3.3L V6 - What if I ignore timing chain rattle?

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by newsgroups, Jan 17, 2005.

  1. newsgroups

    newsgroups Guest

    I have a 1990 Dodge Grand Caravan with the 3.3L V6 engine and 130,000
    miles on it. I hear a a rattling noise at idle which goes away as the
    engine speed is increased past the idling speed. Per another thread,
    it was basically decided that it is likely the timing chain.
    My question is what if I ignore it? I know at some future point it
    will break (any thoughts as to how much further down the road?) but
    aside from the rattling noise, is there any reason I can't just ignore
    it? Does the rattling chain damage anything else (timing chain cover?)
    When the chain finally does jump/break, will it damage anything else?
    Is this an interference engine / will the valves be damaged?
    Thanks,
    Eric Kotz
     
    newsgroups, Jan 17, 2005
    #1
  2. newsgroups

    maxpower Guest

    Normally an 1/8 of an inch stretch of a timing chain is considered worn
    out. If the chain is exsessively loose it may cause the cam sprocket teeth
    to break and cause problems. However there are some on here that let there
    customers wait untill the chain breaks before replacing em. I believe in
    preventive maintenance.
    Glenn Beasley
    Chrysler Tech
     
    maxpower, Jan 18, 2005
    #2
  3. newsgroups

    newsgroups Guest

    Well, I know the chain is worn, I guess I'm asking what is the
    potential damage to the engine when it finally does go?
     
    newsgroups, Jan 18, 2005
    #3
  4. newsgroups

    Steve Guest

    Chain-timed engines are almost always interference types. If the chain
    does jump or break, you'll at a minimum bend a few valves, at worst snap
    off a few valve heads and maybe knock a hole in a piston or cylinder head.

    130k is pretty short life for a timing chain assuming both cam and crank
    sprokets are metal (most are nowdays, though back in the 70s a lot of
    engines got nylon cam gears to reduce noise and they generally wore out
    in less than 200,000 miles). But if its rattling, its probably best to
    replace it.
     
    Steve, Jan 18, 2005
    #4
  5. newsgroups

    maxpower Guest

    AACUDA????
     
    maxpower, Jan 18, 2005
    #5
  6. newsgroups

    damnnickname Guest

    Chain or gear breaks. engine damage will occur
     
    damnnickname, Jan 19, 2005
    #6
  7. I've always wished there was some list somewhere for reference as to
    which engines "bend valves" (interference engines).
    You say that "almost all chain-timed engines are interference types."
    I'm curious as to why that would be.
    Are pretty much all belt-timed engines OHC? And if so, how would that
    figure in to whether they're interference engines or not?
     
    James Goforth, Jan 23, 2005
    #7
  8. I can't imagine who told you this, but it must be one of the disreputable
    types in my killfile. It's not so.
     
    Daniel J. Stern, Jan 23, 2005
    #8
  9. The comment about all chain timed engines being interference types was
    from a poster just a few posts before mine.
    And that would be nice if one could automatically know if it was an
    interference engine just by determining if it used a timing chain vs.
    belt.
    I had never heard that either, but it piqued my curiosity in that so
    many OHC engines are belt timed while pushrod engines are chain--two
    distinctly different types of engines. Meanwhile, some engines are
    interference types while certain others are not, but I was never sure
    why that was or what made the difference.
    So anyway this got me wondering if one of the main criteria for
    whether or not an engine is an interference type is whether it's OHC or
    pushrod.
    Given the catastrophic damage an interference engine sustains from a
    failed timing gear, why are these engines not deemed undesireable and
    thus phased out or redesigned (since so many other engines are
    non-interference & provide satisfactory performance)?
     
    James Goforth, Jan 25, 2005
    #9
  10. newsgroups

    Bob Shuman Guest

    Because if all other things are equivalent, interference design engines can
    generally produce higher power output. How many consumers actually know to
    ask the salesperson if the engine is an interference or non-interference
    design? (versus) How many ask about the engine's output in horse power?
    If the consumer actually knew to ask and figured in the timing belt, water
    pump, etc. replacement cost every few years then in my opinion there would
    be much more demand for chain driven, non-interference engines.

    Also, with regard to chains versus timing belts, about all you can really
    say is that chains generally last longer and require less maintenance during
    the engine's useful life. A belt is generally easier to change since it
    does not require complete access to the internals of the engine, but can
    still be very costly since you need to remove all the periphery, covers,
    etc. to gain access

    Bob
     
    Bob Shuman, Jan 25, 2005
    #10
  11. newsgroups

    Steve Guest

    James Goforth wrote:

    No. Many OHC engines ARE interference, and there are a number of pushrod
    types that are not. I was commenting on the fact that *most* of the
    60s-80s chain-timed Mopar pushrod V-type engines are interference
    engines. Interference allows easier optimization of the combustion
    chamber shape, keeping an engine non-interference puts a minimum
    piston-to-open valve clearance constraint that either forces a lower
    compression ratio or requires big valve reliefs in the piston, which can
    affect combustion dynamics such as detonation. Thats why today you see
    more and more interference engines of ALL types (OHC, pushrod,
    belt-timed, and chain-timed) because of the requirements for better and
    better combustion control to meet emissions requirements.
     
    Steve, Jan 25, 2005
    #11
  12. I don't completely buy it, and there are counterexamples. Subaru, for
    instance, reworked their 2.2, 2.5 and 3.0 litre engines in 2000 to make
    them NON-interference.
     
    Daniel J. Stern, Jan 25, 2005
    #12
  13. newsgroups

    Geoff Guest

    Perhaps their warranty costs were eating into whatever benefits they
    realized from the interference design. My understanding is that valve
    reliefs in the pistons provide places for hydrocarbons to "hide" from
    the combustion process, resulting in higher emissions.

    --Geoff
     
    Geoff, Jan 25, 2005
    #13
  14. newsgroups

    Steve Guest

    That's because its a general trend, not an absolute :p

    And Chrysler gave up on keeping the 3.5 non-interference and made it
    interference in '98 (or was it '99?) when they switched it to an
    aluminum block and ooched the compression up again to give it 250
    horsepower instead of 215. Counter-counterexample :p
     
    Steve, Jan 25, 2005
    #14
  15. newsgroups

    Steve Guest

    Geoff wrote:

    I also keep reading that the sharp edges around reliefs can become
    detonation sources. I've also often wondered if valve reliefs are
    always effective. I can imagine them filling up with carbon as an engine
    ages, and then when the belt breaks and the valve suddenly tries to
    occupy a carbon-filled relief that it hasn't occupied in the previous
    100,000 miles, it bends in spite of the relief.
     
    Steve, Jan 25, 2005
    #15
  16. newsgroups

    KWS Guest

    KWS, Feb 4, 2005
    #16
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.