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
  #11  
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

> >
> >

>
>



Ads
  #12  
Old October 16th 04, 11:25 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Ehrenberg wrote:

> 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!



True, but for those with a Clue, a conventional V-belt WP drive is just
fine, and also useful if you are aware there's a problem but don't want
to/can't afford to deal with it quite yet (I don't have a problem
driving a vehicle a few hundred miles with a noisy water pump when it's
V-belt driven, but it's too scary for words when it's T-belt driven)

>
> 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?


Not sure; I know my Porsche is like that. But I don't see the big deal,
if the oil pump seizes up on an older car it will take out the
distributor drive, so no worries about that, eh? There is an advantage
for vehicles with long camshafts though, probably makes for more stable
ignition and valve timing.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #13  
Old October 16th 04, 11:25 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Ehrenberg wrote:

> 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!



True, but for those with a Clue, a conventional V-belt WP drive is just
fine, and also useful if you are aware there's a problem but don't want
to/can't afford to deal with it quite yet (I don't have a problem
driving a vehicle a few hundred miles with a noisy water pump when it's
V-belt driven, but it's too scary for words when it's T-belt driven)

>
> 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?


Not sure; I know my Porsche is like that. But I don't see the big deal,
if the oil pump seizes up on an older car it will take out the
distributor drive, so no worries about that, eh? There is an advantage
for vehicles with long camshafts though, probably makes for more stable
ignition and valve timing.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #14  
Old October 18th 04, 08:37 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Ehrenberg wrote:
> 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!


Yeah, but I'd rather see the idiots get what they deserve :-p

>
> 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?
>


The Chrysler v6's since the 3.5 all drive the oil pump off the crank-
the rotor rides on the crank itself. The stoopid thing they did is make
the front face of the block a "wear item." The rotor rides on the block
face, and if it wears to the point that the clearances open up and it
can't hold minimum oil pressure at idle even with a new rotor, guess
what? The cure is to replace the engine block :-/

Fortunately, that hasn't happened to my 3.5 in 215,000 miles, so I guess
its pretty far down on the gripe list. But still, my gut reacts the
wrong way to that sort of thing just on principle.
  #15  
Old October 18th 04, 08:37 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Ehrenberg wrote:
> 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!


Yeah, but I'd rather see the idiots get what they deserve :-p

>
> 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?
>


The Chrysler v6's since the 3.5 all drive the oil pump off the crank-
the rotor rides on the crank itself. The stoopid thing they did is make
the front face of the block a "wear item." The rotor rides on the block
face, and if it wears to the point that the clearances open up and it
can't hold minimum oil pressure at idle even with a new rotor, guess
what? The cure is to replace the engine block :-/

Fortunately, that hasn't happened to my 3.5 in 215,000 miles, so I guess
its pretty far down on the gripe list. But still, my gut reacts the
wrong way to that sort of thing just on principle.
  #16  
Old October 19th 04, 03:32 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tegger®" > wrote in message
.. .
> Nate Nagel > sprach im
> :
>
> > Richard Ehrenberg wrote:
> >
> >> 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!

> >
> >
> > True, but for those with a Clue, a conventional V-belt WP drive is
> > just fine, and also useful if you are aware there's a problem but
> > don't want to/can't afford to deal with it quite yet (I don't have a
> > problem driving a vehicle a few hundred miles with a noisy water pump
> > when it's V-belt driven, but it's too scary for words when it's T-belt
> > driven)

>
>
>
> Only if the engine is interference, like my Honda, or, I'm sure, your
> Porsche.
>
> If the engine is like almost all Toyotas, there will be no damage. The car
> just stops, at which point you haul out your cell phone and call the tow
> truck.
>
>
>

Hence the title of this thread. I guess you don't realize what this thread
is about in its current configuration! LOL.


  #17  
Old October 19th 04, 03:32 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tegger®" > wrote in message
.. .
> Nate Nagel > sprach im
> :
>
> > Richard Ehrenberg wrote:
> >
> >> 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!

> >
> >
> > True, but for those with a Clue, a conventional V-belt WP drive is
> > just fine, and also useful if you are aware there's a problem but
> > don't want to/can't afford to deal with it quite yet (I don't have a
> > problem driving a vehicle a few hundred miles with a noisy water pump
> > when it's V-belt driven, but it's too scary for words when it's T-belt
> > driven)

>
>
>
> Only if the engine is interference, like my Honda, or, I'm sure, your
> Porsche.
>
> If the engine is like almost all Toyotas, there will be no damage. The car
> just stops, at which point you haul out your cell phone and call the tow
> truck.
>
>
>

Hence the title of this thread. I guess you don't realize what this thread
is about in its current configuration! LOL.


 




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 09:32 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.