Something that is very important when it comes to rubber timing belts and was drilled into mechanics, DIYers, and even consumers when belts first started going mainstream was that rubber belts should not be contaminated with engine oil. Oil will cause the rubber to swell, delaminate, and crack, which leads to premature belt failure. And belt failure results in catastrophic engine damage because it leads to a loss of timing synchronization between the camshaft and crankshaft, meaning the piston will hit and bend the valve on interference engines, requiring an engine rebuild. This means that if you accidentally spill a significant amount of oil on your belt, you need to replace it. If you detect an oil leak that also exposed the belt to oil… you need to repair that leak and replace the belt. So after 40 years of being taught that oil and timing belts don't mix, almost everyone was shocked when Ford in late 2007 introduced an engine where the belt was exposed to engine oil ALL the time. Not only was it exposed, but part of it was submerged in engine oil. The engine in question is the Ford 1.8 tdci diesel engine. Prior to late 2007, the engine's timing system consisted of a timing chain running from the crankshaft to the high pressure diesel injection pump and a dry rubber timing belt running from the fuel pump to the camshaft. In late 2007, the timing chain was replaced with a rubber timing belt that was exposed to oil just like the timing chain. But the interesting thing is that Ford didn’t just dip the timing belt in something that was considered a pollutant for 40 years, they even increased the service interval because, according to Ford, immersion of the belt in oil reduces belt wear. The dry belt had a service interval of 160,000 km or 5 years, while the wet belt had a service interval of 200,000 or 10 years because, according to Ford, the wet belt benefited from additional lubrication. Previously, when oil was spilled on the belt, it was considered to be contaminated; now, the contaminant was considered a lubricant. Understandably, many mechanics, engineers, journalists, and other members of the general public with a modicum of common sense and a basic understanding of physics and chemistry thought that Ford’s belt-in-oil system was a bad idea. By 2012, it became clear that Ford considered the new wet belt technology to be a success and a good idea, because it was also introduced in the new 1.0-litre three-cylinder turbocharged EcoBoost engine, which was soon extended to most models in the Ford fleet. Other European manufacturers also considered Ford’s approach to be a success and a good idea, because they started introducing it very soon after Ford. Renault was one of the first to adopt this technology as early as 2008 with its 1.5 DCI diesel engines. In 2010, Volkswagen fitted wet belts to its 1.5 tsi turbo petrol engine. Opel and Vauxhall did so in their 1.2 and 1.5 turbo petrol models around the same time. Peugeot also got on board with its pure-technology 1.2 3-cylinder turbo petrol engine in 2013. It seems that everyone was looking for that 1% fuel saving. Wet timing belts have caused a huge number of premature belt failures, leading to catastrophic engine failures that have cost owners thousands of Euros. The vast majority of wet belts never came close to meeting the recommended service interval of 200,000 km or more. Most vehicles need replacing in half that time and there are reports of belts failing before the vehicle even reached 100,000 kilometres. But wait, we mustn’t forget the 1% fuel savings! The average European drives 13,000 kilometres in their vehicle every year. If we take the average fuel consumption at 6.5 litres per 100 kilometres, this gives us an annual fuel consumption of 845 litres and an annual fuel expenditure of 1,521 Euros. 1% of that is 15.2. This is how much a wet belt saves the consumer every year. 15.2 euros per year in exchange for the financial and environmental burden of thousands of engines failing prematurely. #d4a #d4aespanol #puretech #ecoboost