interferance engine

brorjace

Hello?

210delray

seelig

BRAKE!

dpwestlake

Usually when sombody uses this term their timing belt broke and did all kinds of terrible things to the engine.

Mr_Shiftright

Having 4 6 or 8 pistons smash into 8, 12, 16 or 32 valves and bend them like nails and perhaps dent the tops of all the pistons is certainly described delicately by the word "interference", isn't it? Like having a football player beheaded on the field and calling an interference penalty...lol!

dpwestlake

Would disemboweling a player on the field be considered a personal foul?

Mr_Shiftright

Not if you are a Green Bay Packer, no.

wlbrown9

Here is a link to Gates rubber explanation (pictures even) and a downloadable "Timing Belt Replacement Guide" which indicates if an engine is interference or non-interference.

http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=981&location_id=540

Okay, you'll have to piece the above link together :-)

swschrad

simple physics dictates that two items cannot occupy the same space at the same point in time. thus, interference engines must never be allowed to get their parts in the same place, or they will fail the course. the part that is critical here is the rubber cog-toothed timing belt, which is surprisingly stout for what it has to do.

however, I have a serious philosophical (and thank goodness not a financial) disagreement with building the engine to such maniacal specifications to get just a little more efficiency out of it. it would not offend me a bit if automakers had a lifetime (that's the owner's lifetime) obligation to instantly correct any and all issues caused by interference engines cheerfully and FREE of any charge or hassle.

and that's the way that it is. no, all but one of the vehicles I have ever owned never even had a cog belt, and I replaced that belt on a '90 ford 2.3L ahead of schedule whether the shop tried to talk me out of it or not, why do you ask?