Timing Belt - Reviving Old Thread

"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
>regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had three
>Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after thinking
>about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As I
>recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
>(stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result). Anyhow, I
>learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
>jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>[/color][/color][/color]

Ok jor, thanks...I'm assumeing that they recommended changing
them at 60K by the way you worded that...I would guess that they
knew what to recommend. right?... :) Cheers.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Yea. The manual clearly states that the timing belt must be changed at 60K.
I'm thinking that I was really lucky the first time. When I was trying to
diagnose the problem on the side of the road I pulled a plug and turned the
engine over for awhile. There wasn't any compression so I figured it was
probably the belt. Had to tow the damn thing with my old pickup a 100 miles
or so to Minot, North Dakota in the middle of the winter but that's another
story...
jor

"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:9p5o115j9f5p2gn4b3abtd95clcahbg7ls@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
>>regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had three
>>Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after thinking
>>about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As I
>>recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
>>(stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result). Anyhow,
>>I
>>learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
>>jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=darkred]
>>>>>>[/color][/color]
>
> Ok jor, thanks...I'm assumeing that they recommended changing
> them at 60K by the way you worded that...I would guess that they
> knew what to recommend. right?... :) Cheers.
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)[/color]

"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Yea. The manual clearly states that the timing belt must be changed at 60K.
>I'm thinking that I was really lucky the first time. When I was trying to
>diagnose the problem on the side of the road I pulled a plug and turned the
>engine over for awhile. There wasn't any compression so I figured it was
>probably the belt. Had to tow the damn thing with my old pickup a 100 miles
>or so to Minot, North Dakota in the middle of the winter but that's another
>story...
>jor
>[/color]

Fun...
I had a 51 Chev in the mid fifties while I was in the RCAF, it
left me on the roadside once...

Long story short, the overhead camshaft on that car was driven at
the front by a fibre gear meshing with other gears down the front
portion of the engine (inside of course). This fibre gear had
split and you get the same effect as a broken timing chain. No
damage otherwise (except to my skinny wallet) :)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Well, the reason that you didn't have major engine damage is because Toyota,
unlike Honda, doesn't manufacture interference fit engines! This however,
is also why Honda is able to squeeze a small amount of additional horsepower
from their engines!

OldGuy

--

"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote in message
news:s5ydnYkDmonzS4bfRVn-sQ@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
> regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had three
> Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after thinking
> about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As I
> recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
> (stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result). Anyhow,[/color]
I[color=blue]
> learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
> jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>[/color][/color]
> Yes jor, you certainly -were- lucky with your Camrys...that can
> really do a lot of engine damage, just imagine pistons smashing
> into open valves trying to ram them toward closed!
>
> The gentlemen who hang around here sometimes aren't, so you need
> a thick skin..(Hint: Top posting sometimes riles them too). :)
>
> You're lucky that SWMBO was at the wheel!...
>
> Be interesting to see at what mileage they broke...you remember?
>
>[/color]

"Jim Simonin" <jsimonin@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:421cbf99@nntp.zianet.com...[color=blue]
> Well, the reason that you didn't have major engine damage is because
> Toyota,
> unlike Honda, doesn't manufacture interference fit engines! This however,
> is also why Honda is able to squeeze a small amount of additional
> horsepower
> from their engines!
>
> OldGuy
>[/color]

Toyota does make interference engines. The OP's car was not an interference
fit.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

"Jim Simonin" <jsimonin@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:421cbf99@nntp.zianet.com...[color=blue]
> Well, the reason that you didn't have major engine damage is because[/color]
Toyota,[color=blue]
> unlike Honda, doesn't manufacture interference fit engines! This however,
> is also why Honda is able to squeeze a small amount of additional[/color]
horsepower[color=blue]
> from their engines!
>
> OldGuy[/color]

All Hondas ARE interference, most Toyotas with DOHCs aren't. However, a good
deal of the SOHCs ARE interference. I know the 3A-C used in the Tercels from
the 80's are.

