> Tom, the wet belt in your Subaru will need changing in 25,000 miles

Tom.
Hear any knocking noises yet?
It won’t be long.

Heekee wrote:

wet belts are so retarded

Not nearly as retarded as taking technical "advice" from an obviously hatefully biased DU DUNCE DOT with an axe to grind and absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE.

It's the sound of a wet fart, NOT coming from a future leader of business and industry.

Assclown Mini Tacos wrote:

I wonder why they did that - I used to have a WRX and that was using a timing chain, so at some point they must have made a conscious decision to switch to belts..

I’m not convinced they are worth the extra cost of replacing, My 2000 Audi A6 had a dry timing belt on a 2.8 V6, i had the original swapped out at 120,000 miles and the old belt still looked in perfect condition.

wet timing belts can offer benefits like reduced noise and extended life through lubrication, their potential for contamination, higher maintenance costs, and complex replacement processes contribute to their negative reputation.

Heekee wrote:

I’m not convinced they are worth the extra cost of replacing, My 2000 Audi A6 had a dry timing belt on a 2.8 V6, i had the original swapped out at 120,000 miles and the old belt still looked in perfect condition.

wet timing belts can offer benefits like reduced noise and extended life through lubrication, their potential for contamination, higher maintenance costs, and complex replacement processes contribute to their negative reputation.

Yeah, I guess the wet belt approach might be intended to reduce energy loss in the timing system and hence improve fuel consumption - but I can't help thinking that the effect would be somewhere in the range between extremely marginal and undetectable.  I have to admit that since AFAIK all the Subaru engines have been interference for about the last 30 years the idea of running a timing belt (and especially a wet timing belt) seems a good example of risking a catastrophic failure for marginal return.