True. I couldn't justify buying the PKensioner based on the few miles that are put on my 86.5. Roger sold all the parts to replace/rebuild tensioner, roller, idlers, rubber pieces for less than half the cost of the alternative.
The PKensioner seems like a timely idea. The weird, excellent condition of my aluminum gears suggested a little pampering with Ken's invention might not be a bad idea. But I like the original "tensioner" enough to keep it.
Everyone who's had an easy lift by way of lift bars would agree we should be considerate to the few inventors in our community. People like Ken and Carl may eventually get sick of being married to their inventions and the handful of complaints and move on... And not to be replaced as more of the cars find their way to salvage.

 

Someone asked to see the writing on the belt...

 

That's a lot more wear on the back of the belt then what I would expect in 1500 miles.

 

It it just me or is there a disproportionate amount of wear on the back of the belt opposite where the teeth (or gullies - hard to tell) appear to be. I see a pattern of wear, no wear, wear, no wear etc. This should tell the more experienced among us something......

Myles

 

Belt was loose enough to slip more than normal on the water pump pulley, wearing the writing off?

 

So far, everyone including me has been focused mostly on start up and weird theories about what happens when the engine is off. This worn belt would at first blush suggest that the explanation of the failure is more mundane, and more importantly consistent with the tensioner being simply installed outside the operating range. I am very close to calling this case closed and, in my mind, being very happy with the PKT (installed with new bracket and within Ken's suggested extension).

 

I don't think it's THAT simple.

Why was the tensioner out of the operating range? Is this tensioner the correct one if it allows this to happen? Should another tensioner be used with a longer reach. Does the bracket need to be redesigned to not allows this to happen again? Do the crank rollers have to be kept just in case this happens again (it will happen again, just a matter of when)? Do the crank roller help from this happening again? Should there be a something installed to trigger the belt light so the driver knows the tensioner is out of reach? Is this "one in a xxxx" acceptable as a faliure and doesn't warrant anything to be changed?

 

To me, it really is that simple. The system works as long as it's installed with the new version bracket and at the extension that Ken specifies. The racing belt and stock belt behave the same. Whether that extra crank roller is there or not makes no difference. Based on my logic, I feel that I now understand the issues sufficiently well to conclude that the PKT Black system simply works as well or better than the stock tensioner system.

 

I agree - more like 15,000 or more.

 

I actually think I agree with Imo000 here. Or rather...yes, it's that simple if it installs within the specified operating range, but knowing why it didn't would tell us how common that situation is, and then Ken could decide if anything additional needed to be done to account for those (presumably) rare cases.

 

I doubt the lack of a roller that appears to be in place to prevent belt slack causing jumped cam timing is not significant. Did I read that this roller is removed when the "racing" belt is used due to unwanted contact with this style belt? In my mind that means the racing belt does not fit and should not be used. If for some reason you were dead set on using that belt I suggest at least fitting a bushing to that roller location that would keep a wave of slack from causing the belt to skip on the crank pulley.

The rollers are there for a reason and given that the roller arrangement has been updated by the factory it's reasonable to assume that if the engineers could have deleted the rollers they would have. Other cars I own and work on also have rollers that do not turn during normal operation but are there to guide the belt under some circumstances anyway (at least I assume they are not for decoration).

Given this thread I'd say you'd have to be nuts to remove that roller or if you have removed it you should be going in to replace it.

-Joel.

 

That looks far more worn than my GTS one with 8 k kms and 4,5 years.

 

No, you did not read that.

It's Ken's opinion the lower rollers are not needed with any belt with his tensioner.

Todd is using the racing belt with his twin turbo with both lower rollers with the stock tensioner without issue.

 

The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!

(Thanks Roger)

 

No one has suggested that. I've been running the Gates Racing belt, PKT and still have the lower rollers for almost 4 years. There is not touching of the rollers that I've seen. Hell, there is no belt touching the rollers on any of the cars I've installed a PKT on, that I have seen.

ETA: Most of the rollers on these cars are seized up from gathering goo and never having moved.