A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th 06, 03:23 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 18th 06, 04:13 AM 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 >,
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  
Old May 18th 06, 11:30 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 18th 06, 06:04 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?




"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  
Old May 19th 06, 12:57 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 19th 06, 06:15 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 19th 06, 11:30 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 19th 06, 01:56 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:

> 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.
  #9  
Old May 19th 06, 10:25 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?

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.
>


  #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')
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.