Honda Car Forum

In the late '60's through the 1980's...Pontiac timing chains on their
326 and 421 engines went through a bad patch. If they were going to
break or skip a tooth or two, usually happened between 45-50K miles.
If they went much beyond then, they usually lasted until the engine
was overhauled or the car junked. I never did hear what was
happening, but always suspected a chain supplier might have had a
quality problem.

The original Audi Fox (1973) and Volkswagen Dasher/Rabbit all shared
the same basic Porsche designed engine. The cam was driven by a
toothed belt. The alternator had its own V-belt. To replace or
tighten the alternator belt, you had to relax both a main support bolt
and a bolt on a brace. You pulled the alternator over on the brace,
using the bolt as a pivit, to get the correct tension and then
retightened the brace bolt. Then the main attachment bolt. Many
mechanics forgot to retighten the bolt and engine vibrations could let
this bolt slowly back out till the bolt head interferred with the
toothed belf running just in front of it. This either broke the belt
or jumped the belt a few cam teeth and stopped the engine. It was a
non-interference engine and the problem easily remedied with a new
belt and properly torqueing down the bolt.

I once had this happen on the way to a house closing in the dark and
in my best suit. I coasted into the parking lot of a Montomery Wards,
ran inside, bought a pair of cheap jeans and a sweat shirt, changed
in the car and with my wife holding the flashlight, I was able to get
the bolt back in and the damaged belt onto the cam with (by a minor
miracle of good luck) hitting the correct timing the first try. We
drove away 30 minutes later and made it to the closing on time. With
me in a sweat shirt and jeans and my wife in a lovely dress. At least
they let me get the oil and dirt off my hands before we started all
the paperwork.

Today, we don't hear of modern belts breaking (or hoses letting go) if
they have been maintained by the book.

Paul

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:24:45 -0500, NoMoreRGS
<NoMoreRGS@SGReroMoN.com> wrote:

>Some stories of timing chain problems indicate they are not perfect
>either. I remember back in the 70's there were stories of a timing
>chains slipping a tooth or two as they stretched a little. They would
>also break but usually only on very high mileage engines (100,000+).
>
>Most of the time back then engines were non-interference so they ran
>terribly if the chain slipped a tooth or just stopped running when the
>chain broke. Both with no internal damage. Obviously the chain and
>sprockets would be changed but sometimes the cover also. I don't
>remember hearing more damage than that though.
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:18:40 -0500, "James" <anonymous> wrote:
>
>>"** Frank **" <noemall@xyz.net> wrote in message:
>>
>>> Probably well over a few million miles but not without major maintenance.
>>>
>>> Hey James, I just took out the original Honda timing belt on the Integra
>>> GSR at 93K miles and it looks brand new, and couldn't tell the difference
>>> from the new replacement belt. Just amazing! Looks like it could go for
>>> another 500K miles. Manual says change at 95K miles and sooner if the car
>>> was driven hard. My friend, the mechanic, said he doesn't bother to change
>>> the belt until its around 150K miles. I don't have that kind of faith, so
>>> every 95K miles it is. If the timing belt breaks, my GSR might as well be
>>> totaled as the engine will self destruct - goodbye pistons, valves, etc. I
>>> hear from other Honda owners that their belt broke at a little over 95K
>>> miles.
>>>
>>> BTW, wife's Volvo timing belt broke at 62K miles, manual said change every
>>> 60K miles. Fortunately the Volvo engine was non-interfering.
>>
>>If what you say (95K) is truly typical, then it's a miracle that I've got
>>275K (as of today) on the original belt. Assuming your mechanic (at 150K) is
>>more realistic, then I still fall in the miracle category. Now that you've
>>offered me some doubt, mine will probably break. ;o)
>>
>>Though I find it interesting that there hasn't been more feedback on this
>>issue. I was hoping too see more people with timing belt stories.
>>
>>Maybe everyone's out doing their xmas shopping...
>>
>>-james
>>
>>

