Drive belt(s) refers to the belts that drive things like the water pump, alternator and alike.
What year / model Honda are we discussing?
:smack: I figured that out after I wrote it, I was just coming back to edit it.
It’s a 2006 (LX I beleive) 1.8L 5 Speed
It’s a timing chain then (see previous link).
Learn something new every day.
I’ve been told that most car makers have switched to interference engines because it’s easier to bring them into compliance with emission regulations.
I <3 desmodromic valving.
Double the mechanical complexity, double the moving parts, double the moving mass. No operational benefit.
Where’s SpinGears when we need him?
Sorry; I think that’s the asshat emoticon.
You are correct unless you are going to spin the engine at some insane RPM. Like Ducati does (scroll down click on engine details)
Ah crap, I was going for a heart.
You want simplicity? How about rotary ball valves?
The old aircooled VW flat four uses gears to drive the camshaft. That is the engine in the Beetle. Always seemed very sensible to me!
That’s okay; it added a pleasing element of surrealism to your post, something usually lacking in automotive threads.
Well, I think it’s some kind of consipiracy by the timing belt manufacturers and car makers.
Looks like my next car will be a nice1985 Toyota Corolla GTS with a non-interference engine, like god intended them to be.
And here I thought I was going to have to bring out my tie-dyed coveralls. 
Here is a link I meant to post before.
:dubious:
There is a lot of stuff on that website that requires more than just a grain of salt. A 25 lb. bag might be more in order.
Naturally, but the concept of rotating valves is sound.
Reason why spherical valves won’t work is that there’s no way to make it seal properly, compared to a poppet valve where the cylinder pressure actually helps it seal. Much like non-interference engines, if it worked, someone would be using it, I suppose.
My current vehicle (99 Camry) has a noninterference engine. The current equivalent seems to have an interference engine.
As to the OP question which is why make interference engines, yes, it seems that these lend themselves better to technological tweaking in order to squeeze more HP for the same or better MPG out of the design.
A search of automotive forums led me to a thread here about the issue, which I have tried to summarize/paraphrase:
Seems that would mean an engineer can take the same displacement and get more power out of it by using an interference design. Or something like that, I’m myself dizzy from the searching.
Not necessarily. For one thing, it could be that they’re mandated to use certain things which proclude the use of other, better methods. This happened to the car industry when pollution controls were first introduced. The ones that they were mandated to use were worse than other technologies that were available. (Of course, one is free to wonder why the car makers didn’t lobby to use those technologies instead of simply trying to block the whole thing.)
Then there’s the cost of switching over to a new technology, which can easily run into the billions of dollars. If the savings of the new technology aren’t significant, then car makers are going to be unlikely to invest the kind of money necessary. Mazda’s use of the Wankel engine is an example of this, and if one of the execs at Mazda hadn’t been a protege of Wankel, they probably wouldn’t be building them.
Chrysler was all set to introduce a mass production turbine car, but was blocked from doing so because of conditions placed on it in order to get the government bail out. That they haven’t revisited the idea probably has a lot to do with their shakey finances.
Umm, cite?
To the best of my knowledge the US government has never mandated the technology used to achieve a particular emission goal. Having worked in the industry during the formative years of emission controls, trust me when I tell you there were plenty of different approaches tried. Plenty.