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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Steve > writes: > >> KirkM wrote: >> >>> The change interval for the timing belt in the owners manual specifies >>> 101,000 miles. I am planning to do it at 95,000. >>> As you indicate, I will have them change the water pump at the same >>> time. I had a 1990 Dodge Spirit with a 2.5L engine. >>> The change interval for the timing belt was specified was for 50,000 >>> miles. >> Which is patently bizarre. If the timing belt on a 1990 2.5 were to >> break, the engine spins harmlessly to a stop with all the pistons >> clearing all the valves. New belt and you're on your way. Conversely, >> if the belt breaks on a 2.4, you're in for new valves (at least) and >> maybe a complete overhaul. 2.5s weren't notorious belt-breakers, >> either. > > Not sure why that makes it bizarre -- I look at those figures and see > that either timing belt materials are improving or Chrysler is getting > less conservative with its change interval. > > The change interval should be set on making sure it's changed before > it breaks, not on how much damage happens if it does break. You may be right, but it would not be unusual or necessarily wrong on there being some influence on the chosen change interval by the severity of the consequences of a timing belt breaking. In fact, as an engineer and engineering manager, I used to be involved in design FMEA's (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) for parts being designed for sale to Delphi (GM). The analysis was a joint or coordinated effort by Delphi and the supplier (Ford/Visteon and Chrysler have the same process as dictated by, at the time, QS9000 - I have no idea what they use now). When a potential failure mode for a given design and manufacturing process of a part was identified, there were three categories that were quantified and multiplied by each other to determine an RPN (Risk Priority Number). One of the categories was (likelihood of "Occurence" ("O"), another was "Severity" (of the effects of the failure) ("S"), and the third was "Detectability" ("D") (of a the failure when it occurred). The number chosen for the two categories for the particular failure went from (IIRC) 1 thru 10. For the likelihood of failure, the higher the number, the greater the likelihood of that failure occurring. For severity, the higher the number, the more severe the effect of such a failure (1 being "not discernable", 9 and 10 being two different degrees of safety and/or government regulation violation). (You can Google "FMEA", and find tutorials and other info. on this kind of stuff - in fact, because I've been away from it for about 7 years, I was a little fuzzy on some of the info. and did just that to refresh my memory when composing this post - yes - I cheated.) The RPN (the product of the 3 numbers) established the priority of tweaking the particular design or process failures until all RPN's were below an acceptable threshold. Also - there were certain over-riding rules. For example, a 9 or 10 in severity was an automatic "MUST FIX" as long as, say, likelihood of occurrence was above 2 or 3 (I forget the exact details, but you get the idea. For example, for any failure in a brake or wiper motor application, as long as the there was some credible likelihood of occurrence (a brake pad triggering a nuclear explosion would not be a credible failure), that particular failure was put in the "Must Fix" category. It is a formalized and expensive process to be undertaken by a technical committee (buzzword: Team) defining the type of thought process we all go thru individually every day - for example - if you're on a family vacation, compare what your actions (both immediately and delayed) might or might not be if a knob fell off the radio on your car vs. if steam started pouring out from under the hood. It goes back to severity of consequences of taking or not taking action. Anyway - I can see such a process resulting in two different change intervals the manufacturer decides to specify on two different engines with timing belts with identical statistical failure periods, the difference being the severity of a timing belt failure depending on if an engine is interference or not. I'm not saying a given manufacturer would *necessarily* specify two different change intervals in the two scenarios where the *only* difference was interference or not interference, but it would not surprise me at all if that were typically the case. I'd be just as surprised if it wasn't the case. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Bill Putney > writes:
> > Anyway - I can see such a process resulting in two different change > intervals the manufacturer decides to specify on two different engines > with timing belts with identical statistical failure periods, the > difference being the severity of a timing belt failure depending on if > an engine is interference or not. I'm not saying a given manufacturer > would *necessarily* specify two different change intervals in the two > scenarios where the *only* difference was interference or not > interference, but it would not surprise me at all if that were > typically the case. I'd be just as surprised if it wasn't the case. Thanks, that's a lot of interesting information. Remember, though, that what Steve was referring to was a case where the interference engine had a much longer change interval than the non-interference. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Bill Putney > writes: >> Anyway - I can see such a process resulting in two different change >> intervals the manufacturer decides to specify on two different engines >> with timing belts with identical statistical failure periods, the >> difference being the severity of a timing belt failure depending on if >> an engine is interference or not. I'm not saying a given manufacturer >> would *necessarily* specify two different change intervals in the two >> scenarios where the *only* difference was interference or not >> interference, but it would not surprise me at all if that were >> typically the case. I'd be just as surprised if it wasn't the case. > > Thanks, that's a lot of interesting information. Remember, though, > that what Steve was referring to was a case where the interference > engine had a much longer change interval than the non-interference. True. I guess it was this that maybe I was responding to: "The change interval should be set on making sure it's changed before it breaks, not on how much damage happens if it does break." That gets back to the severity