Looking at new cars for my wife, the Chevy trax seems to have all the features she wants, but the Internet discussion is full of hand wringing about the wet belt in the 1.2L ecotec. What is lacking however, is actual first hand accounts of premature failure. These engines have been used for a good few years in other cars, so there's gotta be some info. Does anyone have any experiences or data on if these belts are actually a problem?
Yes.
/thread.
Jokes aside, look up I Do Cars on YouTube and watch him tear apart a wet belt Ford I3. That's all I needed to know.
A timing belt that is inside front cover and gets coated in oil like a timing chain?
In reply to CyberEric :
people seem to say that the chevy wet belt is much better than the ford. apparently the ford tends to have tensioner issues and shear the teeth off the belt
apparenlty the civic 1.0T has a wet belt too, with the only issue seeming to be the service cost, because its hard to access
I would not assume a timing belt system is bad just because it runs in oil. Sure, during the dry belt days, whenever it got wet with oil, that meant failure. But when the belt and system is designed to be in oil, that clearly is not the failure mode.
Then it's back to basic belt durability, just like regular belt failures in old systems. And what they were caused by- like a bad tensioner will put too much tension on the belt overall.
Can't apply conventional wisdom to this system- it's very different.
I'm given to understand that at least some wet belts also have quite specific oil requirements, and that when these are not met, deterioration accelerates markedly.
If given the choice between a chain, a dry belt, or a wet belt, the wet belt would always be last pick for me.
What sort of sins have been committed where a TRAX is the best choice? Those things are punishment boxes x1000.
Dry belts have a life of up to 100K miles. What mileage is the limit for wet belts? Is there any data on belts failing early?
93gsxturbo said:If given the choice between a chain, a dry belt, or a wet belt, the wet belt would always be last pick for me.
What sort of sins have been committed where a TRAX is the best choice? Those things are punishment boxes x1000.
Over a chain, I can understand. But why over dry belt? Do you assume that the engineers are using the same belt material?
porschenut said:Dry belts have a life of up to 100K miles. What mileage is the limit for wet belts? Is there any data on belts failing early?
Many also have replacement intervals at 60k (or less), too. Modern wet belts have to last over 100k as it's not a normal service item that customers will be willing to change.
Modern systems are not going to be changed at 100k- no way a customer is going to accept that the plug change interval is less than the belt change interval.
I understand (and share) the reasons for the concern, and yes Ford blew it on the oh-so-promising 1.0EB, but I'd argue that empirical evidence really seems to be suggesting that wet belts are demonstrating no better or worse reliability than dry belts or (especially modern) chains. In other words, it's situationally dependent. Some systems are well executed and generally reliable, while other systems are poorly executed and have a habit of failing prematurely.
The Gen II 2.7EB in my truck uses a wet oil pump belt vs the Gen I that used a chain. The youtube teardown channel did one of these, and while what he found *looked* concerning (lots of lateral cracks in the rubber through to the Kevlar structure) on the un-failed oil pump belt, these engines do not appear to be experiencing any more oil pump belt failures than oil pump chain failures. Which is to say none that I've found reported. So while there is an old-school part of me that wishes for somebody to start selling an oil pump chain conversion, I am increasingly inclined to believe that looks can be deceiving and that the condition presented is an intentionally engineered non-issue.
The rubber isn't what's providing the strength in the belt, so there doesn't seem to be a problem as long as proper tension is maintained and the rubber isn't actually leaving the belt.
In reply to 93gsxturbo :
they did a complete redesign in 2024, looks better and is reportedly much more comfortable
In reply to 93gsxturbo :
My in-laws have a 2017 Chevrolet Trax. They routinely drive it back and from Florida to Indiana. I do not understand that level of masochism.
CyberEric said:Yes.
/thread.Jokes aside, look up I Do Cars on YouTube and watch him tear apart a wet belt Ford I3. That's all I needed to know.
The I Do Cars videos are sometimes entertaining but usually they're pretty crap.
The biggest issue with the Ford engine is how intensely labor intensive it is to replace the oil pump belt. Book time is something like 22hr. It's also a wet belt and when it fails, it generally takes out the engine, because you keep driving until the engine locks up.
I watched it a year ago, so forgive me, but I seem to remember the teeth on the belt were disintegrating. It backs up what I've read elsewhere, and I think I would stay clear of that particular engine. I really wanted a Fiesta with the 1.0EB, and the research I did was not positive. I haven't researched the GM because I don't want that car, but I don't like the design. But I also don't like other designs that people seem to have no problem with.
Pete, I view you as an expert in the field, so I'll defer to your opinion. Just wanted to share what I found. Im curious why you think that channel is crap.
alfadriver said:93gsxturbo said:If given the choice between a chain, a dry belt, or a wet belt, the wet belt would always be last pick for me.
What sort of sins have been committed where a TRAX is the best choice? Those things are punishment boxes x1000.
Over a chain, I can understand. But why over dry belt? Do you assume that the engineers are using the same belt material?
Chevy engineers,"Hmm, lets put this oil pump on a belt with a service interval, and you have to pull the transmission to change it. Oh yeah you can inspect it, but you have to pull the transmission to do that too."
Just remember, an engineer will step over a pile of virgins to screw a technician. Alas, no, I don't assume engineers use the same material. I assume since in automotive use they have been introduced relatively recently en masse its an overall relatively bad idea driven by the almighty dollar and fuel economy decimal points and NVH requirements and not by a desire to improve durability or serviceability. Just more enE36 M3ification.
