MEDLEY TRIBUTO A LA CUMBIA 3 ALBERTO BARROS video oficial

############################# Video Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SASSFjIt5I

Support the channel by shopping through this link: https://amzn.to/3RIqU0u • Patreon: / d4a • Become a member: / @d4a • Grit: / @grit00000 • Something that’s very important when it comes to rubber timing belts and that was beaten into the heads of mechanics, diyers and even consumers when belts started becoming widespread was that rubber belts must not be contaminated with engine oil. Oil will cause the rubber to swell up, 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 the crankshaft which means that the piston will hit and bend the valve on interference engines which requires an engine rebuild. • This means that if you accidentally spill a significant amount of oil on your belt you should replace your belt. If you detect an oil leak that was also exposing the belt to oil…you should fix that leak and replace your belt. • So after 40 years of being taught that oil and timing belts don’t mix almost everyone was surprised when Ford in late 2007 introduced an engine where the belt was exposed to engine oil ALL the time. Heck it wasn’t just exposed, part of it was actually submerged in engine oil. • The engine in question is the Ford 1.8 tdci diesel engine. Before late 2007 the engine 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 was. • But here’s the interesting thing, Ford did not only submerge the timing belt into something that was called a contaminant for 40 years it even increased the service interval because according to Ford the submersion of the belt in oil reduces belt wear. The dry belt was given a service interval of 160.000 km or 5 years whereas the wet belt was given a service interval of 200.000 or 10 years because according to Ford the wet belt benefited from additional lubrication. So before when you spilled oil on the belt the belt was considered contaminated, now the contaminant was considered a lubricant. Understandably many mechanics, engineers, journalists, and other members of the general public with a pinch of common sense and a basic understanding of physics and chemistry thought that Ford’s belt in oil system was a bad idea. • In 2012 it became evident that Ford considered the new wet belt technology a success and a good idea because it was also introduced in the new 1.0 three-cylinder turbocharged EcoBoost engine which soon spread to the majority of models in Ford’s fleet. Other European manufacturers also considered Ford’s approach a success and a good idea because they started introducing it very soon after Ford. Renault was an early adopter of this technology as early as 2008 with their 1.5 DCI diesel engines. Wolkwagen put wet belts on their 1.5 tsi turbo petrol around 2010. Opel and Vauxhall did it on their 1.2 and 1.5 turbo petrol models around the same time. Peugeot also joined in with their 1.2 pure-tech 3-cylinder turbo petrol around 2013. It seems that everyone was after that 1% fuel savings. • But today in 2024 we have more than enough data and reports to say with great certainty that wet belts are a stupid idea. Just like many mechanics, engineers, journalists, and other members of the general public with a pinch of common sense and a basic understanding of physics and chemistry claimed when the technology was first introduced. • Wet timing belts have led to a great number of premature belt failures which have led to catastrophic engine failures costing owners thousands of euros. The vast majority of wet belts never made it anywhere near the recommended service interval of 200.000 km an above. Most required replacement at half that and there are reports of belts that have failed even before the vehicle reached 100.000 kilometers. But wait, we must not forget the 1% fuel savings!. The average European covers 13.000 kilometers with their vehicle every year. If we take the average fuel consumption to be 6.5 liters per 100 kilometers this gives us an annual fuel consumption of 845 liters and an annual cost of fuel of 1.521 EUROS. 1% of that is 15.2. This is how much money a wet belt saves the consumer every year. 15.2 Euros per year in exchange for the financial as well as environmental burden of thousands of prematurely failed engines • • A special thank you to my patrons: • Daniel • Pepe • Brian Alvarez • Peter Della Flora • Dave Westwood • Joe C • Zwoa Meda Beda • Toma Marini • Cole Philips • #d4a #ecoboost #puretech

#############################

New on site