ing-schu@online.no Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 I'd much rather non-interference and belt than interference and chain. What's your theory behind this? I thought noninterference meant valves and pistons will not chrash if timing gear breaks down, being belts, chain or gears. As opposed to interference, when they do chrash. I can't see how the way the cams are rotated will mean anything, basically it is a matter of valvelift, duration and clearance with pistons on tdc. Italian cars are known to bust big time, usually with belts. All Volkswagen diesel shit. BMW 4pots, Subaru boxers, various Fords obviously, it's a long list. I'd never remotely consider buying a car with an interference engine. Sit there being afraid while revving and stuff? No way. I agree with MTS, chains are better if changed on due time which usually is very rare. BUT, if neglected, they tend to bust the whole engine if they break. Ask owners of older (pre 88) Mercs with singleroller camchains... Noisy chains? Ever listened to a Jaguar V12 have you? Belts whines, is that to be preferred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excluesiveonez Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 i want a gs430 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted June 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Xedos, I think you misread what I said. I would rather a non-interference and belt, than an interferece and chain. Troy, maybe a shit design? One of the rollers wasn't true and the belt would rub? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Nope... was recommended every 90,000 kms and when it was time they were close to done... I had 340,000kms on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Xedos, I think you misread what I said. I would rather a non-interference and belt, than an interferece and chain. Possibly, though you also wrote this; The maxima is 300lbs lighter (curb), and has 20 less hp. Furthermore, it has a timing chain, which means it's interference (generally speaking not positive), which means no valve reliefs in the pistons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Oops.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted June 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 What I wrote was true: the maxima is lighter and does have a timing chain. I didn't say I want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat_Daddy Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 I think the MCE was wonderful idea for the time it came out. But Mazda stop growing. They had the affordable luxory market down with the 929 and milly. But they just stopped there way back in 95. No real changes. I like the 01-02 bodies (relative to same year competition) but both engines suck. If mazda had stayed on their game, i see no reason they couldnt be where lexus or infinit is. They could just rebadge a milly with a name other than mazda (jus cuzz mazda sounds plain) and add 25% to the cost.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latinopikachu Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 a name such as AMATI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankzao Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 NDD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazdaMomma Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 Would be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 I don't think the name matters, all it takes is building proper cars for a period of time. One example: Audi. They built piece of shit cars untill early nineties. Now they have a very strong pedigree. The fact that I still regard them as shitty cars isn't that interesting, the majority of buyers find them attractive as a premium brand. Not to mention Skoda; here in Europe they were in Lada territory, look at Skoda now. Up there competing with any brand in the market, part from the premium brands of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latinopikachu Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 amati i say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troutman Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 The MCE was the same game that is still being played today... the new car has a fancy feature to brag to the neighbours about, then becomes expensive to repair when older. At least it is a very unique car to drive in contrast to the same-old quad cam V6s on equivalent new cars. As if a twin-charge Golf is going to be any different, or a hybrid-electric Insight, or... Bottom line, if you want a simpler car, buy one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat_Daddy Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 I don't think the name matters, all it takes is building proper cars for a period of time. One example: Audi. They built piece of shit cars untill early nineties. Now they have a very strong pedigree. The fact that I still regard them as shitty cars isn't that interesting, the majority of buyers find them attractive as a premium brand. Not to mention Skoda; here in Europe they were in Lada territory, look at Skoda now. Up there competing with any brand in the market, part from the premium brands of course. good point years ago, i thought volvos were made for 60yr old granny. Now i would give a kidney for a new S40... I guess if the cars had evolved the name would have followed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Seems Audi's designer moved to Mazda... let's see what the future holds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Marketing is another important factor to build credibility. Mazda marketing always sucked. Big time. Both Mazda 6 and Mazda 3 can compete with any car in their class, but who knows that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troutman Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 In Australia the 3 is second only to the Corolla in its class, this zoomy thing seems to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Not here, way down on the list despite excellent reviews, rated as better or better value than cars like Audi A3, VW Golf, BMW 1, Alfa 147... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troutman Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Oh well A3/1 series/147 cost craploads more here so that could be a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazdaMomma Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 I still like the 3 liftback. A really cute little car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.