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
|
|||
|
|||
Rant: Designers/crash engine 2.0/2.4
Actually, I know those engineers. Trust me, they didn't want a "crash" motor
any more than you do. They were forced into it by the EPA. Those neat little valve clearance notches in the pistons proved to be a "reservoir" of hydrocarbons that are 'hidden' and won't burn. I.e., smog. They had to go. But they tried their best. There IS enough clearance so that a belt that has jumped two teeth will NOT cause a crash. And even a one-tooth jump turns on the Czech engine light so you know something's amiss. And they REALLY broke their stones to get 100K belt life on the DOHC. I just did a belt on mine - not a hard job at all. But don't even think about it without the FSM and a torque wrench handy! I suggest replacing the hydraulic tensioner also, and carefully checking (feeling for roughness) the bearings in the tensioner and idler pullies. Rick Ehrenberg PS- If you've got Crane springs on a DOHC - a GREAT upgrade for RPM AND smoother idle (!) - change belt at 60K. "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message n.umich.edu... > On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Anthony wrote: > > > Well, started out to dinner Friday night. About 4 miles up the road, > > smelled antifreeze, and heard squealing from under the hood. I figured > > water pump bearings/seal gone, and got it over to the side of the road. > > Had it hauled home yesterday and went parts shopping. It is a '95 Neon > > with ~140,000, so it is about time for things to start wearing out. I > > learned, that some designer decided to drive the water pump from the > > TIMING BELT on the 2.0L. > > Designers don't get to touch the engine until it's time to prettify it > with shrouds and covers and pick the font for "2.0 DOHC!" on the camshaft > cover. Your beef is with an engineer or a task committee, not a designer. > > > The 2.0L is a non-free revving engine in both SOHC and DOHC > > configurations, > > For several decades, Chrysler engine engineering was headed by an > *extremely* sharp engineer, and one of his rules was "No interference > engines with timing belts -- you can have an interference engine only if > it's got gears or chains." When he retired, that rule was tossed out by > idiot kids who grew up in Hondas. > > DS |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Ehrenberg" > wrote in
: > Actually, I know those engineers. Trust me, they didn't want a "crash" > motor any more than you do. They were forced into it by the EPA. Those > neat little valve clearance notches in the pistons proved to be a > "reservoir" of hydrocarbons that are 'hidden' and won't burn. I.e., > smog. They had to go. > > But they tried their best. There IS enough clearance so that a belt > that has jumped two teeth will NOT cause a crash. And even a one-tooth > jump turns on the Czech engine light so you know something's amiss. > And they REALLY broke their stones to get 100K belt life on the DOHC. > > I just did a belt on mine - not a hard job at all. But don't even > think about it without the FSM and a torque wrench handy! I suggest > replacing the hydraulic tensioner also, and carefully checking > (feeling for roughness) the bearings in the tensioner and idler > pullies. > > Rick Ehrenberg > Rick, The interference of the valves/pistons is not the concern. I fully understand the impact of valve reliefs on emissions. My issue is with running ancillary equipment from the timing belt. I realize it makes packaging nice and compact, reduces parts in the engine assembly, etc, but the combination of failure prone ancillary equipment in the timing structure and an interference engine do not go well together. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Ehrenberg" > wrote in
: > Actually, I know those engineers. Trust me, they didn't want a "crash" > motor any more than you do. They were forced into it by the EPA. Those > neat little valve clearance notches in the pistons proved to be a > "reservoir" of hydrocarbons that are 'hidden' and won't burn. I.e., > smog. They had to go. > > But they tried their best. There IS enough clearance so that a belt > that has jumped two teeth will NOT cause a crash. And even a one-tooth > jump turns on the Czech engine light so you know something's amiss. > And they REALLY broke their stones to get 100K belt life on the DOHC. > > I just did a belt on mine - not a hard job at all. But don't even > think about it without the FSM and a torque wrench handy! I suggest > replacing the hydraulic tensioner also, and carefully checking > (feeling for roughness) the bearings in the tensioner and idler > pullies. > > Rick Ehrenberg > Rick, The interference of the valves/pistons is not the concern. I fully understand the impact of valve reliefs on emissions. My issue is with running ancillary equipment from the timing belt. I realize it makes packaging nice and compact, reduces parts in the engine assembly, etc, but the combination of failure prone ancillary equipment in the timing structure and an interference engine do not go well together. -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I would have to agree that it's not really right (I'm an engineer too). I
