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Cheap O/E has fuck all to do with cheap *replacements*....
>
> Maybe Jerky can put up his evidence to show where they were actually
> falling over at 40 thousand km's from new? He's "heard" of them, but I
> wonder if he's ever actually *seen* one?
>
> Then again, as an "accessory fitter" I wonder if he's ever seen anything
> more elaborate than a snorkel or set of mud flaps....
>
As a TA, your experience would have been as a car washer and detailer.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/01/2022 7:51 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 1:10 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 20:12:06 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
>>> with "cheap replacement chains".
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Cheap O/E has fuck all to do with cheap *replacements*....
>
> Maybe Jerky can put up his evidence to show where they were actually
> falling over at 40 thousand km's from new?

As soon as you post evidence of your qualifications Darren.

On 9/1/22 1:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 7:51 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 9/01/2022 1:10 am, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 20:12:06 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
>>>> with "cheap replacement chains".
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Cheap O/E has fuck all to do with cheap *replacements*....
>>
>> Maybe Jerky can put up his evidence to show where they were actually
>> falling over at 40 thousand km's from new?
>
> As soon as you post evidence of your qualifications Darren.
>
>
Darren would kill to be able to do that! He hasn't a hope in Hades - and
he knows it. After all, what better way to stomp on me than to come up
with proof of his trade qualifications. The fact that he doesn't is not
through any kind feelings he has towards me, simply that he hasn't any
proof because, simply put, he never did any apprenticeship ever.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/01/2022 5:37 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 7/01/2022 12:16 am, Xeno wrote:
>> On 6/1/22 11:13 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 6/01/2022 8:33 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 6/01/2022 8:34 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 6/01/2022 6:04 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Typically, chains last the *service life* of the engine. That
>>>>>> means they only should be getting replaced at the time of engine
>>>>>> overhaul. There have been some where the tensioners or guides were
>>>>>> sub-par and these caused random failure but, generally speaking, a
>>>>>> timing chain is not a maintenance item, however timing belts are.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not talking about in general, I'm talking about this case.
>>>>
>>>> There have been *many* engines over the years that have had timing
>>>> chain woes, and in fact the popularity of belts these days is due in
>>>> no small part to the fact that chains have noise and stretch issues
>>>> where belts do not.
>>>
>>> Belts have their own problems, I suspect that their popularity has a
>>> lot to do with their price relative to chains.
>>
>> Another factor in the deployment of belts is the fact that they run
>> quiet compared to chains. Personally, I'd put up with some chain hum.
>> The other factor favouring use of belts over chains is likely that it
>> gives dealers some maintenance to do.
>>>
>>> The little Hillman Imp that I had back in the 70s had a stretched
>>> chain, every so often, it would just stop as the chain had jumped a
>>> link. I
>>
>> They were a very long chain on those. The only time I had that happen
>> was in a 390 Ford V8 engine. The difference was that it would jump a
>> tooth, run like shit for a while, then jump back at random and be Ok
>> again. Long story with that one but, in short, the Indo mechanics were
>> retiming the distributor each time it jumped a link. That, sadly,
>> didn't address the real problem. Did I mention the mechanics were
>> *untrained* and didn't have a clue how it all worked so couldn't
>> diagnose. Wasn't helped by the fact I didn't speak Indo at the time
>> and they didn't speak English. It did provide me with the opportunity
>> to *demonstrate* what was going on, ended up by me forcing it to jump
>> 3 or 4 links to the point it wouldn't run thus forcing the lads to
>> have a bit of a think. Frustrating times indeed.
>>
>>> just slipped it back and off we went again. Luckily it wasn't an
>>> interference engine.
>>
>> You were also lucky they were quite easy to do. Mine never had any
>> chain woes and it was a high mileage beast. Well, high for that era at
>> least.
>>>
>>>> It is also not true that chains "typically last the *service life*
>>>> of the engine", as many require replacement long before the engine
>>>> needs to be. This is especially so on older "cam in block" V8
>>>> engines that don't run a tensioner where it is not at all uncommon
>>>> for a timing chain to get so slack that it will jump teeth and stop
>>>> the engine after the camshaft goes out of time. But failures are
>>>> common with more modern engines too, and especially higher mileage
>>>> engines with oil pressure fed tensioners that stop working as well
>>>> as they once did and slides that wear out.
>>>>
>>>> Once again Clasener does a great job of showing everyone how little
>>>> he actually knows about anything automotive related, and perhaps he
>>>> might want to educate himself by reading something like this :)
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cloyes.com/timing-chain-system-frequently-asked-questions/
>>
>> Darren fronts up with his bias again. Of course a company that sells
>> timing chains and associated paraphernalia would advocate a chain
>> replacement interval. Sadly for Darren, none of the manufacturers
>> advocate that. My Toyota, for instance, will likely be running on its
>> original chain, tensioner and guides for my entire ownership of the
>> vehicle. If I keep it another 5 or 6 years, I expect to have clocked
>> up something in the order of 300k klms. Given their longevity I don't
>> expect to need to replace the chain or overhaul the engine. Nissan
>> Navara owners, on the other hand, will get shed of their vehicle
>> before clocking up anywhere near that many kilometres.
>>
>> Anyway, there are many factors that determine the life of a chain.
>> Lubrication is one, use crap oil expect early failure. Another is the
>> type of use. Long idle periods do chains (and belts) no good at all.
>> Extended service intervals are bad news for chains given what happens
>> to oil under such circumstances.
>>
>
> I was surprised to see that drive belts on the Lancer engine are
> exposed.  injury could easily be caused to some inattentive or careless
> person poking around or working on the engine with it running
>

