maytag wrote:c'mom; nobody liked my ham story? I made it up, just for the occasion.
majicwrench wrote:Yup silly. Why would Fiat, or any manufacturer, go to the bother of designing, creating and installing a part that wasn't neccessary??
spider2081 wrote:I think one reason the timing belt covers are there is because society has these people called "lawyers".
majicwrench wrote:Heck, most of go a lifetime and never need our seatbelts, let's just get rid of em!
actually, I use my seatbelts every day. And they have a very clearly-designed purpose which has been proven, time and time again. Not like the timing-belt cover.
majicwrench wrote:I fix cars for a living.
I used to fix cars for a living too. But that doesn't make me an authority beyond what I've seen myself.
majicwrench wrote:I see no timing belts with and rock/debris damage,
mdrburchette wrote:I thought it was being answered. For safety and engine cooling efficiency. This reminds me years ago when people would knock off the front air dam off their GM car and didn't spend the money to replace it, then wonder why the car ran hotter than it used to.
I think you may have missed something in previous posts: the timing belt cover has ZERO impact on cooling. And nobody has suggested it has, until your post. Unless you are referring to two separate items; in which case, I'm a very BIG believer in the lower engine-bay cover. I'd love to find an intact one for my car. But we are WAAAY off point here.
bradartigue wrote:Quoting Service Letter 100-13, dated 6-28-79, title is "NEW ADDITIONAL TIMING BELT COVERS"
Brad, I appreciate you chiming-in here, but your stance on big-tube bumpers denies you any credibility in these arguments.
divers wrote:Since it came out in 79...does this mean we can stop thinking that everything Fiat did was "god like". I mean if it took them 12 years to figure this out, just imagine how many more "fixes" we would have seen if they (Fiat) had not pulled out of the US.
Everyone has an opinion, but everytime some issue of enhancement or change comes up....its the same song and dance. Well...if the Fiat engineers did it, they must have had a reason.
I guess brakes on these were perfect "cause that's what the engineers did"
I guess the exhaust system is perfect "cause that's what the engineers did"
I guess 13" tires are perfect "cause that's what the engineers did"
I guess grounds all over the car (and with push on terminals) are perfect "cause that's what the engineers did"
I guess the routing of the emergency brake cable near the hot muffler is perfect...
where have you been all my life?
ok...
so, more seriously. Brad has posted something that answers the question. sort of. "for protection of the timing belt" is a little ambiguous, isn't it? I know, everyone on THAT side of the fence is rolling your eyes at me, and wondering what the definition of "alone" is. But really, I'd like to know what was on FIAT's mind? What did they think they were protecting the belt from?
On my Benz, I had to pull the engine cover the other day. It's a silly plastic guard that snaps to the top of the motor, and allows places to hide ugly components. Now, mind you, you could EAT off the motor. I'm fairly meticulous in the appearance of my vehicles. But when I removed that cover, the accumulated grime and crud was just NASTY. And as a matter of fact, it had accumulated into the fins of the power-steering-cooler, rendering it rather useless. And I wondered to myself what sort of life a timing belt would have in that environment; covered, where it can't be seen / inspected, and can't be cleaned.
How is it better to have it covered? What is it that we are protecting the belt from? (well... I'm NOT protecting mine from whatever it is....
)