1992 2.3 Was looking rough at 119,300 so it was replaced.

 

I have a 4.0L (Traded the 150 in for a Ranger) I hope I have a chain not a belt.

Why on earth would any manufacturer use a timing belt instead of a chain? Is it for more accurate syncronization or something? Think of any mechanical thing.. if it has a belt, that will usually be one of the first things to go.

I guess its to save those pennies on mass production.

As for the life of a vehicle, I would imagine that to be almost impossible to determin, for the reason mentioned above. Not everyone will take care of a vehicle the same.

Honestly, I am baffled.... why a belt?

 

you have a chain

 

Let me pass on to you what I've learned about timing belts verses chain. I always knew that engines develope vibrations (harmonics) some undetectable to us. The ones we can't detect are most likely the destructive ones. Using a belt instead of a chain isolates or dampens those vibrations making the engine more durable. Somewhere I read the difference in the lenght of the life of one particular four cylinder chain verses belt, it was unbelieveable what was gained in lower end life. These guys who design engines find out abunchof stuff we never think about.

 

Another reason - belts are quiter.

 

These are some points I never knew of.. or considered.. thanks guys.

 

kotzy pretty much hit it on the head. This was one of the problems with the 427 SOHC with its monsterous 6' timing chain. It was almost impossible to keep the engine in time at high engine speeds, so most of these that were used for racing were converted to a timing belt. There are also timing belt conversions available for SBF and BBF engines as well for race applications.

I think the physical layout of the engine is why the 2.3L uses a timing belt instead of a chain though.

 

I replaced mine at 98,000 along with the spark plugs.