"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:ec813952b460ac615bc8b58fc606cd73@mixmaster.it ...
> Watch out! Many Japanese products use timing belts with non-free running
> (interference) engines.

IIRC most toyotas are non-interference. It has nothing to do with being
single or double cam.

Hows about maintaining your car properly, therefore never having that
problem?

 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:37:36 +0100, Coyoteboy wrote:

>
> "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
> news:ec813952b460ac615bc8b58fc606cd73@mixmaster.it ...
>> Watch out! Many Japanese products use timing belts with non-free
>> running (interference) engines.
>
> IIRC most toyotas are non-interference. It has nothing to do with being
> single or double cam.

A lot ot the SOHC Toyotas are interference.

But what Dimwit pays no attention to at all is the Maintenance Schedule in
that often overlooked little piece of information called the Owner's
Manual.

If you change your belt when it says, you'll not have any trouble. I
overlooked this in my Corolla GTS, but being a DOHC it's Non-Interference.
The manual says 60,000; I had two belts go 120,000. I was lucky...


>
> Hows about maintaining your car properly, therefore never having that
> problem?

 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:Im8Rh.249274$5j1.31907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>

>
> I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the timing is
> fine...
>
> JT
>
>
I had a 1970 Volvo with timing gears. One day I was driving home from work
and heard the unmistakable sound of a bad rod knock. I towed the car home
and lifted the engine to drop the pan, then found... nothing. Huh. Pulling
the crank through I heard the "bang" as plainly as I heard it while driving.
Double huh. It seemed to be coming from under the timing cover. There I
found the cam gear's fiber outer ring had separated from the steel core, and
was lifting up and dropping every revolution... bang!

Mike

 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:33:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts>
wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:37:36 +0100, Coyoteboy wrote:
>
>>
>> "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
>> news:ec813952b460ac615bc8b58fc606cd73@mixmaster.it ...
>>> Watch out! Many Japanese products use timing belts with non-free
>>> running (interference) engines.
>>
>> IIRC most toyotas are non-interference. It has nothing to do with being
>> single or double cam.
>
>A lot ot the SOHC Toyotas are interference.
>
>But what Dimwit pays no attention to at all is the Maintenance Schedule in
>that often overlooked little piece of information called the Owner's
>Manual.
>
>If you change your belt when it says, you'll not have any trouble. I
>overlooked this in my Corolla GTS, but being a DOHC it's Non-Interference.
>The manual says 60,000; I had two belts go 120,000. I was lucky...

Probably just a little. You were taking a risk, though. The
recommended interval is intended to avoid 99+% of failures. The
failure rate after 120K might only be 20%.

OTOH, I know a guy who had one of those turbo Mitsubishi awd sports
cars that were sold under the (Chrysler) Eagle brand back in the 90's.
He went over the 45K recommended interval by about 1000 miles and the
belt broke and trashed the engine. He fixed it and swore he would
never miss another change interval. The next belt broke at 44K. Moral
of the story: stick to Honda and Toyota.



>
>
>>
>> Hows about maintaining your car properly, therefore never having that
>> problem?

 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:40:44 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:33:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:37:36 +0100, Coyoteboy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
>>> news:ec813952b460ac615bc8b58fc606cd73@mixmaster.it ...
>>>> Watch out! Many Japanese products use timing belts with non-free
>>>> running (interference) engines.
>>>
>>> IIRC most toyotas are non-interference. It has nothing to do with being
>>> single or double cam.
>>
>>A lot ot the SOHC Toyotas are interference.
>>
>>But what Dimwit pays no attention to at all is the Maintenance Schedule
>>in that often overlooked little piece of information called the Owner's
>>Manual.
>>
>>If you change your belt when it says, you'll not have any trouble. I
>>overlooked this in my Corolla GTS, but being a DOHC it's
>>Non-Interference. The manual says 60,000; I had two belts go 120,000. I
>>was lucky...
>
> Probably just a little. You were taking a risk, though. The recommended
> interval is intended to avoid 99+% of failures. The failure rate after
> 120K might only be 20%.
>
> OTOH, I know a guy who had one of those turbo Mitsubishi awd sports cars
> that were sold under the (Chrysler) Eagle brand back in the 90's. He went
> over the 45K recommended interval by about 1000 miles and the belt broke
> and trashed the engine. He fixed it and swore he would never miss another
> change interval. The next belt broke at 44K. Moral of the story: stick to
> Honda and Toyota.