Pain is a great educator.

On 8/01/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 8/01/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 8/1/22 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 8/01/2022 11:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:22 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> it would be a poorly designed engine if the timing chain needs
>>>>>> replacing that soon/often.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely
>>>>> to be made by the engine manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
>>>>
>>>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is nothing
>>>> new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in modern
>>>> cars is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has had issues
>>>> with stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and others, have had
>>>> problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes have proven less
>>>> than stellar while virtually everyone who has made a DSG style
>>>> gearbox has had some degree of trouble. Holden had *many* problems
>>>> with their V6 engines not the least of which was massive oil
>>>> consumption and timing chain issues. Subaru are known for their head
>>>> gasket dramas and Mazda's istop system is *plagued* with problems.
>>>
>>> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to a
>>> 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no
>>> problems with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.
>>>
>>>
>>  From what I remember, it was only the 2.5 litre engine that had a
>> head gasket issue.
>
> The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
> motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went away.

The 2.5L engines are renowned for head gasket issues.

Subaru in general had plenty of common issues over the years I worked
for them.

On 8/01/2022 6:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/01/2022 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely to
>>>> be made by the engine manufacturer.
>>>
>>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
>>>
>>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is nothing
>>> new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in modern cars
>>> is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has had issues with
>>> stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and others, have had
>>> problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes have proven less
>>> than stellar while virtually everyone who has made a DSG style
>>> gearbox has had some degree of trouble. Holden had *many* problems
>>> with their V6 engines not the least of which was massive oil
>>> consumption and timing chain issues. Subaru are known for their head
>>> gasket dramas and Mazda's istop system is *plagued* with problems.
>>
>> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to a
>> 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no
>> problems with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.
>
> It's just luck of the draw. Some people have problems up the wah-zoo and
> some don't. There's no rhyme or reason to it. We've all heard of
> "Friday" and "Monday" cars....
>
>
>

That is exactly what I would expect someone with no trade experience to
say :-)

When you see a lot of something it is a problem. When manufacturers
release a TSB it is a problem. When you know the problem was fixed in
service for a batch of cars, the *problem* is being fixed in service and
has been fixed.

