If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?
Hi
Does anyone know if the engine in a 1994 LHS is an interference engine (aka crash motor)? It's a 3.5L 6 cyl. Thanks |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?
In article >,
random electron > wrote: > Hi > > Does anyone know if the engine in a 1994 LHS is an interference engine (aka > crash motor)? It's a 3.5L 6 cyl. The 3.5 is not an interference engine. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?
random electron wrote:
> Hi > > Does anyone know if the engine in a 1994 LHS is an interference engine (aka > crash motor)? It's a 3.5L 6 cyl. > > Thanks According to the Gates Timing Belt Replacement Guide (http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?br...cation_id=3487 - click the pdf link - give it time to download even if it acts like it's done), it *is* an interference engine. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > random electron wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Does anyone know if the engine in a 1994 LHS is an interference engine (aka > > crash motor)? It's a 3.5L 6 cyl. > > > > Thanks > > According to the Gates Timing Belt Replacement Guide > (http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?br...cation_id=3487 - > click the pdf link - give it time to download even if it acts like it's > done), it *is* an interference engine. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') It is an interference engine, that's why if you ever set up the timing marks at top dead center with the heads off you will see that the piston is not really at TDC. The reason behind that is because if the cam rotates while installing the belt the valve could slam into the piston and cause damage. The marks were offset to prevent this. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?
-- "Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > random electron wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Does anyone know if the engine in a 1994 LHS is an interference engine (aka > > crash motor)? It's a 3.5L 6 cyl. > > > > Thanks > > According to the Gates Timing Belt Replacement Guide > (http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?br...cation_id=3487 - > click the pdf link - give it time to download even if it acts like it's > done), it *is* an interference engine. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') It is an interference engine, that's why if you ever set up the timing marks at top dead center with the heads off you will see that the piston is not really at TDC. The reason behind that is because if the cam rotates while installing the belt the valve could slam into the piston and cause damage. The marks were offset to prevent this. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > random electron wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Does anyone know if the engine in a 1994 LHS is an interference engine >> (aka crash motor)? It's a 3.5L 6 cyl. >> >> Thanks > > According to the Gates Timing Belt Replacement Guide > (http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?br...cation_id=3487 - click > the pdf link - give it time to download even if it acts like it's done), > it *is* an interference engine. > It's not. Just let folks that have broken their belts answer and that way there's no confusion. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?
Joe wrote:
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message > ... > >>random electron wrote: >> >> >>>Hi >>> >>>Does anyone know if the engine in a 1994 LHS is an interference engine >>>(aka crash motor)? It's a 3.5L 6 cyl. >>> >>>Thanks >> >>According to the Gates Timing Belt Replacement Guide >>(http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?br...cation_id=3487 - click >>the pdf link - give it time to download even if it acts like it's done), >>it *is* an interference engine. >> > > It's not. Just let folks that have broken their belts answer and that way > there's no confusion. Is that true specifically of 94's? 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). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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') |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | June 8th 05 05:28 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 5 | May 24th 05 05:27 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 7 | February 1st 05 01:43 PM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 10 | November 16th 04 05:28 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 10 | November 1st 04 05:24 AM |