Why did Ferrari use belts instead of chains?

You don't seem to recognize, or at least acknowledge that almost every one of the hundred-odd 'belt' threads you 'have no interest in reading' has had the belt vs chains topic brought up & extensively discussed. This 'belt thread' seems to have done a little better job of staying on topic than some of the others, but like the others, it's gone afield & gotten into personalities at times.

The bottom line is still that only the Ferrari Engineers knew what the trade-offs were & what they regarded as the state of the art at the time, & we're 2nd guessing them.

 

Nice summary, & captures the most likely reasons. The cost of a major is also a big issue for non self-maintenance 3x8/Mondial owners as it's a higher % of the car's street price! For us self-maintenance types it's a weekend's work.

I concur that this thread seems to have run it's course.

 

Artvonne,

Your post wasn't very nice. Mr. Newman's welcomed the new person to F-chat and answered his questions politely.

End of discussion.

~Bradley

 

The real question wasn't why not chains, but why put the belts on the end of the engine you can't get too... Why couldn't they have put the belts on the back of the motor. The 430 has chains so that issue is gone there, and I just did the Mondial, but I do wonder.

Art

 

Well, again in fairness - let Porsche serve as another modern-day example. I would just bet that there is little you can do with a Boxter engine for major service other than to pull it out of the car as well.

Best comment of all here is - we were not the engineers, so we just do not know why they did things the way they did.

So we have to live with it in the best spirits possible.

 

Hear, Hear!!!!

In other words:
"God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
Courage to change the things I can and
Wisdom to know the difference."

 

I may be wrong about this but I think it is because the cars in question (Boxer and Testarossa) are mid-engined cars as oppose to the rear-engined setup on the 911s. Had Ferrari put the belts on the back of the motor, that would mean the clutch assembly will have to go to the front into the cabin. So in order to fit eveything in as suggested, you will have to build an Extra-LWB car for it to retain its mid-engined setup. In Porsche 911's case, their engine sits much further back (rear-engined setup) which provides the room in front of the engine for the transmission. However, once Porsche went to mid-engined setup as in the Boxster (See link: http://www.seriouswheels.com/2000-2003/2003-Porsche-Boxster-Cutaway-1280x960.htm) You will also notice that the transmission is now at the rear with the belts in the front as well. If I am not mistaken, I think their major service is also an engine out service as well. I believe this layout holds true for today's 996-997 series as well.

 

Aw geeze! Now you got me side-tracked lookin' at all them pretty cars!

 

Point well made. If you turned it all backwards just because of the belts (and the shift lever), what would we have?

A Countash Diabolical Lamborghini.

And we all know how much better THAT THING shifts and drives, and how cheap and easy it is to maintain.

 

Now you did it, you had to go and mention Lamborghinis, another heatly debated and beaten to death topic. This was just a belts vs. chains thread, now it will probably mutate into a "Major service on Ferraris vs. Clutch service on Lamborghinis" etc.

The Holidays is approaching fast, can't we all just get along for a change?

 

Maybe it's time for whips AND chains ... ;>)

 

Love it I agree completely

 

Here's the details posted on chains vs belts
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76641&highlight=dino+belt

 

The question is why did the not use gears?

OK, fight amongst yourselves for a few more pages.

 

Because belts happened to be on the shelf and within reach.

 

+1

 

Are you sure the Daytona wasn't just 3x Fiat-124 Engines?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist pulling someone's chain, er, I mean belt!)

There are many compromises in every aspect of engine design, but I thought that the fact that belts are quieter was the main reason many manufacturers switched from chains to belts.

 

MC12 uses gears. Does anyone know what the FXX uses?

 

I find this especially strange since chains are generally the preferred cam drive for most high-perf cars, and Ferrari reverted to chains in the mid 90s. Was it just a bad engineering decision? Or do most of you feel the motivating factor was purely profit for their dealers' service departments? [/QUOTE]

As PSk pointed out, belts actually are a performance advantage. Thier light weight gives lower enertia to help engine throttle response and acceleration, much like lightening a flywheel or other internal engine parts. And as PSk pointed out, Ferrari caved to idiotic owners who have persisted in thier lack of maintaining anything, and it was making Ferrari look like thier cars were crap.

If your in the camp trying to find ways to get around maintainance before you even buy a Ferrari, please buy something else. Leave the 308's and other belt driven cars to the real men who know what they need, and arent so cheap or so afraid to take care of them.[/QUOTE]

"Real Men". Oh yeh! So let me understand you best. If you are "conerned" about a high cost repair & you try to get a different point of view about this issue, you must be "cheap" or you are "afraid to take care of them"? Please let me clear the air from such a sticky comment. I've owned 2 Ferrari's and it drives (no pun intended) crazy when I take it into my local dealership and they have to have it for 2 weeks to handle a job that shouldn't take them more than a couple of days. Further, the cost to handle an 8 cyc. engine on these beauties is border line obscene! That being said, I love my cars & I can hardly wait to drive them and I can afford them without even blinking an eye. So stop this nonsense about if you have to ask you can't afford it mentality. PLEASE!!!

 

I have wondered this too. Sorry we got one snob that still is hung up on "if you have to ask the cost, you can't afford it" statement. The others helped to clear that question up. I hope if you haven't purchased a Ferrari that you do so. I promise you, the experience is something you can take to the grave, hopefully not too soon...
Happy driving!

 

Timing CHAINs need to be replaced as well. The Enzo chains are spec'ed to be replaced at 30,000 miles.

aehaas

 

I think you mean Belts, like
"and Ferrari reverted to BELTS in the mid 90s[/b]. "

 

Gears are for heavy duty use, for when you absolutely dont want failures. Thats why all good diesel or gas industrial engines use gears. Its why they sometimes use them in endurance racing engines. But for better acceleration and performance, belts or chains have less mass, so less enertia is required to spool up, or accelerate. Thats why Ferrari used them in F1 back in the 60's and through the 70's, purely for performance.

The bottom line is that chains dont really last any longer than belts, but chains will give you warnings of eminent doom by making more and more noise, and most people drive them far beyond thier recommended life without major failures. But boy, when a chain breaks it will do considerably more damage, especially if it wraps up around the crank sprocket. Its not unheard of to break the block. But then if you throw a belt on a 348 or newer, it wont really matter, its gonna be awfully bad either way. I would bet if a chain let go on a F430 or an Enzo, most would shudder to see the repair estimate.

Everything is in life is a compromise. If you want maximum reliability, you must sacrifice some performance. If you want maximum performance, you must sacrifice some reliability. Max reliability would be something like a four cylinder cast iron Cummins turbo diesel. Max performance is something like a top fuel Hemi. Hopefully Ferrari gave us something of a compromise between the two.

 

I think my friends on honda-tech.com put it pretty eloquently: "Fast, Cheap, Reliable. you can only have 2."