When you read someone in a newsgroup poo-pooing a commonly known issue
for which a *TSB was released by the manufacturer and third part service
information providers* or generalise a fault that was limited to a small
batch of vehicles, or chestbeats about 'solving' a known common menial
issue - as someone who works in the game I can only laugh :-)
You are such a fake.

On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there that
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
>>>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>
>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
>>>
>>>
>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they were
>>> supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>
>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should have
>>> recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing at around
>>> 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling track record.
>>>
>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain and
>>> see for yourself.
>>
>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
>> failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive chain
>> rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life failures with
>> cheap third party chains.
>>
>
> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
> with "cheap replacement chains".

That is not what the company in my link are saying perhaps you'd like to
show your source. If the chains fail at 40K wouldn't the vehicle still
be under warranty? If so, then there would be a major incentive for
Nissan to do something about it, with the money that it must be costing
them to rectify.

>> https://yd25.com.au/index.php/services/diagnose-timing-chain-fault/manual-method
>>
>

On 9/1/22 2:47 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 8/01/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/01/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 8/1/22 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 8/01/2022 11:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:22 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> it would be a poorly designed engine if the timing chain needs
>>>>>>> replacing that soon/often.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely
>>>>>> to be made by the engine manufacturer.
>>>>>
>>>>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is
>>>>> nothing new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in
>>>>> modern cars is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has
>>>>> had issues with stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and
>>>>> others, have had problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes
>>>>> have proven less than stellar while virtually everyone who has made
>>>>> a DSG style gearbox has had some degree of trouble. Holden had
>>>>> *many* problems with their V6 engines not the least of which was
>>>>> massive oil consumption and timing chain issues. Subaru are known
>>>>> for their head gasket dramas and Mazda's istop system is *plagued*
>>>>> with problems.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to
>>>> a 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no
>>>> problems with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  From what I remember, it was only the 2.5 litre engine that had a
>>> head gasket issue.
>>
>> The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
>> motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went away.
>
>
> The 2.5L engines are renowned for head gasket issues.

Indeed they are.

https://sunwestautoinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/DSC_0478-scaled.jpg

This pic pretty much shows why some blow head gaskets and some dont.

Note how the cylinders are *restrained* in the horizontal plane but are
free in the vertical plane. Anyone who has heated a ring of steel knows
what happens - it expands. The cylinder *top* will do the same but it is
constrained in the horizontal so movement will be limited. All expansion
will be directed to the vertical plane. While it isn't a lot of
movement, over time it chafes away at the gasket through repeated heat
cycling, short runs being worse than long continuous runs of course.

What makes matters worse is they tried to fit the larger cylinder of the
2.5 into the space of the 2.0 cylinders with commensurate close
siamesing of the cylinders. That leads to issues with coolant
circulation and localised overheating problems. You really don't need
that if you already have created a head gasket chafing issue.

WRX engines don't blow head gaskets - even if they are 2.5 litre?
Easy to see why, a couple of links to WRX blocks below;

https://www.carmodsaustralia.com.au/assets/full/IAG-ENG-1252.jpg?20210309044458

https://www.carmodsaustralia.com.au/assets/full/IAG-ENG-1255.jpg?20210309044426

Closed decks, makes a huge difference to that head gasket as expansion
is under much better control.
>
> Subaru in general had plenty of common issues over the years I worked
> for them.

Why am I not surprised.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/01/2022 3:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:

>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
>> with "cheap replacement chains".
>
> That is not what the company in my link are saying perhaps you'd like to
> show your source. If the chains fail at 40K wouldn't the vehicle still
> be under warranty? If so, then there would be a major incentive for
> Nissan to do something about it, with the money that it must be costing
> them to rectify.
>
>>> https://yd25.com.au/index.php/services/diagnose-timing-chain-fault/manual-method

Good luck getting anything sensible here Keith :)

You know, the funny thing about all this "Nissan bashing" is that none
of it existed around here until I mentioned that I'd bought a Navara.
Then the flood gates opened and "Nissan this" and "Nissan that" was all
we got to hear. They must have thought I would be offended in some way,
and I don't know how they'd come to that conclusion as I don't own a
YD25 powered Nissan and any of the problems they may or may not have had
don't affect me :)

