Hello all...

Recently, my mother's 2000 Chrysler Grand Voyager van (195,575 or so miles
on the clock) seems to have jumped out of time. It was going down the
highway at the time, probably about 45-50 miles per hour and it just quit.
Subsequent examination shows that the engine is very clearly out of time but
it will try to run, albeit very poorly. This experiment was only attempted
once, and the engine only ran for about three seconds before stalling. The
rhythm of the starter motor is also very clearly off.

I read through some old posts here and it seems like the lifespan of the
chain should be about 200,000 miles. Okay, fine. I won't argue with it over
5,000 or so piddly miles. Stuff happens.

What nobody ever seems to say one way or another is whether or not the 3.3L
V6 engine is an interference engine design or not. People have asked and the
answer that comes out is "why does it matter, the chain is good up to
200,000 miles". Well, that's fine, but if it slips or fails at that magical
point, one needs to know if the engine can simply be retimed, the chain
replaced and everything goes on as it did before...or if repairs to bent
valves and such may be required. That's why it matters!

The van ran fine before this unfortunate incident.

I'd also like to know how much of a job it is to change the timing chain. Is
there anything in particular to watch out for? Things that should be done
"while we were in there anyway"? Many thanks to anyone who can shed some
light on this.

William

William R. Walsh wrote:
I don't know this engine at all, but is the water pump driven by the
timing chain, or is the w.p. accessory belt-driven?


--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Oct 2, 5:53*am, Bill Putney <b... (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote:
Come on, Bill. It's an external w/p driven by the FEAD belt.

Hi!

It's definitely driven by the accessory belt.

My brother and I were on a pretty good roll replacing the Autozone
remanufactured water pumps. After the first three (all the same
failure--each one started weeping water out of the weep hole) went
bad, we just got a new one and it's been fine ever since.

William

William R. Walsh wrote:
Yeah - file that under "When is a warranty not worth a darn?". I went
thru that with an alternator one time at Advance - after the third
failure, I finally asked for my money back and got one that did cost
more at NAPA, but it never gave any trouble.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

In article <Jkfxm.67866$5n1.53308@attbi_s21>,
"William R. Walsh"
<newsgroups1 (AT) idontwantjunqueemail (DOT) walshcomptech.com> wrote:

That engine is not of interference design.
It an old fashioned cam in the block with push rods design; not even
overhead cam.
I sure wouldn't run it with the timing off though.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html

http://forum.chryslerminivan.net/showthread.php?t=8817

Some O <SO (AT) nospam (DOT) net> writes:

I can't see where either of those links say whether it's interference or
not, and I'm not quite sure how OHC vs. OHV enters into it. According
to
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Chrysler-Repair-807/2009/2/95-3-3ltr-intrepid-1.htm
it is an interference design (though I've got no idea how much credence
to give that site).
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

I went through that with Pep Boys and an A/C compressor for my '84
Caravan. They went through three of their stock units, each failing
within 2 weeks of install. I was fed up and complained to corporate.
They went down to the dealer and got a MOPAR original part. Worked
fine as long as I owned the car. No cost to me except the original job
order and the aggravation.

Some O wrote:


You say that as though it has ANYTHING to do with being an interference
engine. It doesn't. In fact, I can tell you that *many* cam-in-block
chain-timed engines are interference designs. There's little incentive
to NOT make them interference engines and take advantage of the
breathing and compression advantages it allows when the chain generally
lasts as long as the rest of the engine, unlike a belt. No, it doesn't
make you feel any better if you have a chain break and break a valve
(and I've been there/done that), but from a design perspective very,
very few of any given type of chain-timed engines built will ever jump
time. Conversely, a huge fraction of belt-timed engines will jump time
at *some* point in their lifespan because of owner neglect and the
relatively short life of a timing belt compared to engine internals, so
there's motivation to make them non-interference designs. Frequently the
performance advantages win and belt-timed interference engines are
built. But that, IMO, is still not a very wise choice.