Originally Posted by Cefalu

Hi Robin, question for you... How well engineered do you think the Ferrari is? You call it the drama queen which makes me think it's temperamental. But Ferrari has the resources to get it right. Or is it a matter of they just don't care what it costs because if you have to worry about it, it's not the right car for you. Or?

I have never owned one, but damn they are good looking cars.

Originally Posted by frankfast

Because of noise regulations and economics, the day of the chain drive is disappearing. I don't think that there is anything wrong with belts as long as they are installed properly and replaced at manufacturers recommended intervals, same as chains. As a matter of fact, I think they are proven to last as long. I have one as a final drive on my bike and and I've replaced them on other bikes that use belts to drive cams. I've also had one replaced on my A4 at 120,000. No problem.

Originally Posted by Cefalu

When you're laying down big money on a Porsche or a Ferrari, you would expect that the engine design wasn't too heavily compromised from a design perspective by economics. The rubber belt seems like an OK move for a VW or a Fiat, but when you are paying ten times as much, I don't think so. And the rubber belt is a no brainer choice in a non interefernace design. But in a high revving, high performance interferance design motor it seems like a questionable choice. I am guessing that's why Porsche stuck with the chains. Sure, chains break, but you hear about it way less often than timing belt breaks.