I also thought it was funny, in a "12 year old trying to insult you"
kind of way, how they complained about Navara's bending their chassis,
while they conveniently ignored the exact same thing happening with dual
cab utes of all makes and models :)

> https://tinyurl.com/bde64kjf

Keep at 'em Keith. It won't take long before you discover than these
idiots and reality are mutually exclusive :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/1/22 5:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 3:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to
>>> do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>
>> That is not what the company in my link are saying perhaps you'd like
>> to show your source. If the chains fail at 40K wouldn't the vehicle
>> still be under warranty? If so, then there would be a major incentive
>> for Nissan to do something about it, with the money that it must be
>> costing them to rectify.
>>
>>>> https://yd25.com.au/index.php/services/diagnose-timing-chain-fault/manual-method
>
>
> Good luck getting anything sensible here Keith :)
>
> You know, the funny thing about all this "Nissan bashing" is that none
> of it existed around here until I mentioned that I'd bought a Navara.
> Then the flood gates opened and "Nissan this" and "Nissan that" was all
> we got to hear. They must have thought I would be offended in some way,
> and I don't know how they'd come to that conclusion as I don't own a
> YD25 powered Nissan and any of the problems they may or may not have had
> don't affect me :)

The Navara is so good you aren't buying another. Had a valuable
*learning experience*, have you Darren? Better get rid of it soon, those
timing chains must be ready to self destruct at any moment.
>
> I also thought it was funny, in a "12 year old trying to insult you"
> kind of way, how they complained about Navara's bending their chassis,
> while they conveniently ignored the exact same thing happening with dual
> cab utes of all makes and models :)
>
>> https://tinyurl.com/bde64kjf
>
> Keep at 'em Keith. It won't take long before you discover than these
> idiots and reality are mutually exclusive :)
>
Wow, what a perfect example of *projection*.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there that
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
>>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
>>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
>>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
>>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
>>>>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should have
>>>> recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing at
>>>> around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling track
>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain and
>>>> see for yourself.
>>>
>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
>>> failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive chain
>>> rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life failures with
>>> cheap third party chains.
>>>
>>
>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to do
>> with "cheap replacement chains".
>
> That is not what the company in my link are saying

Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service life.

Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your mate
why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that needed
chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had far worse
failures and earlier.

On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there that
>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
>>>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
>>>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
>>>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
>>>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
>>>>>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should have
>>>>> recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing at
>>>>> around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling track
>>>>> record.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain and
>>>>> see for yourself.
>>>>
>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
>>>> failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive chain
>>>> rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life failures with
>>>> cheap third party chains.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to
>>> do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>
>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>
>
>
> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service life.
>
> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your mate
> why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that needed
> chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had far worse
> failures and earlier.
>
The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or 200k
klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all, Toyota chains
typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of the reasons Toyotas
are popular - reliability.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/01/2022 9:03 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
>>>>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
>>>>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
>>>>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
>>>>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
>>>>>>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
>>>>>> track record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
>>>>>> and see for yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
>>>>> failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to
>>>> do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>
>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>
>>
>>
>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service
>> life.
>>
>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that
>> needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had
>> far worse failures and earlier.
>>
> The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or 200k
> klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all, Toyota chains
> typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of the reasons Toyotas
> are popular - reliability.
>
>

Our Hilux is approaching double that for both age and km's and a
testament to that reliability - and it's a petrol. It's no show pony and
is showing signs of hard usage, but you wouldn't know it when driving it
and it's been absolutely faultless.

On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there that
>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
>>>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
>>>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
>>>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
>>>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
>>>>>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should have
>>>>> recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing at
>>>>> around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling track
>>>>> record.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain and
>>>>> see for yourself.
>>>>
>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
>>>> failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive chain
>>>> rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life failures with
>>>> cheap third party chains.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to
>>> do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>
>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>
>
>
> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service life.

Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little

> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your mate
> why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that needed
> chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had far worse
> failures and earlier.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 10/1/22 3:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky <notgonna@happen.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones using
>>>>>>>> that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per gallon
>>>>>>>> according to some US based sites and Nissan have an appallingly
>>>>>>>> poor reputation for building anything that is reliable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a conventional
>>>>>>>> engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st service is due,
>>>>>>>> this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from new.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
>>>>>> track record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
>>>>>> and see for yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard of
>>>>> failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing to
>>>> do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>
>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>
>>
>>
>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service
>> life.
>
> Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little

Not at all Keith. They normally wouldn't last till 100,000 but quite a
few failed as low as 40,000 km. Getting them *over* 100k was the real
trick.

The Jeep engine of around 2008-2010 was a classic case of shit happening
before they got to 100k. A few mods straight after you bought them new
would see them right until 200k. Well known in Jeep circles.
>
>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that
>> needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had
>> far worse failures and earlier.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 10/01/2022 12:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 9:03 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 9/1/22 11:31 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 9/01/2022 12:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:12 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 7/01/2022 8:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/01/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/01/2022 3:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 12:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/01/2022 4:49 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 08:29:02 +0800, Clocky
>>>>>>>>>> <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0An3RbXcPg
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6H66xfEZC4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> aka a recipe for disaster
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nissan can't even get the basics right, what hope is there
>>>>>>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>>>>>> engines will be reliable?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly these are going the way of the ball point pen.  Far to
>>>>>>>>>> expensive to repair and cheaper to buy a new one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What a devilish complicated monster!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not that complicated and Nissan aren't the only ones
>>>>>>>>> using that design, but it's good for only about 1 mile per
>>>>>>>>> gallon according to some US based sites and Nissan have an
>>>>>>>>> appallingly poor reputation for building anything that is
>>>>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you can't get a timing chain to last 40k in a
>>>>>>>>> conventional engine or suspension that doesn't sag before 1st
>>>>>>>>> service is due, this looks like a recipe for disaster.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is whether replacing the chain every 40K is a
>>>>>>>> maintenance item or whether chains are just failing at 40K from
>>>>>>>> new.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were failing from as low as 40,000km to 100,000km when they
>>>>>>> were supposed to last the life of the engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's interesting to note that the fraud reckoned Holden should
>>>>>>> have recalled Commodores for having chains that needed replacing
>>>>>>> at around 170,000km... yet he defends Nissan with an appalling
>>>>>>> track record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't have to believe me, just google YD25 and timing chain
>>>>>>> and see for yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one doesn't seem to talk about 40K failures, "We have heard
>>>>>> of failures as low as 70,000 km" referring to the fuel pump drive
>>>>>> chain rather than the camshaft one. They refer to early life
>>>>>> failures with cheap third party chains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They were failing from 40,000km to 100,000km from *new*, nothing
>>>>> to do with "cheap replacement chains".
>>>>
>>>> That is not what the company in my link are saying
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful
>>> service life.
>>>
>>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles
>>> that needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that
>>> had far worse failures and earlier.
>>>
>> The lifespan of the average car is *considered* to be 10 years or
>> 200k klms. A chain should last at least that long. After all, Toyota
>> chains typically *double* that lifespan. It is but one of the reasons
>> Toyotas are popular - reliability.
>>
>>
>
> Our Hilux is approaching double that for both age and km's and a
> testament to that reliability - and it's a petrol. It's no show pony
> and is showing signs of hard usage, but you wouldn't know it when
> driving it and it's been absolutely faultless.

a friend of mine is a multi-millionaire and he drives around in a beat
up corolla! it takes all kinds i guess..

