"Goggles Pizzano" (gogglespizzano)
08/25/2015 at 20:44 • Filed to: None | 4 | 12 |
Non-interference engine.
orcim
> Goggles Pizzano
08/26/2015 at 02:14 | 0 |
Good on you. Really.
My timing belt event resulted in a preprogrammed valve seat failure
*deep breath* Non Interference, good. Engine fucking design weakness, bad.
Goggles Pizzano
> orcim
08/26/2015 at 02:31 | 1 |
That really sucks. Really sucks. Something so simple.
Look at this way though. I could be wrong but I think there are far fewer non-interferance engines that interferance (especially today). I managed to get mine in a 25 year old vehicle, that I ride in everyday, with all its shortcomings...
I’ve paid my dues. :-)x
brianbrannon
> orcim
08/26/2015 at 10:47 | 0 |
You not maintaining your timing belt is not a design weakness
orcim
> brianbrannon
08/27/2015 at 00:56 | 0 |
The timing belt has nothing to do with the problem. Look up the 2L Ford Escort engine and cry, my friend. Cyl 4 valve seat failing is an common Epic Event. My belt only had 40K on it, but that didn’t matter for that non-interference engine. It.Didn’t.Care. All it knew what that a timer had gone off, and it was time to fail because higher mileage. That’s a design problem, not a maint. problem.
brianbrannon
> orcim
08/27/2015 at 13:14 | 0 |
Timing belts have a mileage and time component to when they should be replaced. The last Ford Escort was 2003 so minimum age of the belt was 12 years old. Back to your lack of maintenance being the issue
orcim
> brianbrannon
08/28/2015 at 00:29 | 0 |
I *love* your stories. They are *so* entertaining. I already stated it was 40K mile old which is 20K less than spec. since I keep my timing fucking belts up to spec (other things, not so much) and I do it myself.
But you’re talking a fiction that doesn’t apply to me, and I’m gonna let you have it. it doesn’t change the fact that no matter WHEN the timing belt fails, (and about 40% of time it doesn’t matter if the belt fails OR NOT) the 4th cylinder valve seat comes apart and blows the engine.
Because design fail. Not because maintenance (though that helps, for sure.) Get a fucking grip.
brianbrannon
> orcim
08/29/2015 at 14:36 | 0 |
Try reading better. I stated there is a time spec along with a mileage spec. Your belt belt was too old regardless off the mileage. Would you expect a 25 year old timing belt with 5k miles on it to last another 55k? Rubber degrades with age.
orcim
> brianbrannon
08/29/2015 at 16:46 | 0 |
Nope. It was 4 years old.
You seem really bent on the belt thing, and that is a trigger (not the cause) for the design issue I mentioned in the 2L Ford Escort engine. A break in the belt usually precedes the valve seat failure by 4 to 9 months - no one can say why, since it’s a non-interference engine, except that the valve seat comes apart in the 4 cyl even when the timing belt never breaks. Back to my assertion that design is the issue there, not maint. Oh, and this is a common problem for all over 150K engines of this type.
My solution was to acquire a used bottom end and put a new head on it since any still running stock engine, no matter what the maint would have been, would have the same design flaw.
brianbrannon
> orcim
08/31/2015 at 08:13 | 0 |
If the seats fail whether or not the belt fails logic says they aren’t related. And the Escort hasn’t been made since 2004 so unless your story is really old the belt wasn't four years old.
orcim
> brianbrannon
08/31/2015 at 13:32 | 0 |
Listen. You’ve said nothing I don’t disagree with, except for the acknowledgement of what my original comment tried to say (which may have misled you by the way it was worded.) That is, sometimes designs suck. That’s it. Nothing else.
The car is a 97’, I’ve been maintaining it since 2002 and it’s still running. Head, block, tranny, front end, plus myriad little things have all been rebuilt or replaced by me. And the story is only a couple years old.
brianbrannon
> orcim
08/31/2015 at 13:42 | 0 |
I think I just got confused because I assumed your comment was in some way related to the original post.
orcim
> brianbrannon
09/01/2015 at 00:19 | 0 |
Well - it was (I guess.) I *love* non-interference engines. I just added in the design flaw thing.