View Single Post
  #11  
Old May 20th 06, 02:17 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?

In article >,
Bill Putney > wrote:

> aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bill Putney > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is that true specifically of 94's?

> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >>I may have read discussions on this
> >>in the past in which it was concluded (at least by some) that certain
> >>years were iterference, others were not (even though the Gates guide
> >>shows them all as interfeence).

> >
> >
> > The Gates book has its share of errors.
> > (in this case, errors sell timing belts)
> >
> > I've replaced scores of these belts and not a one ever bent a
> > valve. That is more than a coincidence.
> >
> > My Mitchell On Demand lists the 3.5 as a non-interference engine,
> > it also lists the 3.2 as an interference engine. The Mitchell
> > text is direct from ChryCo.
> >
> > The engine has been out what, 13 years now, yet I have yet to see
> > anyone post a complaint of a 3.5 with bent valves in -any-
> > appropriate newsgroup, plenty of incidences posted for other
> > engines that -are- interference though.

>
> Apparently DC is schizophrenic on the point. You say Mitchell quotes
> Chryco as saying the 3.5 is non-interference. If that is correct (and
> applies to all years/versions), FWIW (apparently not much) my '99 LH-car
> FSM (on page 9-71 - 3.2/3.5 Engine Components - and page 9-100 - 'Timing
> Belt Removal') has bold text warnings: "NOTE The 3.2/3.5 are a NON
> [their emphasis] free-wheeling design" and "Caution: The 3.2/3.5L are
> NOT [their emphasis] freewheeling engines. Therefore care should be
> taken not to rotate the camshafts or crankshaft with the timing belt
> removed" respectively.
>
> As an added piece of confusion, there are several threads on the 300M
> Club forums where this question is discussed. Here's one of them:
> http://300mclub.org/forums/viewtopic...er=asc&star t =0
>
> ja300mes is a DC dealer tech and Red Baron is an ASE certified master
> mechanic and fleet manager and holds the 1/4 mile track record for
> normally aspirated 300M's - they both say it's interference (at least
> for 2nd gen cars). I'm not disagreeing with you - I've just seen
> convincing claims on both sides. I'm still wondering if there are maybe
> some year-to-year differences that may be causing at least some of the
> contradictory claims by apparently equally qualified people.


Dunno Bill.

The FSM lumps the 3.2 and 3.5 service information together,
perhaps they felt that a blanket statement about the engines
being interference would be easier for their mechanics to digest
than if they only called out the one that actually is.

My Gates guide lists all 3.5s as non-interference and I have yet
to see or hear of a crashed 3.5 due to a timing belt mishap, and
I have had them towed in with the belt wrapped around the
crankshaft pulley, they ran fine after repair.
Brother in-law works at the local Dodge dealership part dept, he
has never seen a 3.5 need the heads pulled because of a broken
timing belt.

It's also possible that the OEM belt supplier and myself are
wrong...
Ads