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

Rant: Designers/crash engine 2.0/2.4



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 9th 04, 01:31 PM
Richard Ehrenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 9th 04, 02:48 PM
Anthony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 9th 04, 02:48 PM
Anthony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 10th 04, 07:09 PM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 10th 04, 07:09 PM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 10th 04, 07:36 PM
JazzMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 10th 04, 07:36 PM
JazzMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 16th 04, 12:22 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 16th 04, 12:22 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 16th 04, 02:35 AM
Richard Ehrenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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
Rotary Engine FAQ 0501 Felix Miata Driving 0 January 1st 05 01:27 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 04:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.