thing (independent of the examples, unfortunately for the case I was making, that had just been discussed where the situation was reversed). But - yeah - as you said, the change intervals got longer over the years - probably due to the improvements in the belt technology. I don't think it was because the manufacturers were getting more conservative with their numbers, at least not in all cases. If anything, in those days where 50k and 60k were the typical intervals, the manufacturers were possibly stretching things trying to keep the intervals as long as 60k. I remember Subaru had to put out some notices (I guess they were also called TSB's back then) on some late 80's engines (E82 engine I think) to shorten the change interval back to what it had been a couple of years earlier. Don't remember the exact numbers, but it was something like they had extended it to 70 or 80k, and backed them off to 50 or 60k due to some customers belts breaking. Sure wish they'd figure out a way to gear drive the overhead cams, or at least quit driving the water pumps off the timing chain engines like on my 2.7. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Bill Putney > writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> Bill Putney > writes: >>> Anyway - I can see such a process resulting in two different change >>> intervals the manufacturer decides to specify on two different engines >>> with timing belts with identical statistical failure periods, the >>> difference being the severity of a timing belt failure depending on if >>> an engine is interference or not. I'm not saying a given manufacturer >>> would *necessarily* specify two different change intervals in the two >>> scenarios where the *only* difference was interference or not >>> interference, but it would not surprise me at all if that were >>> typically the case. I'd be just as surprised if it wasn't the case. >> >> Thanks, that's a lot of interesting information. Remember, though, >> that what Steve was referring to was a case where the interference >> engine had a much longer change interval than the non-interference. > > True. I guess it was this that maybe I was responding to: "The change > interval should be set on making sure it's changed before it breaks, > not on how much damage happens if it does break." That gets back to > the severity thing (independent of the examples, unfortunately for the > case I was making, that had just been discussed where the situation > was reversed). And I can see why that would be correct -- though in this case, losing a timing belt on even a non-interference engine would frustrate an owner enough that it would be a Really Bad Thing. > But - yeah - as you said, the change intervals got longer over the > years - probably due to the improvements in the belt technology. I > don't think it was because the manufacturers were getting more > conservative with their numbers, at least not in all cases. If > anything, in those days where 50k and 60k were the typical intervals, > the manufacturers were possibly stretching things trying to keep the > intervals as long as 60k. > > I remember Subaru had to put out some notices (I guess they were also > called TSB's back then) on some late 80's engines (E82 engine I think) > to shorten the change interval back to what it had been a couple of > years earlier. Don't remember the exact numbers, but it was something > like they had extended it to 70 or 80k, and backed them off to 50 or > 60k due to some customers belts breaking. > > Sure wish they'd figure out a way to gear drive the overhead cams, or > at least quit driving the water pumps off the timing chain engines > like on my 2.7. Yeah -- the external belt drive water pumps are a lot easier to get at... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Bill Putney > writes: > >> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >>> Bill Putney > writes: >>>> Anyway - I can see such a process resulting in two different change >>>> intervals the manufacturer decides to specify on two different engines >>>> with timing belts with identical statistical failure periods, the >>>> difference being the severity of a timing belt failure depending on if >>>> an engine is interference or not. I'm not saying a given manufacturer >>>> would *necessarily* specify two different change intervals in the two >>>> scenarios where the *only* difference was interference or not >>>> interference, but it would not surprise me at all if that were >>>> typically the case. I'd be just as surprised if it wasn't the case. >>> Thanks, that's a lot of interesting information. Remember, though, >>> that what Steve was referring to was a case where the interference >>> engine had a much longer change interval than the non-interference. >> True. I guess it was this that maybe I was responding to: "The change >> interval should be set on making sure it's changed before it breaks, >> not on how much damage happens if it does break." That gets back to >> the severity thing (independent of the examples, unfortunately for the >> case I was making, that had just been discussed where the situation >> was reversed). > > And I can see why that would be correct -- though in this case, losing > a timing belt on even a non-interference engine would frustrate an > owner enough that it would be a Really Bad Thing. *BUT* - on a scale of 1 to 10 - where would you rank (1) "the vehicle is temporarily disabled until you can pay $300-600 for a repair (including the maintenance that was unwisely deferred)" vs. (2) "needs new (possibly used or junk yard, or serious repair of existing engine) engine or goes to scrap yard because the blue book is less than what the engine repair/replacement costs"? Now - you and I are resourceful and whichever the case, we get by cheaper (and probably avoid the problem in the first place by doing the belt pre-emptively or having a good idea of how far we can delay it without too much risk. But for the typical consumer who knows nothing and is at the mercy of whomever to put things back together (or sell them a new car) for a huge pile of money - that's what you have to look at. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Bill Putney > writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> And I can see why that would be correct -- though in this case, losing >> a timing belt on even a non-interference engine would frustrate an >> owner enough that it would be a Really Bad Thing. > > *BUT* - on a scale of 1 to 10 - where would you rank (1) "the vehicle > is temporarily disabled until you can pay $300-600 for a repair > (including the maintenance that was unwisely deferred)" vs. (2) "needs > new (possibly used or junk yard, or serious repair of existing engine) > engine or goes to scrap yard because the blue book is less than what > the engine repair/replacement costs"? > > Now - you and I are resourceful and whichever the case, we get by > cheaper (and probably avoid the problem in the first place by doing > the belt pre-emptively or having a good idea of how far we can delay > it without too much risk. But for the typical consumer who knows > nothing and is at the mercy of whomever to put things back together > (or sell them a new car) for a huge pile of money - that's what you > have to look at. I think you're agreeing with me here... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Conversely, if
