Thanks for all of the replies. I'm in the process of taking a cautious
approach. I'm going to replace the timing belt. I'm going to leave off
the harmonic balancer and the accessory belts. Then I'm going to start
the engine. If it seems to run ok, then I will replace the water pump and
finish the job.

Random


aarcuda69062 > wrote in news:nonelson-
:

> 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.
>