2000 Concorde LXi Interference Engines

Although I was cautioned about buying one of these, I couldn't pass up the
deal; I now own one with 37,500 mile. The engine oil was black so I changed
it. There's no record of warranty replacements. The original owner for all
but the last year, said the car was in excellent condition and well
maintained. (It was repoed for the last owner). It runs smoothly. The
coolant was down about a cup and the reservoir has a residue in it (not
thick and probably not what would be unusual for a 4 year old car). Anything
in particular I should be concerned about or should look for? Although it's
belt driven, I remember someone saying the belts are pretty good now. Is
there some way to test these things? I see the maintenance manual often
speaks of adjusting tension; something I suppose I'll have to have a dealer
do? Is this tension adjustment procedure expensive? Should I really be
concerned that this is an interference engine? (Why in the hell would these
continue to be made if they're such a risk of major damage? The probability
HAS to be low or the public would be up in arms. No?)

 

What engine do you have? The 3.2 and 3.5L engines are belt-timed, have
an AUTOMATIC tensioner, and (although there are conflicting sources) I
believe they are NON-interference engines. The original (93-98) 3.5
engine was definitely a non-interference design, and the newer
aluminum-block 3.2 and 3.5 are very heavily based on the older iron 3.5.
Check the Gates belt website for info. The 2.7 engine is *chain* timed,
*is* an interference engine, and has a reputation for jumping time and
trashing itself if the chain tensioner snubber loses oil pressure for an
extended period. I don't care for the 2.7L engine at all, personally,
and would avoid it.

<Should I really be

Well, look at it this way: practically EVERY Honda and Toyota on the
market is an interference engine, and people think they're just
wonderful. It leaves me scratching my head too, and yet I've heard Honda
owners continue to brag about how great their car WAS, even after a
broken belt trashed the engine. <shrug>


Aside from that, the Chrysler belt timed v6es are not known to be hard
on their timing belts. You very rarely hear of one breaking, and when
you do its *usually* because the water pump locked up and chewed the
timing belt in half. Furthermore, every time I've heard of this
happening a new belt and water pump was all that was required to get
back on the road. Some engines are much, much harder on timing belts
than others, but the Chrysler v6 seems very well designed in that
regard. In addition, its a *VERY* easy belt to change compared to most
other (transverse engine) front-drive cars). Change it at 80-100k miles,
change the water pump at the same time, and don't worry.

 

Honda's are indeed interference engines. The Toyota's I've owned (4
of them) were/are not.

 

Whoa whoa whoa slow down there buddy lol slow down there some.

Your average citizen wouldn't know how a gasoline engine works much
less what is the difference between 87 and 92 octane at the pump.
None of them except for a select few would know what the heck an
interference engine is.

If you want issues to be resolved you first need public awareness and
most people could care less how their engines are designed so long as
they run and do what they are made to do.

Things like faulty safety equipment attract the spin spin news media
but nothing so technical as the inner workings of interference
engines.

 

Steve - Thanks. That's comforting. I did phone Chrysler this morning and was
told my 3.2 engine is an interference engine.

 

Eastwood - Sorry. My fingers fly when I see dollars potentially traveling
outta' my pocket.

Safety issues aren't at stake here. I no mechanic.... just a consumer who
tries hard to understand what the hell he's getting and what he may be in
for when he makes a major purchase.

This isn't Chrysler's first car and won't be their last. Apparently they
still make interference engines. Obviously, there are some advantages
somewhere. At this point, I'm simply trying to assess the probability of a
failure that would result in a major expense. My understanding is that if a
belt were to break on an non-interference engine, that engine wouldn't end
up with a major expense (the pistons wouldn't hit the valves). But... maybe
the reliability of these belts in 2000 Concorde LXi 3.2 engines is high
enough not to loose sleep over. I'm hopeful that's the case here. Steve
seems to think so.

 

Yes. Remove the belt and bend it so the 2 outside sides are towards each
other, then look carefully at the base of the ridges and in between the
ridges.
Worn belts will show a fine cracking there. When the belts get really awful
you can see this without even removing them.

Of course with belts as cheap as they are it's cheaper to just simply change
the timing belt at the appropriate mileage interval.

By designing the engine as interference the valves can be made larger and
can
be made to open further, thus improving flow. However, the problem can
often
be mitigated by machining divots into the piston top that coorespond with
the edge
of the valve. Of course, this increases the expense of the piston. It's
something
to ask about if you ever have to get the engine rebuilt.

Ted

 

I would be. The change interval is 105K miles, and my experience has been
that Chrysler timing belts in general last longer than the change interval.
We're starting to see the earlier examples of this 3.2L motor getting up
into some high mileage, and there hasn't been a rash of complaints as far as
I'm aware.

If your engine gets noisy pay attention! And if/when you have the
opportunity to check the condition of the belt, do so! I haven't peeked at
my 3.2L's belt yet, but on my other vehicle, a '95 3.0L, it was easy to
remove part of the timing cover and discover that it indeed needed changing.
I'd guess -- but I am *guessing* here -- that checking the condition on a
3.2L certainly wouldn't be any more difficult, if not easier.

--Geoff