--
"his opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster

On 10/01/2022 3:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/01/2022 10:31 pm, Clocky wrote:

>>
>> Ermmmm Keith, whether it's 40,000km or 70,000km or 100,000km is
>> immaterial. The original chains are supposed to last the life of the
>> engine or at the very least a large percentage of it's useful service
>> life.
>
> Hmm the goalposts seem to have shifted a little

Lol :) Just a little bit :) Standard fare I'm afraid. When fairytale one
doesn't work on you, they'll move onto version two, like they're doing
here with this ridiculous nonsense.

I don't know anyone *anywhere* who has ever declared a timing chain to
be a lifelong component, and to argue that it should last the life of
the engine because it's not a regular service item is complete lunacy.
Head gaskets aren't regular service items either, but many engines go
through them long before the engine has seen the end of it's days.

I have no idea what a "useful service life" of an engine is as the only
"service life" I know of is a regular one where an engine does it's job
as expected, and it's difficult to imagine what a "useless" service life
would actually be.

Engine service life is dependent on many things, and it can be long or
short. Components wear out or fail for whatever reason, and *none* of
them are "set for life". Camshafts wipe lobes. Lifters fail to pump up
or lose their hardness. Oil pumps suffer from excessive clearance and
fail to provide adequate pressure, piston rings break, pistons split
skirts, valve springs go off. Valve guide seals fail. The list is
comprehensive, and *all* of these things can happen *long* before an
engine has seen it's final days.

To suggest that a timing chain shouldn't need to be replaced before an
engine itself needs to be replaced is inexperience writ large.

>> Instead of trying to create a strawman , address my point ask your
>> mate why in his opinion one company should have recalled vehicles that
>> needed chains around 170,000km whilst he *defends* another that had
>> far worse failures and earlier.

Yeah, ask Keith. But before you do, why don't you ask this goalpost
shifting fuckatrd to post the cites of what he's talking about so we can
see *exactly* what was said at the time and not have to rely on his
sketchy fairytale telling :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 21:11:40 UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 8/1/22 6:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 8/01/2022 4:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >> On 8/1/22 4:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>> On 8/01/2022 10:25 am, Noddy wrote:
> >>>> On 8/01/2022 11:00 am, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/01/2022 7:22 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> it would be a poorly designed engine if the timing chain needs
> >>>>>> replacing that soon/often.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Or, more likely, poorly manufactured chains. BTW an item unlikely
> >>>>> to be made by the engine manufacturer.
> >>>>
> >>>> They outsource lots of stuff, and chains would be one of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> *All* manufacturers have their occasional issues and this is nothing
> >>>> new. In recent years the number of problems we've seen in modern
> >>>> cars is *immense*, and no one is immune to it. Toyota has had issues
> >>>> with stuck throttles and dodgy steering. Ford, and others, have had
> >>>> problems with their transmissions. CVT gearboxes have proven less
> >>>> than stellar while virtually everyone who has made a DSG style
> >>>> gearbox has had some degree of trouble. Holden had *many* problems
> >>>> with their V6 engines not the least of which was massive oil
> >>>> consumption and timing chain issues. Subaru are known for their head
> >>>> gasket dramas and Mazda's istop system is *plagued* with problems.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I've just been lucky, I've owned 3 Subarus from a 1976 4WD to a
> >>> 2006 Forester without any major problems. My Mazda 3 has had no
> >>> problems with istop so far but then I try to avoid its use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> From what I remember, it was only the 2.5 litre engine that had a
> >> head gasket issue.
> >
> > The original 1400cc 4WD had head gasket problems, it was a wet liner
> > motor, when they went to a dry liner in the 1600, the problem went away.
> I wasn't thinking that far back. The only thing I can recall doing on
> one of those early model Subarus was driveshafts. That must have been
> back in the 80s. Anyway, wet liners are a pain in the arse to work with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here he is showing his lack of experience *again*. (Still?) From a mechanics POV wet liners are *much* easier to remove and replace than dry`s...
However, I can see that someone with *book learning* being the only string to his bow might think? otherwise. (Could well apply to windscreen novices as well.)
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)