Most of the recent engines (all, I should say) are not interference, and
Toyota has gone back to chains on some of their engines (thank God!)
[color=blue]
>
> --
>
> "jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote in message
> news:s5ydnYkDmonzS4bfRVn-sQ@giganews.com...[color=green]
> > I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
> > regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had[/color][/color]
three[color=blue][color=green]
> > Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after[/color][/color]
thinking[color=blue][color=green]
> > about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As[/color][/color]
I[color=blue][color=green]
> > recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
> > (stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result).[/color][/color]
Anyhow,[color=blue]
> I[color=green]
> > learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
> > jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=darkred]
> > >>>>[/color]
> > Yes jor, you certainly -were- lucky with your Camrys...that can
> > really do a lot of engine damage, just imagine pistons smashing
> > into open valves trying to ram them toward closed!
> >
> > The gentlemen who hang around here sometimes aren't, so you need
> > a thick skin..(Hint: Top posting sometimes riles them too). :)
> >
> > You're lucky that SWMBO was at the wheel!...
> >
> > Be interesting to see at what mileage they broke...you remember?
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:55:05 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
>"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Yea. The manual clearly states that the timing belt must be changed at 60K.
>>I'm thinking that I was really lucky the first time. When I was trying to
>>diagnose the problem on the side of the road I pulled a plug and turned the
>>engine over for awhile. There wasn't any compression so I figured it was
>>probably the belt. Had to tow the damn thing with my old pickup a 100 miles
>>or so to Minot, North Dakota in the middle of the winter but that's another
>>story...[/color]
>
>Fun...
>I had a 51 Chev in the mid fifties while I was in the RCAF, it
>left me on the roadside once...
>
>Long story short, the overhead camshaft on that car was driven at
>the front by a fibre gear meshing with other gears down the front
>portion of the engine (inside of course). This fibre gear had
>split and you get the same effect as a broken timing chain. No
>damage otherwise (except to my skinny wallet) :)[/color]

They used the molded phenolic fibre cam gear because it was quiet.
So what if it also made the car rather unreliable after 30K or 50K
miles? Detroit didn't care - They wanted you to trade the car in for
a new one every year or two, three at the outside.

That's why they would do a subtle restyle of bumpers, grilles and
taillights every year, and a radical restyle of every model every
three or four - so the neighbors could tell you still had an OLD car.

It took Toyota and Datsun to give Detroit a big wake-up call to make
their cars work better and last longer, or they would soon go the way
of REO Speedwagon and Packard.

--<< Bruce >>--
--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had three
Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after thinking
about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As I
recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
(stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result). Anyhow, I
learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>[/color][/color][/color]
Yes jor, you certainly -were- lucky with your Camrys...that can
really do a lot of engine damage, just imagine pistons smashing
into open valves trying to ram them toward closed!

The gentlemen who hang around here sometimes aren't, so you need
a thick skin..(Hint: Top posting sometimes riles them too). :)

You're lucky that SWMBO was at the wheel!...

Be interesting to see at what mileage they broke...you remember?

"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
>regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had three
>Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after thinking
>about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As I
>recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
>(stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result). Anyhow, I
>learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
>jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>[/color][/color][/color]

Ok jor, thanks...I'm assumeing that they recommended changing
them at 60K by the way you worded that...I would guess that they
knew what to recommend. right?... :) Cheers.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Yea. The manual clearly states that the timing belt must be changed at 60K.
I'm thinking that I was really lucky the first time. When I was trying to
diagnose the problem on the side of the road I pulled a plug and turned the
engine over for awhile. There wasn't any compression so I figured it was
probably the belt. Had to tow the damn thing with my old pickup a 100 miles
or so to Minot, North Dakota in the middle of the winter but that's another
story...
jor

"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:9p5o115j9f5p2gn4b3abtd95clcahbg7ls@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
>>regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had three
>>Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after thinking
>>about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As I
>>recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
>>(stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result). Anyhow,
>>I
>>learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
>>jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=darkred]
>>>>>>[/color][/color]
>
> Ok jor, thanks...I'm assumeing that they recommended changing
> them at 60K by the way you worded that...I would guess that they
> knew what to recommend. right?... :) Cheers.
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)[/color]

"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Yea. The manual clearly states that the timing belt must be changed at 60K.
>I'm thinking that I was really lucky the first time. When I was trying to
>diagnose the problem on the side of the road I pulled a plug and turned the
>engine over for awhile. There wasn't any compression so I figured it was
>probably the belt. Had to tow the damn thing with my old pickup a 100 miles
>or so to Minot, North Dakota in the middle of the winter but that's another
>story...
>jor
>[/color]

Fun...
I had a 51 Chev in the mid fifties while I was in the RCAF, it
left me on the roadside once...

Long story short, the overhead camshaft on that car was driven at
the front by a fibre gear meshing with other gears down the front
portion of the engine (inside of course). This fibre gear had
split and you get the same effect as a broken timing chain. No
damage otherwise (except to my skinny wallet) :)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Well, the reason that you didn't have major engine damage is because Toyota,
unlike Honda, doesn't manufacture interference fit engines! This however,
is also why Honda is able to squeeze a small amount of additional horsepower
from their engines!

