>Hey, you know how we design our engines so they obliterate themselves if a flimsy rubber belt snaps?>How about, for a 1% efficiency improvement, we run that rubber belt through oil so the belt snaps even faster?>Lets also not change the service interval so they snap suddenly at 40k long before anyone even thinks about looking at it.Say what you will about belts vs chains, nanny assists, subscriptions, touch screens, whatever. But wet belts are by far the most retarded design choice of the past 10 years.
Just shows our government won't step in to protect us when corporate greed overwhelms reason.
>>28989899Isn't this just a rental car (Ford/gm/BMW/Mercedes) issue? I don't know any real cars with a wet belt
>>28989899Mercedes-Benz used biodegradable wiring harnesses from 1991 to 1996, which caused electrical problems over time as the insulation disintegrated.Already in the 90s, ideas for deliberate and planned car damage appeared.
I'm not a wrenchlet so I don't care, but yes they are retarded
>>28989899also sometimes the belt disintegrates and starves the engine of oil.
>>28989901The government and strict emissions laws are why they make these retarded decisions in the first place
>>28989984Emissions and fuel efficiency dumb shit I can at least understand (although they obviously take advantage of it as a way to raise prices and introduce planned obsolescence), but tell me how running a rubber belt through engine oil is supposed to meaningfully positively impact a vehicles emissions and efficiency profile in any meaningful and measurable way.
>>28989981This is seemingly the biggest issue. Little bits of rubber break off and clogs the oil pump or oil passageways.I’d be interested in seeing a comparison of what’s in used oil filters of comparable engines (one with dry belt) around say 60k miles, after 5k on the filters.
>>28989899Don't conflate dry belts with wet belts ricer