On Dec 17 2007, 9:43*am, "James" <anonymous> wrote:
> "NoMoreRGS" <NoMore...@SGReroMoN.com> wrote in message:
> >>1. Design an interference engine so that it costs the customer more for
> >>repairs. If Dodge can design a non-interference engine, why didn't Honda?
> >>Is
> >>it so hard to machine a piston's top so that it doesn't collide with the
> >>valves?
> > Efficiency and Emissions.
>
> So what you're saying is that those engines that are non-interference are
> not efficient and have greater emmission problems?
>
> I'm not an engineer, but designing for efficiency and emmissions must be
> more important that designing an engine that doesn't self destruct when the
> timing belt breaks. And if timing belts break as often as "motsco_" claims,
> there should be a lot of angry people switching to a non-interference auto
> manufacturer.
>
> Sorry, but I find your statement hard to believe.
>
> >>2. Why use a rubber belt that could break and ruin your engine? Why not
> >>use
> >>a chain? I'll tell you why. Because it costs me more for repairs.
> > The length of loop and quietness are probably the two main reasons
>
> Cars have used chains for years. Even the new Hondas use chains.
>
> >>But that's the name of the game, right?
>
> >>Isn't business all about making money?
> > And building a reliable quality product.
>
> A quality product that gets destroyed when the belt breaks....when they
> could have just used a chain?
>
> Doesn't sound like quality, does it...?
>
> So it's back to the bottom line, $greed$...


I just took the head off my 1991 Honda Civic and there they were nice
groved pistons.
I was told that Honda does not and have not made a non-interferince
engine well BS i got one right here!
My father also told me that he had replace a head gasket on a old CVCC
and it was a non-interferince engine as well.

<jjpylp@gmail.com> wrote in message :

> So it's back to the bottom line, $greed$...

I just took the head off my 1991 Honda Civic and there they were nice
groved pistons.
I was told that Honda does not and have not made a non-interferince
engine well BS i got one right here!
My father also told me that he had replace a head gasket on a old CVCC
and it was a non-interferince engine as well.

Sounds to me like some of the so called Honda experts, aren't. Or they are
lying.

Hmmm... Using scare tactics...???

Well, it worked on me. I finally did have mine replaced.

jjpylp@gmail.com wrote:

> I just took the head off my 1991 Honda Civic and there they were nice
> groved pistons.
> I was told that Honda does not and have not made a non-interferince
> engine well BS i got one right here!
> My father also told me that he had replace a head gasket on a old CVCC
> and it was a non-interferince engine as well.

--------------------

The grooves in the tops of the pistons (that look like the dents your
valves would make) are not proof that you're looking at a
non-interference engine.

They allow some of the valves to still be opening (or closing) while the
piston is at TDC. Keep in mind there are three other strokes, not just
the combustion one.

'Curly'

On Jan 19, 2:19*pm, motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote:
> jjp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I just took the head off my 1991 Honda Civic and there they were nice
> > groved pistons.
> > I was told that Honda does not and have not made a non-interferince
> > engine well BS i got one right here!
> > My father also told me that he had replace a head gasket on a old CVCC
> > and it was a non-interferince engine as well.
>
> --------------------
>
> The grooves in the tops of the pistons (that look like the dents your
> valves would make) are not proof that you're looking at a
> non-interference engine.
>
> They allow some of the valves to still be opening (or closing) while the
> piston is at TDC. Keep in mind there are three other strokes, not just
> the combustion one.
>
> 'Curly'

Ok what else is there to a non-interference engine?
If the valves cant hit how can they get bent or broke?

C I have a 1987 Acura Integra my timing belt broke. I called every
Honda "Mechanic" I could think of they all said get another car that
ones trash and guess what they all had one for sale!! So I bought one
3 weeks later im changing a F@#$% head gasket. Yeah I agree with the
guy that says its all GREED!!! So im just gonna replace the belt and
water pump and finish driving that rusty p.o.s. into the ground!!!!!

Here is a link to a photo of my 1991 Civic engine block. I would never
assume that these groves were made by the valves hitting the pistons.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjpylp/...7603769870713/

jjpylp@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2:19 pm, motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote:
>> jjp...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I just took the head off my 1991 Honda Civic and there they were nice
>>> groved pistons.
>>> I was told that Honda does not and have not made a non-interferince
>>> engine well BS i got one right here!
>>> My father also told me that he had replace a head gasket on a old CVCC
>>> and it was a non-interferince engine as well.
>> --------------------
>>
>> The grooves in the tops of the pistons (that look like the dents your
>> valves would make) are not proof that you're looking at a
>> non-interference engine.
>>
>> They allow some of the valves to still be opening (or closing) while the
>> piston is at TDC. Keep in mind there are three other strokes, not just
>> the combustion one.
>>
>> 'Curly'
>
> Ok what else is there to a non-interference engine?
> If the valves cant hit how can they get bent or broke?

-----------------

I didn't say they can't hit. I only said there's room for the valves to
open or close early / late without hitting the top of the piston. This
should convince you that the timing of the cams is of great importance.
If your timing belt is even a couple teeth out of time, you'll be buying
and installing some new hardware.

'Curly'

On Jan 21, 12:47*pm, motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote:
> jjp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 2:19 pm, motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote:
> >> jjp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> I just took the head off my 1991 Honda Civic and there they were nice
> >>> groved pistons.
> >>> I was told that Honda does not and have not made a non-interferince
> >>> engine well BS i got one right here!
> >>> My father also told me that he had replace a head gasket on a old CVCC
> >>> and it was a non-interferince engine as well.
> >> --------------------
>
> >> The grooves in the tops of the pistons (that look like the dents your
> >> valves would make) are not proof that you're looking at a
> >> non-interference engine.
>
> >> They allow some of the valves to still be opening (or closing) while the
> >> piston is at TDC. Keep in mind there are three other strokes, not just
> >> the combustion one.
>
> >> 'Curly'
>
> > Ok what else is there to a non-interference engine?
> > If the valves cant hit how can they get bent or broke?
>
> -----------------
>
> I didn't say they can't hit. I only said there's room for the valves to
> open or close early / late without hitting the top of the piston. This
> should convince you that the timing of the cams is of great importance.
> If your timing belt is even a couple teeth out of time, you'll be buying
> and installing some new hardware.
>
> 'Curly'- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So is this one (referring to the picture) a interference or non
interference engine. I am confused no I thought that from (what I read
earlier on the post) that the groves made it a non-interference
engine?
If the groves don't make it a non-interference engine what does?

On Jan 21, 12:55*pm, jjp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 21, 12:47*pm, motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jjp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jan 19, 2:19 pm, motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote:
> > >> jjp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> I just took the head off my 1991 Honda Civic and there they were nice
> > >>> groved pistons.
> > >>> I was told that Honda does not and have not made a non-interferince
> > >>> engine well BS i got one right here!
> > >>> My father also told me that he had replace a head gasket on a old CVCC
> > >>> and it was a non-interferince engine as well.
> > >> --------------------
>
> > >> The grooves in the tops of the pistons (that look like the dents your
> > >> valves would make) are not proof that you're looking at a
> > >> non-interference engine.
>
> > >> They allow some of the valves to still be opening (or closing) while the
> > >> piston is at TDC. Keep in mind there are three other strokes, not just
> > >> the combustion one.
>
> > >> 'Curly'
>
> > > Ok what else is there to a non-interference engine?
> > > If the valves cant hit how can they get bent or broke?
>
> > -----------------
>
> > I didn't say they can't hit. I only said there's room for the valves to
> > open or close early / late without hitting the top of the piston. This
> > should convince you that the timing of the cams is of great importance.
> > If your timing belt is even a couple teeth out of time, you'll be buying
> > and installing some new hardware.
>
> > 'Curly'- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So is this one (referring to the picture) a interference or non
> interference engine. I am confused no I thought that from (what I read
> earlier on the post) that the groves made it a non-interference
> engine?
> If the groves don't make it a non-interference engine what does?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not gonna reply 'Curly'? I guess your right James it is $$GREED$$!!