Interference engines

Is there a place I can check or info to look for that will tell me if an engine is interference or not? I'm helping a nephew find a first car, and alot of the ones in his price range need the timing "adjusted" ( per the PO ), or actually say that they need a timing belt. I had been telling him to pass on those, but having a second thought about it, it could be used as a bargining tool. He does not have alot of money right now, or a place to do an engine swap or get machine work done. So cars w/ engine damage are off the list.

Thanks. Will

if it needs a timing belt, but still runs.. Use it as a barganing point and use the money saved to do the belt.

http://www.gates.com/part_locator/index.cfm?location_id=3598&go=Interference

http://www.aa1car.com/library/timing_belts_interference_engines.htm

I usually just google the year, make, model, engine size, and the word "interference". Something always comes up that tells me if it's a interference or non-interference engine.

Not to get into the weeds here, but I've always wondered why car companies sell interference engines fitted with timing belts instead of timing chains. Do they want you to grenade your engine?

if its a fairly common car, you can call autozone or the like and have them look up a timing belt, it will usually tell you if the engine is interference as well.

nderwater wrote: Not to get into the weeds here, but I've always wondered why car companies sell interference engines fitted with timing belts instead of timing chains. Do they want you to grenade your engine?

NVH

Well, I thought that some belt engines were non-interference? For instance, older 1.8L VW engines had belts but were non-interference( I thought they were anyway). And also, most of the google searches I've done have giving conflicting info at best but usually no help at all. i'll check out the above links though.

Thanks.

nderwater wrote: Not to get into the weeds here, but I've always wondered why car companies sell interference engines fitted with timing belts instead of timing chains. Do they want you to grenade your engine?

A timining chain is noisier and costs more than a belt. Also moe flexible in some applications. It's also extoronomics for the dealers' service dept. ..

noise vibration harshness and cost. notice tho most companies are now getting rid of belts. also with the exception of pt cruisers i have never seen a car throw its tbelt before the rec interval... pt cruisers are special tho.

^ And Daewoo's. THe Leganza's were throwing thier OE Gates belts at ~42k miles and bending every intake valve in sight.

nderwater wrote: Not to get into the weeds here, but I've always wondered why car companies sell interference engines fitted with timing belts instead of timing chains. Do they want you to grenade your engine?

I dunno, the only timing device I have ever had fail was a chain. They're not a guarantee, and I didn't know that. So my motor go boom.

triumph5 wrote:

nderwater wrote: Not to get into the weeds here, but I've always wondered why car companies sell interference engines fitted with timing belts instead of timing chains. Do they want you to grenade your engine?

A timining chain is noisier and costs more than a belt. Also moe flexible in some applications. It's also extoronomics for the dealers' service dept. ..

On top of all that they really aren't that much better. See GM Ecotech and Ford 4.0L SOHC engines for example. They eat chains like there's no tomorrow, and they don't even have a recommended service interval. I've much rather have a 60k mile service interval than the false sense of security of a chain that's supposed to last forever, but will probably destroy my engine.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

nderwater wrote: Not to get into the weeds here, but I've always wondered why car companies sell interference engines fitted with timing belts instead of timing chains. Do they want you to grenade your engine?

I dunno, the only timing device I have ever had fail was a chain. They're not a guarantee, and I didn't know that. So my motor go boom.

Ha! you wrote that while I was writing something similar. Was it a GM Ecotech or Explorer 4.0L SOHC engine?

VW 1.8T's were blowing tensioners at 70K on 105K interval belts. Sometimes it not only took out the valves, but damaged the block too.

All things being equal I would rather have a chain than a belt, I have put close to 300k miles on motors with chains without an issue. With that being said when we got married my wife had a 90 Celica GT that had a belt. That motor was noninterference so we just drove it until the belt broke and then repaced it.

oldtin wrote: http://www.aa1car.com/library/timing_belts_interference_engines.htm

I think the last time that list was updated was before the internet even existed.

The 3.4 V6 in my 4runner is belt drven and non-interference.

Otto Maddox wrote:

oldtin wrote: http://www.aa1car.com/library/timing_belts_interference_engines.htm

I think the last time that list was updated was before the internet even existed.

Your probably right - included the gates web tool for more "timely" info

In reply to oldtin:

Yeah, I used that to confirm that my household's daily drivers are both interference.

Bobzilla wrote: ^ And Daewoo's. THe Leganza's were throwing thier OE Gates belts at ~42k miles and bending every intake valve in sight.

ok well seriously its a daewoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok. So the Gates link is a safe tool to use for determining interference vs non-interference?

Use any list with a grain of salt. Most lists say the Zetec is interference. It is not. From experience.

I just looked at that list. It has a bunch of errors. The Escort CVH engines are all non-interference. Again, from experience.

iceracer no they are not....bent valves on a 89 escort gt to prove it. they were close to it but it is possible to hit the valves. afaik the zetec was only interference on the vvt versions.

I prefer timing gears. No chains to stretch, no belts to get oil soaked and fail.