Mitsu's are notorious for throwing belts!

And, if I were your friend, I would think about a 40,000 mile interval!!!



>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Hows about maintaining your car properly, therefore never having that
>>> problem?

 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:13:44 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

>
>
> Moe wrote:
>
>> George Orwell wrote:
>>
>>> Watch out! Many Japanese products use timing belts with non-free
>>> running (interference) engines. When, not if, the belt skips or
>>> breaks, your engine and $8,000 is gone. Even if you get through the
>>> warranty period, the resale takes a big hit because the word has got
>>> around.
>>>
>>> Auto makers, heed this warning. The public knows gear, shaft, or chain
>>> driven single or double OHC engines are are safe design. Timing belt
>>> driven
>>> setups are not.
>>>
>>> Suzuki is an exception. Their cars are okay.
>>>
>> 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. I've had a timing gear fail, I've
>> had chains fail, I've had timing belts fail. I kinda prefer the
>> timing belts all in all, quieter, better valve timing. I've never seen
>> a chevy V8 that didn't have a lot of slack in the timing chain after 80K
>> miles.
>
>
> I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the timing is
> fine...
>
> JT


Noisy! But certainly the way to go. There are lots of kits on the market
for various motors to replace belt/chains with gears.

 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:38 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:

> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:Im8Rh.249274$5j1.31907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>
>
>> I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the timing
>> is fine...
>>
>> JT
>>
>>
> I had a 1970 Volvo with timing gears. One day I was driving home from work
> and heard the unmistakable sound of a bad rod knock. I towed the car home
> and lifted the engine to drop the pan, then found... nothing. Huh. Pulling
> the crank through I heard the "bang" as plainly as I heard it while
> driving. Double huh. It seemed to be coming from under the timing cover.
> There I found the cam gear's fiber outer ring had separated from the steel
> core, and was lifting up and dropping every revolution... bang!
>
> Mike


LOL! I would guess...264?

There were some Volvos that had PRESSBOARD timing gears! I spent an
afternoon with a friend who got sick of replacing them and replaced it
with a steel gear.

 

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:93fRh.14727$IY4.4535@trndny03...
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:38 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>> news:Im8Rh.249274$5j1.31907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the timing
>>> is fine...
>>>
>>> JT
>>>
>>>
>> I had a 1970 Volvo with timing gears. One day I was driving home from
>> work
>> and heard the unmistakable sound of a bad rod knock. I towed the car home
>> and lifted the engine to drop the pan, then found... nothing. Huh.
>> Pulling
>> the crank through I heard the "bang" as plainly as I heard it while
>> driving. Double huh. It seemed to be coming from under the timing cover.
>> There I found the cam gear's fiber outer ring had separated from the
>> steel
>> core, and was lifting up and dropping every revolution... bang!
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> LOL! I would guess...264?
>
> There were some Volvos that had PRESSBOARD timing gears! I spent an
> afternoon with a friend who got sick of replacing them and replaced it
> with a steel gear.
>
>
>
145. The odometer must have been about 260K at the time. I asked at the
dealer if a steel gear was available, and he said he had one. He had sold it
several times but it always came back because it was so noisy. Makes sense,
I guess, and after thinking about it I figured the car wasn't likely to
outlast the composite replacement gear.

