View Single Post
  #10  
Old May 20th 06, 01:36 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?

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...=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.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Ads