have a couple of 3.3's, and they're the same way. My dad has one, and his water pump locked up without warning and killed the timing belt. I don't recall ever seeing a locked up water pump before, so I think it was a freak thing. Since the old 3.3's are freewheeling, it was fairly harmless. On a later model it would be the pits. I certainly understand what they're going through from my own experience. Still, I don't think the EPA has outlawed timing chains and gears, nor do they require oil pumps, water pumps, balance shafts and other belt-driven equipment to further entangle whatever's driving the camshaft. "Anthony" > wrote in message . .. > "Richard Ehrenberg" > wrote in > : > > > Actually, I know those engineers. Trust me, they didn't want a "crash" > > motor any more than you do. They were forced into it by the EPA. Those > > neat little valve clearance notches in the pistons proved to be a > > "reservoir" of hydrocarbons that are 'hidden' and won't burn. I.e., > > smog. They had to go. > > > > But they tried their best. There IS enough clearance so that a belt > > that has jumped two teeth will NOT cause a crash. And even a one-tooth > > jump turns on the Czech engine light so you know something's amiss. > > And they REALLY broke their stones to get 100K belt life on the DOHC. > > > > I just did a belt on mine - not a hard job at all. But don't even > > think about it without the FSM and a torque wrench handy! I suggest > > replacing the hydraulic tensioner also, and carefully checking > > (feeling for roughness) the bearings in the tensioner and idler > > pullies. > > > > Rick Ehrenberg > > > > Rick, > The interference of the valves/pistons is not the concern. I fully > understand the impact of valve reliefs on emissions. My issue is with > running ancillary equipment from the timing belt. I realize it makes > packaging nice and compact, reduces parts in the engine assembly, etc, > but the combination of failure prone ancillary equipment in the timing > structure and an interference engine do not go well together. > > > -- > Anthony > > You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make > better idiots. > > Remove sp to reply via email |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I would have to agree that it's not really right (I'm an engineer too). I
have a couple of 3.3's, and they're the same way. My dad has one, and his water pump locked up without warning and killed the timing belt. I don't recall ever seeing a locked up water pump before, so I think it was a freak thing. Since the old 3.3's are freewheeling, it was fairly harmless. On a later model it would be the pits. I certainly understand what they're going through from my own experience. Still, I don't think the EPA has outlawed timing chains and gears, nor do they require oil pumps, water pumps, balance shafts and other belt-driven equipment to further entangle whatever's driving the camshaft. "Anthony" > wrote in message . .. > "Richard Ehrenberg" > wrote in > : > > > Actually, I know those engineers. Trust me, they didn't want a "crash" > > motor any more than you do. They were forced into it by the EPA. Those > > neat little valve clearance notches in the pistons proved to be a > > "reservoir" of hydrocarbons that are 'hidden' and won't burn. I.e., > > smog. They had to go. > > > > But they tried their best. There IS enough clearance so that a belt > > that has jumped two teeth will NOT cause a crash. And even a one-tooth > > jump turns on the Czech engine light so you know something's amiss. > > And they REALLY broke their stones to get 100K belt life on the DOHC. > > > > I just did a belt on mine - not a hard job at all. But don't even > > think about it without the FSM and a torque wrench handy! I suggest > > replacing the hydraulic tensioner also, and carefully checking > > (feeling for roughness) the bearings in the tensioner and idler > > pullies. > > > > Rick Ehrenberg > > > > Rick, > The interference of the valves/pistons is not the concern. I fully > understand the impact of valve reliefs on emissions. My issue is with > running ancillary equipment from the timing belt. I realize it makes > packaging nice and compact, reduces parts in the engine assembly, etc, > but the combination of failure prone ancillary equipment in the timing > structure and an interference engine do not go well together. > > > -- > Anthony > > You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make > better idiots. > > Remove sp to reply via email |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Joe wrote:
> > I certainly understand what they're going through from my own experience. > Still, I don't think the EPA has outlawed timing chains and gears, nor do > they require oil pumps, water pumps, balance shafts and other belt-driven > equipment to further entangle whatever's driving the camshaft. > EPA doesn't care about the engine design, only about the emissions from that engine. Increasing compression serves to increase efficiency, hence more power and/or less emissions, but tradeoff is less clearance from valves to piston. JazzMan -- ************************************************** ******** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ************************************************** ******** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ************************************************** ******** |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Joe wrote:
> > I certainly understand what they're going through from my own experience. > Still, I don't think the EPA has outlawed timing chains and gears, nor do > they require oil pumps, water pumps, balance shafts and other belt-driven > equipment to further entangle whatever's driving the camshaft. > EPA doesn't care about the engine design, only about the emissions from that engine. Increasing compression serves to increase efficiency, hence more power and/or less emissions, but tradeoff is less clearance from valves to piston. JazzMan -- ************************************************** ******** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ************************************************** ******** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ************************************************** ******** |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Whoops I meant 3.5's. That was stupid of me.