Mike

 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:54:03 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:

> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
> news:93fRh.14727$IY4.4535@trndny03...
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:38 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Im8Rh.249274$5j1.31907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the
>>>> timing is fine...
>>>>
>>>> JT
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I had a 1970 Volvo with timing gears. One day I was driving home from
>>> work
>>> and heard the unmistakable sound of a bad rod knock. I towed the car
>>> home and lifted the engine to drop the pan, then found... nothing. Huh.
>>> Pulling
>>> the crank through I heard the "bang" as plainly as I heard it while
>>> driving. Double huh. It seemed to be coming from under the timing
>>> cover. There I found the cam gear's fiber outer ring had separated from
>>> the steel
>>> core, and was lifting up and dropping every revolution... bang!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>> LOL! I would guess...264?
>>
>> There were some Volvos that had PRESSBOARD timing gears! I spent an
>> afternoon with a friend who got sick of replacing them and replaced it
>> with a steel gear.
>>
>>
>>
> 145. The odometer must have been about 260K at the time. I asked at the
> dealer if a steel gear was available, and he said he had one. He had sold
> it several times but it always came back because it was so noisy. Makes
> sense, I guess, and after thinking about it I figured the car wasn't
> likely to outlast the composite replacement gear.
>
> Mike


Yeah, it did sound horrible, but we never had to rip the front of the car
off again!

 

Michael Pardee wrote:

> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:Im8Rh.249274$5j1.31907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>>I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the timing is
>>fine...
>>
>>JT
>>
>>
>
> I had a 1970 Volvo with timing gears. One day I was driving home from work
> and heard the unmistakable sound of a bad rod knock. I towed the car home
> and lifted the engine to drop the pan, then found... nothing. Huh. Pulling
> the crank through I heard the "bang" as plainly as I heard it while driving.
> Double huh. It seemed to be coming from under the timing cover. There I
> found the cam gear's fiber outer ring had separated from the steel core, and
> was lifting up and dropping every revolution... bang!
>
> Mike
>
>

It can happen but not very often...

JT

 

Hachiroku ハチãƒã‚¯ wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:13:44 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Moe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>George Orwell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Watch out! Many Japanese products use timing belts with non-free
>>>>running (interference) engines. When, not if, the belt skips or
>>>>breaks, your engine and $8,000 is gone. Even if you get through the
>>>>warranty period, the resale takes a big hit because the word has got
>>>>around.
>>>>
>>>>Auto makers, heed this warning. The public knows gear, shaft, or chain
>>>>driven single or double OHC engines are are safe design. Timing belt
>>>>driven
>>>>setups are not.
>>>>
>>>>Suzuki is an exception. Their cars are okay.
>>>>
>>>
>>>6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. I've had a timing gear fail, I've
>>>had chains fail, I've had timing belts fail. I kinda prefer the
>>>timing belts all in all, quieter, better valve timing. I've never seen
>>>a chevy V8 that didn't have a lot of slack in the timing chain after 80K
>>>miles.
>>
>>
>>I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the timing is
>>fine...
>>
>>JT
>
>
>
> Noisy! But certainly the way to go. There are lots of kits on the market
> for various motors to replace belt/chains with gears.
>


Not so (noisy).

Only noise is from the solid lifters, another way to go if you hate
shortlived comfort.

JT

 

Hachiroku ハチãƒã‚¯ wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:38 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>
>>"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>news:Im8Rh.249274$5j1.31907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>
>>>I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the timing
>>>is fine...
>>>
>>>JT
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I had a 1970 Volvo with timing gears. One day I was driving home from work
>>and heard the unmistakable sound of a bad rod knock. I towed the car home
>>and lifted the engine to drop the pan, then found... nothing. Huh. Pulling
>>the crank through I heard the "bang" as plainly as I heard it while
>>driving. Double huh. It seemed to be coming from under the timing cover.
>>There I found the cam gear's fiber outer ring had separated from the steel
>>core, and was lifting up and dropping every revolution... bang!
>>
>>Mike
>
>
>
> LOL! I would guess...264?
>
> There were some Volvos that had PRESSBOARD timing gears! I spent an
> afternoon with a friend who got sick of replacing them and replaced it
> with a steel gear.
>
>


Studebaker used a fiber (phonolic) cam gear and steel crank gear.
Failure is almost unheard of at least before 300K. High performance
engines were equipped with an aluminum cam gear.

Volvo was not the most dependable foreign car made. I can tell some
horror stories...

