I have yet to hear of a truly non-interference engine. Show me.

Nothing wrong with belts, you just have to maintain them and replace them when you're supposed to. Just like tires or oil, if you don't, you will have problems.

 

I just asked three guys at me dealer they all told me, The tC engine is an interference design.

 

What do you mean by "truly" interference? Ford built plenty of them.

 

What no one has ever mentioned in this thread is how retarted it would sound to name a car the "Scion Timing Chain"

Next, it will be the Saturn "Electronic EGR Valve" , or the "Chevy Oil Pump", or even the "Toyota PCV Valve"

Not making fun of the original poster... it just hit me how funny that sounded.

 

Like?

 

Many of the 2.3L, 1.9L, 2.0L and 3.2L Fords are non-interference. I have personally seen 4 2.3L fords break timing belts running down the highway. Replace the belt and go down the road.

 

So what motors are these? OHC? Years and Models?

 

its 3.3 liters, i own a frontier.

 

The ones mentioned are ohc. I dont have specific year models, but most year models of the ones listed were non-interference if I recall correctly. I know the 1997 escort version of the 2.0 was actually interference, but the rest are non-interference. The 2.3L that was used in the mustang until they went v6 was also non-interference, as were the 2.3s in the ford rangers. As I mentioned before, OHC does not mean interference or non-interference. The same engine in different forms can be one or the other depending on the head design. But a non-interference engine is not exactly a rare thing. Toyota, GM and many other companies I am sure have made both interference and non-interference engines. I believe your car is interference in design. I'm not trying to get into an in depth argument. Just passing along info. But for now I am going outside to have some rum.

 

I know OHC doesn't mean non-interference. What I was asking for was proof of an OHC non-interference engine.

 

The ones I listed are. I am sure there are plenty of others if I looked around. Those are just ones I was more familiar with. Like I said, I have seen the 2.3L break a few times without any damage, all 4 at highway speeds. They tended to break around 5k past the reccomended service interval.. the manufacturer really allowed for some design overhead on that one huh If ford says replace at 50k... do it, they dont leave much room for error!

 

Just as some people thought your Scion engine was non-interference until someone emailed Toyota.

Like I said, not going offtopic or starting an argument, I just haven't found one yet.

 

I dont think these were, I was the one that replace the belts and got them going again (worked at my fathers shop here and there while growing up, so I have encountered many different engines). I also owned an 89 mustang with the 2.3L and completely tore down the motor and rebuilt it. Many of those I listed I remember from either working on or from the service manuals. The speculations about the tC engine were only that, speculation. I have no idea to be honest about the 2az-fe because all I have heard was heresay, which I refrain from repeating. Like I said, it is hardly a rare occurence to find one, they are out there.

 

I broke the belt in a 1986 MR2 4A-GE at 80 mph. The car coasted to stop. I tried to restart it for a moment but figured out pretty quickly when the tach went to zero at speed that the timing belt broke. I bought a belt, tensioner pulley, lower gear, and tensioner spring. I installed them the next day, started the engine and it ran as if nothing had happened. That NEVER happened with an '84 to '86 Escort. Every one of them bent the valves because the pistons hit the valves in the cylinder with open valves. One time it even cracked the exhaust port at the valve guide and leaked coolant. The owner had to buy a new head. I've never had that happen with a belt driven cam on a Toyota.

Oh, engifineer, belts can make more power than chains. No timing scatter because the cams are not being jerked back and forth with every power pulse on the crank. If your distributor is cam driven (as many are) it also reduces ignition timing scatter. Both of these things mean you can make more power with a belt than you can with a chain or gears. It isn't always true, F1 are using chains these days, but I bet it's for a different reasons, and their stuff is pretty bizarre anyway. I can't remember the last time I saw a street engine with a 20k rpm redline.

 

As far as the cams.. there can be a tiny difference in power with the belt... I have not seen huge differences in the numbers. But a chain setup is typically better for a performance engine in every case I have seen. They are more durable and can withstand more punishment over time than a belt. At least with the setups I have seen.

As far as the distributor that is true.. but you wont be finding a distributor in many cars these days Our cars run a fully electronic ignition with a solid state ignition module.

 

Hopefully we won't be seeing cams much longer either. International already has over-the-road trucks running camless engines. It's only a matter of time now until we have ideal cam timing at all loads and rpm.

 

Ok, I'm going with a straight gear to gear (sounds like a supercharger) setup because I'm tired of all this :D

Let it die.

 

yeah, a few of my buddies' mustangs have gear-drives. most acurate timing, I guess.