Friend just had the timing chain go on his ~ 7 year old Chrysler LHS at
125,000 miles. That's a timing chain, not a belt. His daughter was driving
it at the time on a 2-lane road passing another car with on-coming traffic
up ahead. Thing just broke and killed all power.

Fortunately the guy she was passing noted a problem and eased up to let her
back in the right lane.

These things are supposed to last 200,000 miles.

Another friend at work says he'd never buy a "Crappler". I usually argue
with him about Chrysler quality not being THAT bad, but after this, that's
going to be hard to make a case for.


George Litwinski

"It's good to want things." S. Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic.Net programmer)

"GRL" <GLitwinski (AT) CHARTERMI (DOT) NET> wrote

I've never had a timing chain last 200,000 miles. The best I've gotten was
130,000 where it was loose and noisy and stretched (from wear) enough to
require changing. Curious why her mechanic never discovered a loose,
stretched, worn timing chain? I bet there was telltale signs of it needing to
be changed 50,000 miles ago!

"GRL" <GLitwinski (AT) CHARTERMI (DOT) NET> wrote

Sorry, but the LHS used a 3.5L V6 with a timing belt. It needs replacement
at about 70K miles.

You need to get smarter friends. There's no timing chain on an LHS. If you
told this sob story to the guy at work, you'll have to apologize for
misleading him.

"GRL" <GLitwinski (AT) CHARTERMI (DOT) NET> wrote

Yes , this vehicle uses a timing BELT. However to complain, and for
someone to say they will NEVER buy a "Crappler" because ONE broke a
timing chain ( if it HAD been a chain) is rediculous. When is the last
time you heard about a broken timing chain? I know that MOST vehicles
nowdays use belts, however a broken chain is NOT COMMON. Someone just
using it as an excuse to not buy something they don't like anyway. If
you don't want to buy a Chrysler product, JUST DON'T BUY IT.
<<I usually argue

"Joe" <Joe (AT) dontspam (DOT) net> wrote

No but he is accusing it of being shitty! Again from an idiot who cannot
read an owners manual, and do recommended srvicing! the guy is a clown, and
put his daughter in a vehicle that was dangerous as he could not be bothered
changing a timing belt, recommended service. But according to him it's
Chryslers fault!
"Richard Benner Jr" <trdstr2000 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote

GRL wrote:


No Chrysler LHS was ever built with an engine that had a chain. All
LHSes (both first- and second-generation models) got the 3.5L v6- a
BELT-timed OHC engine.

If you're gonna troll to bash Chrysler, at least pick a car that HAD a
chain-timed engine available- like maybe a Concorde with a 3.3 (first
gen) or 2.7 (second gen).

Blah, blah, and more blah.... I loved my LHS. It was a great car. And
yes, I replaced my timing belt at 60k miles. Worked fine till I sold it at
115k.

Steve m..
Ps. Go buy yourself a Honduh... It sounds like the car for you.

"GRL" <GLitwinski (AT) CHARTERMI (DOT) NET> wrote

a 98 with a 2.7 ???
lucky it went that far

GRL wrote:

He says that at 60,000 miles he asked his mechanic about changing the timing
belt. Mechanic said that his particular engine did not have a timing belt,
but used a timing chain that should last 200,000 miles. This would be
logical assuming that the V6 was based on an OHV V8 with pushrods. When the
thing did break he says that the shop charged him $1200 to replace the
timing chain. I know that when the LH series came out there were two V6's, a
pushrod design and a OHC design. I think that the LHS could only be had with
the OHC flavor. I know most OHC engines use timing belts, but some use
chains, like the Q45 V8 of old. Not sure about the LHS.

I am a bit suspicious about whether my pal misinterpreted what broke. On the
other hand, $1200 to replace belt is HUGE and that's what he paid.

I'm wondering if what broke as a chain coupling the engine output and the
transmission.

--



- GRL


" It's good to want things. "

- Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, graphic artist, Visual Basic
programmer)
"Joe" <Joe (AT) dontspam (DOT) net> wrote