JT

 

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:05:55 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

>
>
> Hachiroku ハチãƒã‚¯ wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:08:38 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Im8Rh.249274$5j1.31907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I prefer gears. My 1964 Studebaker P/U 289 has over 300K and the timing
>>>>is fine...
>>>>
>>>>JT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I had a 1970 Volvo with timing gears. One day I was driving home from
>>>work and heard the unmistakable sound of a bad rod knock. I towed the
>>>car home and lifted the engine to drop the pan, then found... nothing.
>>>Huh. Pulling the crank through I heard the "bang" as plainly as I heard
>>>it while driving. Double huh. It seemed to be coming from under the
>>>timing cover. There I found the cam gear's fiber outer ring had
>>>separated from the steel core, and was lifting up and dropping every
>>>revolution... bang!
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL! I would guess...264?
>>
>> There were some Volvos that had PRESSBOARD timing gears! I spent an
>> afternoon with a friend who got sick of replacing them and replaced it
>> with a steel gear.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Studebaker used a fiber (phonolic) cam gear and steel crank gear. Failure
> is almost unheard of at least before 300K. High performance engines were
> equipped with an aluminum cam gear.
>
> Volvo was not the most dependable foreign car made. I can tell some
> horror stories...
>
> JT


I had an 1800ES. Except for trying to KILL me, it was an OK car, but
monthly maintenance required.

 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:48:07 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts>
wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:40:44 -0500, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:33:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:37:36 +0100, Coyoteboy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
>>>> news:ec813952b460ac615bc8b58fc606cd73@mixmaster.it ...
>>>>> Watch out! Many Japanese products use timing belts with non-free
>>>>> running (interference) engines.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC most toyotas are non-interference. It has nothing to do with being
>>>> single or double cam.
>>>
>>>A lot ot the SOHC Toyotas are interference.
>>>
>>>But what Dimwit pays no attention to at all is the Maintenance Schedule
>>>in that often overlooked little piece of information called the Owner's
>>>Manual.
>>>
>>>If you change your belt when it says, you'll not have any trouble. I
>>>overlooked this in my Corolla GTS, but being a DOHC it's
>>>Non-Interference. The manual says 60,000; I had two belts go 120,000. I
>>>was lucky...
>>
>> Probably just a little. You were taking a risk, though. The recommended
>> interval is intended to avoid 99+% of failures. The failure rate after
>> 120K might only be 20%.
>>
>> OTOH, I know a guy who had one of those turbo Mitsubishi awd sports cars
>> that were sold under the (Chrysler) Eagle brand back in the 90's. He went
>> over the 45K recommended interval by about 1000 miles and the belt broke
>> and trashed the engine. He fixed it and swore he would never miss another
>> change interval. The next belt broke at 44K. Moral of the story: stick to
>> Honda and Toyota.
>
>Mitsu's are notorious for throwing belts!
>
>And, if I were your friend, I would think about a 40,000 mile interval!!!
>

He dumped that car and bought an Isuzu mini SUV. Some guys never
learn.

 

| Many Japanese products use timing belts with non-free running
| (interference) engines. When, not if, the belt skips or breaks, your
| engine and $8,000 is gone.

Honda engines <3.2 litre are all inteference*designs
www.aa1car.com/library/2003/us70343.htm para 9
Toyota's newer engines are not *.

In 10-05 my honda F20A 's timing belt broke @ 79800 km (
owner's manual says replace @100k km ), pistons then hit &
broke valves. I had to buy & fit a used F20A imported fr japan,
total cost M$2261 @3.80 = US$595. Feasible for you to send
car to Mexico to change engine ?
I think this question of when to change t-belts, depends on how
hot an engine gets ; neoprene ages ( hardens & cracks ) faster
with heat. Japanese manufacturers don't calibrate their tmprtre
gauges, so 1 easy way to tell if an engine ( in a front-wd car ) is
too hot is to touch * ( assumed alloy )' centres : if * cannot be
touched for 5 seconds w-o scorching your fingers, then engine
is too hot for belts to last as long as expected per service
schedule. In just 33ēC humid air, my SM4's * used to be too
hot to touch, caused by a few design flaws & cheapo 4-1 exhaust
manifold.