"Joe" > wrote in message ... > I would have to agree that it's not really right (I'm an engineer too). I > have a couple of 3.3's, and they're the same way. My dad has one, and his > water pump locked up without warning and killed the timing belt. I don't > recall ever seeing a locked up water pump before, so I think it was a freak > thing. Since the old 3.3's are freewheeling, it was fairly harmless. On a > later model it would be the pits. > > I certainly understand what they're going through from my own experience. > Still, I don't think the EPA has outlawed timing chains and gears, nor do > they require oil pumps, water pumps, balance shafts and other belt-driven > equipment to further entangle whatever's driving the camshaft. > > "Anthony" > wrote in message > . .. > > "Richard Ehrenberg" > wrote in > > : > > > > > Actually, I know those engineers. Trust me, they didn't want a "crash" > > > motor any more than you do. They were forced into it by the EPA. Those > > > neat little valve clearance notches in the pistons proved to be a > > > "reservoir" of hydrocarbons that are 'hidden' and won't burn. I.e., > > > smog. They had to go. > > > > > > But they tried their best. There IS enough clearance so that a belt > > > that has jumped two teeth will NOT cause a crash. And even a one-tooth > > > jump turns on the Czech engine light so you know something's amiss. > > > And they REALLY broke their stones to get 100K belt life on the DOHC. > > > > > > I just did a belt on mine - not a hard job at all. But don't even > > > think about it without the FSM and a torque wrench handy! I suggest > > > replacing the hydraulic tensioner also, and carefully checking > > > (feeling for roughness) the bearings in the tensioner and idler > > > pullies. > > > > > > Rick Ehrenberg > > > > > > > Rick, > > The interference of the valves/pistons is not the concern. I fully > > understand the impact of valve reliefs on emissions. My issue is with > > running ancillary equipment from the timing belt. I realize it makes > > packaging nice and compact, reduces parts in the engine assembly, etc, > > but the combination of failure prone ancillary equipment in the timing > > structure and an interference engine do not go well together. > > > > > > -- > > Anthony > > > > You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make > > better idiots. > > > > Remove sp to reply via email > > |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Whoops I meant 3.5's. That was stupid of me.
