Non interference engines
Discussion
Hi fellow pistonheads members.
In the event of a timing chain/belt breaking does anyone know of a UK/European list of cars that are of this engine type. I have searched for this information online and found that any lists that exist are usually applicable to the American vehicle Market. Obviously little use to us here in the UK. Most cars theses days will likely be of the interference type therfore I guess the list of UK and European made cars that have non interference engines would be short. Anyone know of such a list? If you do would you be kind enough to send me a link. Thanks in advance for any replies.
In the event of a timing chain/belt breaking does anyone know of a UK/European list of cars that are of this engine type. I have searched for this information online and found that any lists that exist are usually applicable to the American vehicle Market. Obviously little use to us here in the UK. Most cars theses days will likely be of the interference type therfore I guess the list of UK and European made cars that have non interference engines would be short. Anyone know of such a list? If you do would you be kind enough to send me a link. Thanks in advance for any replies.
Toyota's of the late 90's (pre vvti) tended to be made like this
This list is quite comprehensive but doesn't always list specific engine codes eg 2JZ-GTE or 7AFE
http://yourcarangel.com/2014/07/interference-engin...
HJG said:
Are you planning on running an engine and never changing the timing belt?
Still leaves you stranded if interference or not.
MK1 MX5s were non interference, not sure about later ones.
It's a good fail safe, loads of cambelts go from failures of aux belts or various tensioners, you can argue proper servicing will protect you but a slip up by a mechanic can also cost you and it often is a complete write off if you are unlucky enough to have a cambelt go in a interference engine.Still leaves you stranded if interference or not.
MK1 MX5s were non interference, not sure about later ones.
Totally agree. I would rather pay a couple of hundred for break down recovery and a bit of inconvenience than ending up handing out thousands for labour charges and replacement engine.
Oh com back the days of the old v6 Ford engines were the camshafts were driven by cogs not belts or chains. There was the 2.3 2.8 and 3.0. The capri 2.8i was a truly wonderful engine. Bullet proof engine's, easy to work on.
Oh com back the days of the old v6 Ford engines were the camshafts were driven by cogs not belts or chains. There was the 2.3 2.8 and 3.0. The capri 2.8i was a truly wonderful engine. Bullet proof engine's, easy to work on.
Edited by BND1 on Tuesday 24th January 12:27
V8covin said:
Ford pinto engine
I believe the 1600 GT may be an exception,that isn't fail safe.As above stated, 1600 non GT that I was driving at 50mph just safely coasted to a halt and I fitted a new belt on the side of the road.
American CVH had cut outs in the piston so was fail safe, ours didn't.
I had it happen to me a few years back - although to be fair, it wasn't the belt that snapped - it was the cam (variator). And it did indeed cost about £6k to rebuild that bank.....
On the other hand, I can't imagine looking for a non-interference engine given how much it would massively restrict all the other things that are important in my car choice.
On the other hand, I can't imagine looking for a non-interference engine given how much it would massively restrict all the other things that are important in my car choice.
Seems a very odd criteria to select a car / engine on. The maintenance cost upside (which is minimal) will be offset many times over by the fact that the car / engine will be 20+ years old now, with very few exceptions.
If you don't want to have to ever change a belt, buy a car / engine which has a chain drive instead (one which is known to be reliable, not one of the ones which has proven to be problematic!)
If you don't want to have to ever change a belt, buy a car / engine which has a chain drive instead (one which is known to be reliable, not one of the ones which has proven to be problematic!)
geeks said:
Many earlier Vauxhall engines were non interference (certainly the 1.2, through to the 2.0 8 valvers were, not sure about the 16v valvers)
16v engines were interference, and would smack the pistons against the valve's, earlier 8v in various capacities were non interference.Anything with inclined valves in order to get them to fit into the combustion chamber will result in damage should the belt fail.
8v were vertical , so had more space to clear.
BND1 said:
Totally agree. I would rather pay a couple of hundred for break down recovery and a bit of inconvenience than ending up handing out thousands for labour charges and replacement engine.
Oh com back the days of the old v6 Ford engines were the camshafts were driven by cogs not belts or chains. There was the 2.3 2.8 and 3.0. The capri 2.8i was a truly wonderful engine. Bullet proof engine's, easy to work on.
The fibre gear in the "Essex" V6 2.5 & 3.0 could strip all it's teeth off , I don't know if the Cologne V6s did the same .Oh com back the days of the old v6 Ford engines were the camshafts were driven by cogs not belts or chains. There was the 2.3 2.8 and 3.0. The capri 2.8i was a truly wonderful engine. Bullet proof engine's, easy to work on.
Edited by BND1 on Tuesday 24th January 12:27
The smaller V4 Ford engines had fibre gears too , I had experience with Saab V4s
rigga said:
geeks said:
Many earlier Vauxhall engines were non interference (certainly the 1.2, through to the 2.0 8 valvers were, not sure about the 16v valvers)
16v engines were interference, and would smack the pistons against the valve's, earlier 8v in various capacities were non interference.Anything with inclined valves in order to get them to fit into the combustion chamber will result in damage should the belt fail.
8v were vertical , so had more space to clear.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff