2004 sebring 2.4l 16 v engine 118000 kms on clock

Discussion in 'Sebring' started by aquatame, Nov 13, 2008.

  1. aquatame

    aquatame Guest

    I have recently bought a 2004 Sebring with the 2.4L 16 V engine.
    I really like the car but have noticed a ticking noise which is worse
    when the car is warmed up. I am quite sure it is a cam follower.
    The car has been dealer serviced and the oil has been changed every
    5000 kms.... Oil is still a golden colour.
    Last oil change done by canadian tyre......
    The previous owner had it since new and has all the reciepts.....
    Is there much chance that canadian tyre could have used the wrong
    viscosity oil which is causing the noise?
    Are these engines prone to this problem?
    Would this be an expensive thing to replace?
    Could i do it if i get a manual?
    I would really appreciate any advice.

    Thanks
    Jon
     
    aquatame, Nov 13, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. aquatame

    Bill Putney Guest

    Don't know if this relates to your car or not, but receipts don't prove
    anything regarding oil/filter changes. It is not uncommon at all for
    consumers to be charges for such services and the work not done - and
    that includes from dealers. I have personally witnessed this with oil
    and filter changes more than once (these places rely on the consumer
    being ignorant or just not checking behind them), as well as videos
    being available from sting/exposé operations proving same. Again - not
    saying that is the case for yours, but it wouldn't at all be unusual.

    You might do a cleanout using Marvel Mystery Oil. Put 8 ozs. in with an
    oil change, and repeat forever for a gradual controlled cleanout and
    future preventative. Change the oil and filter again at 1500 miles the
    first time after you add the MMO. The noise could be from a lifter with
    a piece of dirt in it that might purge itself out with some cleaning

    Also consider that accessory belts and their idler/tensioner pulleys can
    mimic valve train noises - the pulley bearings do wear out and should be
    replaced periodically (I do mine every other belt change).

    How many miles on the engine? The timing belt is due for change at 60k
    miles, and the engine is interference, meaning that if it breaks, there
    will be very expensive engine damage. Water pump is timing belt driven
    and should be replaced at the same time. It is possible that the timing
    belt or its tensioner are making noise too.

    Find out if there are any Technical Service Bulletins (TSB's) on it for
    valve train noise/issues.
     
    Bill Putney, Nov 13, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. aquatame

    KirkM Guest

    The 2.4L in my Stratus just reached 90,000 miles. I am planning on a
    timing belt change at 95,000.

    Since the OP has a 2004, it would have the newer "wind up" timing belt
    tensioner. Other than a timing belt change, I can't think of anything
    else this engine would need.

    -KM
     
    KirkM, Nov 13, 2008
    #3
  4. aquatame

    aquatame Guest

    thanks for the advice Bill.
    Where would one go to find the TSB"S?
    the engine has 118000 kms which is around 70,000 miles I think
     
    aquatame, Nov 13, 2008
    #4
  5. aquatame

    Bill Putney Guest

    Some reason you are ignoring the recommended 60k mile change interval
    given in the Gates book (I assume it is the correct info.)? You do
    realize what happens if the belt craps out? Perhaps yours is a
    California car, which has a 100k interval?
    The part that goes bad on tensioners regardless of how they are adjusted
    are the bearings for the tensioner pulley. I can't tell if you are or
    are not planning on replacing that with the belt, but you definitely
    should. Also - the water pump is driven by the timing belt (again, if
    the Gates Timing Belt Guide is correct). It would be wrong not to also
    replace the water pump when you replace the belt, particularly at close
    to 100k miles since you will already be in there. Again, the
    consequences of the water pump going out (say, locking up) would be
    expensive, as people have often found out on cars with the water pump
    stupidly driven by the t-belt (or chain, as in the 2.7L Chrysler engine).
     
    Bill Putney, Nov 13, 2008
    #5
  6. aquatame

    Some O Guest

    The last place I'd get an oil change is Canadian Tire (CTC).

    Also I recommend a higher grade of oil, such as Castrol GTX.
    What oil type was the dealer using, synthetic?
     
    Some O, Nov 14, 2008
    #6
  7. aquatame

    KirkM Guest

    The change interval for the timing belt in the owners manual specifies
    101,000 miles. I am planning to do it at 95,000.
    As you indicate, I will have them change the water pump at the same
    time. I had a 1990 Dodge Spirit with a 2.5L engine.
    The change interval for the timing belt was specified was for 50,000
    miles.

    When my 2.4 had 53,000 miles, I had to have headgasket changed. It was
    a common problem for early 2.4's. I asked the
    shop if it would make sense to go ahead and change the timing belt.
    They assured me that it was still in good condition, and
    would most likely make it to the recommended 101,000 change interval.

    Is my owner's manual incorrect?

    Thanks,

    KM
     
    KirkM, Nov 14, 2008
    #7
  8. aquatame

    Bill Putney Guest

    I'm sure your owner's manual is correct. The Gates manual shows 90k,
    100k, and 105k for the Stratus 2.4 depending on year, and you don't say
    what year.

    For the OP's engine, I had looked at the wrong engine in the Gates
    guide. The OP's change interval is 90,000 miles according to Gates.
     
    Bill Putney, Nov 14, 2008
    #8
  9. aquatame

    Steve Guest

    Which is patently bizarre. If the timing belt on a 1990 2.5 were to
    break, the engine spins harmlessly to a stop with all the pistons
    clearing all the valves. New belt and you're on your way. Conversely, if
    the belt breaks on a 2.4, you're in for new valves (at least) and maybe
    a complete overhaul. 2.5s weren't notorious belt-breakers, either.
     
    Steve, Nov 14, 2008
    #9
  10. aquatame

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    Not sure why that makes it bizarre -- I look at those figures and see
    that either timing belt materials are improving or Chrysler is getting
    less conservative with its change interval.

    The change interval should be set on making sure it's changed before
    it breaks, not on how much damage happens if it does break.
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Nov 14, 2008
    #10
  11. aquatame

    Bill Putney Guest

    You may be right, but it would not be unusual or necessarily wrong on
    there being some influence on the chosen change interval by the severity
    of the consequences of a timing belt breaking.

    In fact, as an engineer and engineering manager, I used to be involved
    in design FMEA's (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) for parts being
    designed for sale to Delphi (GM). The analysis was a joint or
    coordinated effort by Delphi and the supplier (Ford/Visteon and Chrysler
    have the same process as dictated by, at the time, QS9000 - I have no
    idea what they use now).

    When a potential failure mode for a given design and manufacturing
    process of a part was identified, there were three categories that were
    quantified and multiplied by each other to determine an RPN (Risk
    Priority Number). One of the categories was (likelihood of "Occurence"
    ("O"), another was "Severity" (of the effects of the failure) ("S"), and
    the third was "Detectability" ("D") (of a the failure when it occurred).

    The number chosen for the two categories for the particular failure went
    from (IIRC) 1 thru 10. For the likelihood of failure, the higher the
    number, the greater the likelihood of that failure occurring. For
    severity, the higher the number, the more severe the effect of such a
    failure (1 being "not discernable", 9 and 10 being two different degrees
    of safety and/or government regulation violation). (You can Google
    "FMEA", and find tutorials and other info. on this kind of stuff - in
    fact, because I've been away from it for about 7 years, I was a little
    fuzzy on some of the info. and did just that to refresh my memory when
    composing this post - yes - I cheated.)

    The RPN (the product of the 3 numbers) established the priority of
    tweaking the particular design or process failures until all RPN's were
    below an acceptable threshold. Also - there were certain over-riding
    rules. For example, a 9 or 10 in severity was an automatic "MUST FIX"
    as long as, say, likelihood of occurrence was above 2 or 3 (I forget the
    exact details, but you get the idea. For example, for any failure in a
    brake or wiper motor application, as long as the there was some credible
    likelihood of occurrence (a brake pad triggering a nuclear explosion
    would not be a credible failure), that particular failure was put in the
    "Must Fix" category.

    It is a formalized and expensive process to be undertaken by a technical
    committee (buzzword: Team) defining the type of thought process we all
    go thru individually every day - for example - if you're on a family
    vacation, compare what your actions (both immediately and delayed) might
    or might not be if a knob fell off the radio on your car vs. if steam
    started pouring out from under the hood. It goes back to severity of
    consequences of taking or not taking action.

    Anyway - I can see such a process resulting in two different change
    intervals the manufacturer decides to specify on two different engines
    with timing belts with identical statistical failure periods, the
    difference being the severity of a timing belt failure depending on if
    an engine is interference or not. I'm not saying a given manufacturer
    would *necessarily* specify two different change intervals in the two
    scenarios where the *only* difference was interference or not
    interference, but it would not surprise me at all if that were typically
    the case. I'd be just as surprised if it wasn't the case.
     
    Bill Putney, Nov 14, 2008
    #11
  12. aquatame

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    Thanks, that's a lot of interesting information. Remember, though,
    that what Steve was referring to was a case where the interference
    engine had a much longer change interval than the non-interference.
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Nov 15, 2008
    #12
  13. aquatame

    Bill Putney Guest

    True. I guess it was this that maybe I was responding to: "The change
    interval should be set on making sure it's changed before it breaks, not
    on how much damage happens if it does break." That gets back to the
    severity thing (independent of the examples, unfortunately for the case
    I was making, that had just been discussed where the situation was
    reversed).

    But - yeah - as you said, the change intervals got longer over the years
    - probably due to the improvements in the belt technology. I don't
    think it was because the manufacturers were getting more conservative
    with their numbers, at least not in all cases. If anything, in those
    days where 50k and 60k were the typical intervals, the manufacturers
    were possibly stretching things trying to keep the intervals as long as 60k.

    I remember Subaru had to put out some notices (I guess they were also
    called TSB's back then) on some late 80's engines (E82 engine I think)
    to shorten the change interval back to what it had been a couple of
    years earlier. Don't remember the exact numbers, but it was something
    like they had extended it to 70 or 80k, and backed them off to 50 or 60k
    due to some customers belts breaking.

    Sure wish they'd figure out a way to gear drive the overhead cams, or at
    least quit driving the water pumps off the timing chain engines like on
    my 2.7.
     
    Bill Putney, Nov 15, 2008
    #13
  14. aquatame

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    And I can see why that would be correct -- though in this case, losing
    a timing belt on even a non-interference engine would frustrate an
    owner enough that it would be a Really Bad Thing.
    Yeah -- the external belt drive water pumps are a lot easier to get
    at...
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Nov 15, 2008
    #14
  15. aquatame

    Bill Putney Guest

    *BUT* - on a scale of 1 to 10 - where would you rank (1) "the vehicle is
    temporarily disabled until you can pay $300-600 for a repair (including
    the maintenance that was unwisely deferred)" vs. (2) "needs new
    (possibly used or junk yard, or serious repair of existing engine)
    engine or goes to scrap yard because the blue book is less than what the
    engine repair/replacement costs"?

    Now - you and I are resourceful and whichever the case, we get by
    cheaper (and probably avoid the problem in the first place by doing the
    belt pre-emptively or having a good idea of how far we can delay it
    without too much risk. But for the typical consumer who knows nothing
    and is at the mercy of whomever to put things back together (or sell
    them a new car) for a huge pile of money - that's what you have to look at.
     
    Bill Putney, Nov 15, 2008
    #15
  16. aquatame

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    I think you're agreeing with me here...
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Nov 16, 2008
    #16
  17. aquatame

    Bryan Guest

    Conversely, if
    Not true. The 2.4l DOHC built for the 4dr. and convertibles will not bend
    the valves. While the 2.4l SOHC built for the two door coupes will bend the
    valves.

    Bryan
     
    Bryan, Nov 16, 2008
    #17
  18. aquatame

    Steve Guest

    Uh.... I only half agree. Yes, the change interval should be set to
    insure that only a small percentage of belts ever break, BUT the amount
    of damage that might happen should DEFINITELY skew the change interval
    shorter for high-risk engines. If I were setting the recommendation and
    putting the company's warranty at risk, I'd pad a high-risk engine by at
    least 20,000 miles compared to a free-wheeling engine with the same
    probability of breaking the belt.
     
    Steve, Nov 18, 2008
    #18
  19. aquatame

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    You and Bill both make good points about tying the change interval to
    the damage done. I guess where I'm coming from is that maintenance
    intervals don't cost the company money, and anything that might render
    a vehicle undriveable if it breaks (even if it doesn't cause any
    actual damage) ought to have a change interval such that the
    probability of failure is really, really low. Today we expect our
    cars to be reliable enough that any story that includes "...so there I
    was, stuck on the side of the road.." is likely to mean one less
    customer for the company for the rest of that customer's life.
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Nov 18, 2008
    #19
  20. aquatame

    Bill Putney Guest

    We both know what bell curves look like. We both know that there is no
    such thing as zero percent failures with something like a rubber belt
    doing the job that timing belts do. When you talk in terms of parts per
    million, while the bad p.r. from a broken belt takes its toll on
    customer loyalty, there also is an impact on that loyalty on how often
    maintenance that costs several hundred dollars and requires alternate
    transportation is required. Then there's an additional cost (on
    customer loyalty) of an engine that has to be replaced. All of these,
    though talked about in fractions of a percent or parts per million, have
    to be balanced out to compete with other auto makers who could be doing
    an incrementally better or worse job in choosing those balances.
     
    Bill Putney, Nov 18, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.