"Joe" > wrote in message ... > I would have to agree that it's not really right (I'm an engineer too). I > have a couple of 3.3's, and they're the same way. My dad has one, and his > water pump locked up without warning and killed the timing belt. I don't > recall ever seeing a locked up water pump before, so I think it was a freak > thing. Since the old 3.3's are freewheeling, it was fairly harmless. On a > later model it would be the pits. > > I certainly understand what they're going through from my own experience. > Still, I don't think the EPA has outlawed timing chains and gears, nor do > they require oil pumps, water pumps, balance shafts and other belt-driven > equipment to further entangle whatever's driving the camshaft. > > "Anthony" > wrote in message > . .. > > "Richard Ehrenberg" > wrote in > > : > > > > > Actually, I know those engineers. Trust me, they didn't want a "crash" > > > motor any more than you do. They were forced into it by the EPA. Those > > > neat little valve clearance notches in the pistons proved to be a > > > "reservoir" of hydrocarbons that are 'hidden' and won't burn. I.e., > > > smog. They had to go. > > > > > > But they tried their best. There IS enough clearance so that a belt > > > that has jumped two teeth will NOT cause a crash. And even a one-tooth > > > jump turns on the Czech engine light so you know something's amiss. > > > And they REALLY broke their stones to get 100K belt life on the DOHC. > > > > > > I just did a belt on mine - not a hard job at all. But don't even > > > think about it without the FSM and a torque wrench handy! I suggest > > > replacing the hydraulic tensioner also, and carefully checking > > > (feeling for roughness) the bearings in the tensioner and idler > > > pullies. > > > > > > Rick Ehrenberg > > > > > > > Rick, > > The interference of the valves/pistons is not the concern. I fully > > understand the impact of valve reliefs on emissions. My issue is with > > running ancillary equipment from the timing belt. I realize it makes > > packaging nice and compact, reduces parts in the engine assembly, etc, > > but the combination of failure prone ancillary equipment in the timing > > structure and an interference engine do not go well together. > > > > > > -- > > Anthony > > > > You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make > > better idiots. > > > > Remove sp to reply via email > > |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I guess there's two ways to look at the glass: half full vs. half empty. To
me, the water pump driven by the timing belt seemed like a great durability improvement - no worries about idiots running the car with the w.p. belt broken! And the oil pump driven off the crankshaft nose (a'la old AMCs) also seems to be a smart move. all the new stuff is that way, no? But, no question, for every action there's a reaction... Rick "Joe" > wrote in message ... > Whoops I meant 3.5's. That was stupid of me. > > "Joe" > wrote in message > ... > > I would have to agree that it's not really right (I'm an engineer too). I > > have a couple of 3.3's, and they're the same way. My dad has one, and his > > water pump locked up without warning and killed the timing belt. I don't > > recall ever seeing a locked up water pump before, so I think it was a > freak > > thing. Since the old 3.3's are freewheeling, it was fairly harmless. On a > > later model it would be the pits. > > > > I certainly understand what they're going through from my own experience. > > Still, I don't think the EPA has outlawed timing chains and gears, nor do > > they require oil pumps, water pumps, balance shafts and other belt-driven > > equipment to further entangle whatever's driving the camshaft. > > > > "Anthony" > wrote in message > > . .. > > > "Richard Ehrenberg" > wrote in > > > : > > > > > > > Actually, I know those engineers. Trust me, they didn't want a "crash" > > > > motor any more than you do. They were forced into it by the EPA. Those > > > > neat little valve clearance notches in the pistons proved to be a > > > > "reservoir" of hydrocarbons that are 'hidden' and won't burn. I.e., > > > > smog. They had to go. > > > > > > > > But they tried their best. There IS enough clearance so that a belt > > > > that has jumped two teeth will NOT cause a crash. And even a one-tooth > > > > jump turns on the Czech engine light so you know something's amiss. > > > > And they REALLY broke their stones to get 100K belt life on the DOHC. > > > > > > > > I just did a belt on mine - not a hard job at all. But don't even > > > > think about it without the FSM and a torque wrench handy! I suggest > > > > replacing the hydraulic tensioner also, and carefully checking > > > > (feeling for roughness) the bearings in the tensioner and idler > > > > pullies. > > > > > > > > Rick Ehrenberg > > > > > > > > > > Rick, > > > The interference of the valves/pistons is not the concern. I fully > > > understand the impact of valve reliefs on emissions. My issue is with > > > running ancillary equipment from the timing belt. I realize it makes > > > packaging nice and compact, reduces parts in the engine assembly, etc, > > > but the combination of failure prone ancillary equipment in the timing > > > structure and an interference engine do not go well together. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Anthony > > > > > > You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make > > > better idiots. > > > > > > Remove sp to reply via email > > > > > > |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rotary Engine FAQ 0501 | Felix Miata | Driving | 0 | January 1st 05 12:27 PM |
1990 520i engine probs | Work Hard | BMW | 3 | October 28th 04 05:01 PM |
2000 Dodge Neon (Ticking, Noisy starting engine) | Ken | Dodge | 14 | April 23rd 04 04:06 PM |
Cooling Fan??? | Zenteren | 4x4 | 28 | February 23rd 04 03:38 PM |