> the belt breaks on a 2.4, you're in for new valves (at least) and maybe a > complete overhaul. 2.5s weren't notorious belt-breakers, either. > Not true. The 2.4l DOHC built for the 4dr. and convertibles will not bend the valves. While the 2.4l SOHC built for the two door coupes will bend the valves. Bryan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Steve > writes: > >> KirkM wrote: >> >>> The change interval for the timing belt in the owners manual specifies >>> 101,000 miles. I am planning to do it at 95,000. >>> As you indicate, I will have them change the water pump at the same >>> time. I had a 1990 Dodge Spirit with a 2.5L engine. >>> The change interval for the timing belt was specified was for 50,000 >>> miles. >> Which is patently bizarre. If the timing belt on a 1990 2.5 were to >> break, the engine spins harmlessly to a stop with all the pistons >> clearing all the valves. New belt and you're on your way. Conversely, >> if the belt breaks on a 2.4, you're in for new valves (at least) and >> maybe a complete overhaul. 2.5s weren't notorious belt-breakers, >> either. > > Not sure why that makes it bizarre -- I look at those figures and see > that either timing belt materials are improving or Chrysler is getting > less conservative with its change interval > > The change interval should be set on making sure it's changed before > it breaks, not on how much damage happens if it does break. Uh.... I only half agree. Yes, the change interval should be set to insure that only a small percentage of belts ever break, BUT the amount of damage that might happen should DEFINITELY skew the change interval shorter for high-risk engines. If I were setting the recommendation and putting the company's warranty at risk, I'd pad a high-risk engine by at least 20,000 miles compared to a free-wheeling engine with the same probability of breaking the belt. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Steve > writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> The change interval should be set on making sure it's changed before >> it breaks, not on how much damage happens if it does break. > > Uh.... I only half agree. Yes, the change interval should be set to > insure that only a small percentage of belts ever break, BUT the > amount of damage that might happen should DEFINITELY skew the change > interval shorter for high-risk engines. If I were setting the > recommendation and putting the company's warranty at risk, I'd pad a > high-risk engine by at least 20,000 miles compared to a free-wheeling > engine with the same probability of breaking the belt. You and Bill both make good points about tying the change interval to the damage done. I guess where I'm coming from is that maintenance intervals don't cost the company money, and anything that might render a vehicle undriveable if it breaks (even if it doesn't cause any actual damage) ought to have a change interval such that the probability of failure is really, really low. Today we expect our cars to be reliable enough that any story that includes "...so there I was, stuck on the side of the road.." is likely to mean one less customer for the company for the rest of that customer's life. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Steve > writes: > >> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >>> The change interval should be set on making sure it's changed before >>> it breaks, not on how much damage happens if it does break. >> Uh.... I only half agree. Yes, the change interval should be set to >> insure that only a small percentage of belts ever break, BUT the >> amount of damage that might happen should DEFINITELY skew the change >> interval shorter for high-risk engines. If I were setting the >> recommendation and putting the company's warranty at risk, I'd pad a >> high-risk engine by at least 20,000 miles compared to a free-wheeling >> engine with the same probability of breaking the belt. > > You and Bill both make good points about tying the change interval to > the damage done. I guess where I'm coming from is that maintenance > intervals don't cost the company money, and anything that might render > a vehicle undriveable if it breaks (even if it doesn't cause any > actual damage) ought to have a change interval such that the > probability of failure is really, really low. Today we expect our > cars to be reliable enough that any story that includes "...so there I > was, stuck on the side of the road.." is likely to mean one less > customer for the company for the rest of that customer's life. We both know what bell curves look like. We both know that there is no such thing as zero percent failures with something like a rubber belt doing the job that timing belts do. When you talk in terms of parts per million, while the bad p.r. from a broken belt takes its toll on customer loyalty, there also is an impact on that loyalty on how often maintenance that costs several hundred dollars and requires alternate transportation is required. Then there's an additional cost (on customer loyalty) of an engine that has to be replaced. All of these, though talked about in fractions of a percent or parts per million, have to be balanced out to compete with other auto makers who could be doing an incrementally better or worse job in choosing those balances. -- 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 |
2004 Sebring Touring Oil Changes... | The Henchman[_2_] | Chrysler | 9 | November 20th 07 10:36 PM |
Diagnostic code P 73 on 2004 sebring | W | Chrysler | 0 | September 21st 06 11:55 PM |
Set Clock 2004 CRV | news | Honda | 1 | December 27th 05 02:07 AM |
2004 Sebring 4 cyl questions | Jeff Falkiner | Chrysler | 5 | June 16th 05 08:44 PM |
Setting the clock in a 2004 Civic stock radio | inhot | Honda | 1 | May 16th 05 03:55 PM |