OldGuy

--

"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote in message
news:s5ydnYkDmonzS4bfRVn-sQ@giganews.com...[color=blue]
> I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
> regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had three
> Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after thinking
> about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As I
> recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
> (stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result). Anyhow,[/color]
I[color=blue]
> learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
> jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>[/color][/color]
> Yes jor, you certainly -were- lucky with your Camrys...that can
> really do a lot of engine damage, just imagine pistons smashing
> into open valves trying to ram them toward closed!
>
> The gentlemen who hang around here sometimes aren't, so you need
> a thick skin..(Hint: Top posting sometimes riles them too). :)
>
> You're lucky that SWMBO was at the wheel!...
>
> Be interesting to see at what mileage they broke...you remember?
>
>[/color]

"Jim Simonin" <jsimonin@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:421cbf99@nntp.zianet.com...[color=blue]
> Well, the reason that you didn't have major engine damage is because
> Toyota,
> unlike Honda, doesn't manufacture interference fit engines! This however,
> is also why Honda is able to squeeze a small amount of additional
> horsepower
> from their engines!
>
> OldGuy
>[/color]

Toyota does make interference engines. The OP's car was not an interference
fit.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

"Jim Simonin" <jsimonin@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:421cbf99@nntp.zianet.com...[color=blue]
> Well, the reason that you didn't have major engine damage is because[/color]
Toyota,[color=blue]
> unlike Honda, doesn't manufacture interference fit engines! This however,
> is also why Honda is able to squeeze a small amount of additional[/color]
horsepower[color=blue]
> from their engines!
>
> OldGuy[/color]

All Hondas ARE interference, most Toyotas with DOHCs aren't. However, a good
deal of the SOHCs ARE interference. I know the 3A-C used in the Tercels from
the 80's are.

Most of the recent engines (all, I should say) are not interference, and
Toyota has gone back to chains on some of their engines (thank God!)
[color=blue]
>
> --
>
> "jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote in message
> news:s5ydnYkDmonzS4bfRVn-sQ@giganews.com...[color=green]
> > I had forgotten about this post and wanted to answer Gordon's question
> > regarding the mileage at which my timing belts went south. I've had[/color][/color]
three[color=blue][color=green]
> > Camrys (83, 89 and 02). I bought the first two new. Anyhow, after[/color][/color]
thinking[color=blue][color=green]
> > about it I realized that both times timing belt broke were on the 83. As[/color][/color]
I[color=blue][color=green]
> > recall, it was only several thousand miles beyond 60K and 120K
> > (stupid=repeating the same mistake expecting a different result).[/color][/color]
Anyhow,[color=blue]
> I[color=green]
> > learned my lesson (it just takes longer with some of us).
> > jor (unrepentant top poster)[color=darkred]
> > >>>>[/color]
> > Yes jor, you certainly -were- lucky with your Camrys...that can
> > really do a lot of engine damage, just imagine pistons smashing
> > into open valves trying to ram them toward closed!
> >
> > The gentlemen who hang around here sometimes aren't, so you need
> > a thick skin..(Hint: Top posting sometimes riles them too). :)
> >
> > You're lucky that SWMBO was at the wheel!...
> >
> > Be interesting to see at what mileage they broke...you remember?
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:55:05 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
>"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Yea. The manual clearly states that the timing belt must be changed at 60K.
>>I'm thinking that I was really lucky the first time. When I was trying to
>>diagnose the problem on the side of the road I pulled a plug and turned the
>>engine over for awhile. There wasn't any compression so I figured it was
>>probably the belt. Had to tow the damn thing with my old pickup a 100 miles
>>or so to Minot, North Dakota in the middle of the winter but that's another
>>story...[/color]
>
>Fun...
>I had a 51 Chev in the mid fifties while I was in the RCAF, it
>left me on the roadside once...
>
>Long story short, the overhead camshaft on that car was driven at
>the front by a fibre gear meshing with other gears down the front
>portion of the engine (inside of course). This fibre gear had
>split and you get the same effect as a broken timing chain. No
>damage otherwise (except to my skinny wallet) :)[/color]

They used the molded phenolic fibre cam gear because it was quiet.
So what if it also made the car rather unreliable after 30K or 50K
miles? Detroit didn't care - They wanted you to trade the car in for
a new one every year or two, three at the outside.

That's why they would do a subtle restyle of bumpers, grilles and
taillights every year, and a radical restyle of every model every
three or four - so the neighbors could tell you still had an OLD car.

It took Toyota and Datsun to give Detroit a big wake-up call to make
their cars work better and last longer, or they would soon go the way
of REO Speedwagon and Packard.

--<< Bruce >>--
--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.