93gsxturbo said:alfadriver said:93gsxturbo said:If given the choice between a chain, a dry belt, or a wet belt, the wet belt would always be last pick for me.
What sort of sins have been committed where a TRAX is the best choice? Those things are punishment boxes x1000.
Over a chain, I can understand. But why over dry belt? Do you assume that the engineers are using the same belt material?
Chevy engineers,"Hmm, lets put this oil pump on a belt with a service interval, and you have to pull the transmission to change it. Oh yeah you can inspect it, but you have to pull the transmission to do that too."
Just remember, an engineer will step over a pile of virgins to screw a technician. Alas, no, I don't assume engineers use the same material. I assume since in automotive use they have been introduced relatively recently en masse its an overall relatively bad idea driven by the almighty dollar and fuel economy decimal points and NVH requirements and not by a desire to improve durability or serviceability. Just more enE36 M3ification.
Engineer here. Often we want to make E36 M3 easy to work on. Unfortunately engineers virtually never get final say. Accounting and design are usually closer to your target here.
Also, why the hell would I want a mess of virgins? Sounds exhausting, and not in a pleasant way
In reply to 93gsxturbo :
Engineers don't do that, they just deal with the compromises that they are told are to be dealt with. And if they have to make the engine last without significant service for 150k miles (which is a requirement), then they will lean toward much easier assembly than service. So if it costs $1500 to change the belt at 150k miles, that's comparable to 2.5 times on older dry belts.
I know I've posted this exact rant before...
But the LAW says that the engine makes it to 150k miles and meet emissions. The only thing that is allowed to change are oil and spark plugs. And most hate the latter, so that's 100k. So if enough timing belts are greneding themselves before 150k miles, then mechanics should be reporting it to the EPA so that OEM's recall the cars and fix them. That's how the system works. Work the system. Make OEM's responsible for things that fail before they are supposed to.
Or just refuse to buy this garbage. I won't buy anything with a wet belt.
In reply to alfadriver :
I'm just curious when that law went into effect. Because I think in the last couple years (2022? 2023?) there was at least one Acura that had a timing belt with replacement specified at 100k for normal service and 60k for severe service.
First off, engineers do not control decisions in Ford or GM. Bean counters do. This is yet another reason to only buy used cars and wait until there are some with over 100K miles. Then we really learn how reliable they are. I hated on the gen2 prius, but once they were 10 years old and had a good rep turned into a fan. Same with suby 2.5 motored cars. Head gaskets are not an issue if the correct one is used and properly installed. So wet timing belts may or may not be a good thing, but it sounds like the latter just based on what is required to replace them. Will check back in 10 years to see!
In reply to porschenut :
this specific engine has been used in GM vehicles since 2019, so there are quite a few I've found with over 100k
wae said:In reply to alfadriver :
I'm just curious when that law went into effect. Because I think in the last couple years (2022? 2023?) there was at least one Acura that had a timing belt with replacement specified at 100k for normal service and 60k for severe service.
The current version of the law was 1996, the required durability changed with the standard- back then, it was 50k miles, and then it was 80k, and 120k, and now 150k miles. The only way Acura could do that it get a specific waiver. Maybe they did, but I'd expect the wet belts were less capable given they had to breach the oil system.
porschenut said:First off, engineers do not control decisions in Ford or GM. Bean counters do. This is yet another reason to only buy used cars and wait until there are some with over 100K miles. Then we really learn how reliable they are. I hated on the gen2 prius, but once they were 10 years old and had a good rep turned into a fan. Same with suby 2.5 motored cars. Head gaskets are not an issue if the correct one is used and properly installed. So wet timing belts may or may not be a good thing, but it sounds like the latter just based on what is required to replace them. Will check back in 10 years to see!
Not bean counters- shareholders and board of directors. They tell the beancounters to find more money, so they do. Then the engineers explain the compromises, and management decides which one is ok to take or not. Lots of times they get it very wrong (see dry clutch auto debacle).
We need to blame the people who make the decisions to cheapen the cars, not the ones who are forced to do it.
It's true that engineers come up with the ideas to change things, but management (upper) are the ones who let systems go without fully fulfilling the requirements that they laid down from pervious mistakes. They get anxious that they spent $10M on a new widget and canceling it will make them look bad (and maybe cost another $20M to fix). But they don't face the consequence that that $30M lack of decision ends up being a $2B warranty bill. That's a major rant that I don't want to start. Those dumb decisions cost so much money and market share and profit sharing and.....
My only experience was with a 1.0 turbo Ford. It peeled the teeth off the timing belt at under 100,000km. I needed to cobble together enough tools to do the job without buying the $1500 Ford kit. Then, I had to remove the oil pan to get the belt teeth out of the oil pump pickup, and install the oil pump belt, which added a whole bunch of time. The timing belt job ended up being $2800cdn, and that was a gift. I will not likely do that job again.
On the other hand, I have just finished a 2.8 Colorado timing chain job. In our questioning of the intelligence of engineers, I could have saved at least six hours if they had designed the intake manifold half an inch differently, to allow removal of the valve cover, and if they had not bolted the oil pump pickup to the bottom of the timing cover, I would not have needed to remove the knuckles, axles, differential and steering rack to get the oil pan off. It's the same job as a 2.4 GM once you get the timing cover off, but it's an 18 hour ordeal on this gem.
What was wrong with a nice dry belt? Volvo had a 196,000km interval for many years, and a belt change is a couple of hours. Anybody could build an engine like that..
You'll need to log in to post.
