PSA - Change your timing belt:

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:48 pm

16 new rockers - $752

New Gates timing belt, $82.

Seems like a no brainer to me. Also, I think I just bought all the rockers available in the country.

moto-scoot · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:40 am

did you drop a belt?

geordi · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:57 am

$5 says he is rebuilding an engine that someone else buggered, then sold the vehicle as scrap without knowing what they actually did.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:05 am

116k on this belt, belt looked fine, I believe it skipped a tooth on the crank pulley, it REALLY fubared the exhaust rockers, and only moderately fubared the intake rockers.

So 116k on this Jeep, only 16k past the change interval, after seeing this failure I see no reason to push the 100k change interval, in fact now I feel that much worse about pushing my own change interval to 113k on my own CRD.

Bad rocker:

Not as bad rocker:

New rocker($47 each at my shop price):

From front to back, worst, bad, new:

Left to right, new bad worst:

Worst bad new:

Worst: roller pushed way down, seized, surface highly spalled:

Bad: Roller pushed down:

New: No play in roller bearings, roller height higher, surface somewhat rough from manufacturing:

Left new, notice height of roller above rocker, protrudes about 1mm, right bad, roller surface about flush with rocker.

Left new, right worst, roller collapsed to below rocker surface:

Collapsed roller, spalled surface, cam wore grooves into the rocker metal:

Compare to new:

Notice height of new roller on new rocker(right):

Bunch of bad ones laid out:

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:13 am

moto-scoot wrote:

did you drop a belt?

I believe the belt skipped a tooth on the crank pulley, valves impacted the pistons, and damaged the rockers.

geordi wrote:

$5 says he is rebuilding an engine that someone else buggered

yes.

geordi · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:20 am

Those don't look bad at all compared with how ALL of mine looked after the idiot mechanic screwed up my front cover and the tensioner pulled out. Where you are focusing on the roller position... The frame of the rocker to the side of each roller was cracked almost in half. Messy doesn't even begin to cover it.

How are the cam lobes looking? I can't recall on my head seeing anything that looked like it had any wear like what you show with that spalling... What causes that? Bad oil? The cams on my old head (60k on it) still look like the day they were created. I'll have to pull some of the shrink wrap off the head itself to take pics of that, but the mating surfaces should look the same - mint.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:09 am

Cams are fine, a bit of marring on a couple of the lobs, some of the edges where they touched the pressed metal of the rockers and ate them down are a bit buggered, I see no reason they wouldn't be fine to reuse.

irollgen4s · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:32 am

my dad went 30k past the 100k interval and ours is just fine still. I wouldnt recommend it at all, but he couldnt get to it because of parts and he needed it to get to work 80 miles away every day.. so it built up fast. I plan on changing it at 230-240k to be safe.

jinstall · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:31 pm

Why the hell will the photos everyone posts not come up anymore? It just says loading all the time.

papaindigo · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:41 pm

PM sent to hopefully avoid a lengthy off topic chat.

jinstall · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:50 pm

Thanks got it.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:41 pm

jinstall wrote:

Why the hell will the photos everyone posts not come up anymore? It just says loading all the time.

geordi · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:53 pm

Now THAT is funny. Love the helmet and paste eating of IE... Although that could also be the Safari crowd, that browser isn't much different from IE.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:08 pm

geordi wrote:

Now THAT is funny. Love the helmet and paste eating of IE... Although that could also be the Safari crowd, that browser isn't much different from IE.

I gotta disagree with you there, while I don't use Safari much anymore it has quite a bit going for it compared to firefox.

The user interface(ie GUI layout) is nearly identical to firefox, so its not like working in safari is really noticeably different from firefox.

Both offer many of the same options, including private browsing, scripts, plugins etc - though to be fair the script/plugin support is nowhere near what firefox has.

Safari seems to be exceptionally compliant with all sorts of different websites - it always seems to work.*
*The exception to this is when a particular website refuses to let you use Safari because it is not recognized as a supported browser(the federal student loan website comes to my mind). You can trick the website into thinking you are using a different browser(ie firefox) and then everything works just fine.

Safari does not use nearly the resoures that firefox does.

Safari tends to be less stable than firefox(in terms of crashes etc).

Safari tends to hang up more with high memory usage websites(like when I posted 300 photos in a single webpage and its downloading many MB of photos to be displayed).

Now that being said, Safari is still way better than IE, but I gotta say firefox is still superior to safari, but not by much, and with a little more user support and use safari could pretty much be an even match for firefox and chrome.

I have not used chrome enough to make quantitative and qualitative comparisons to any other browser.

PSA - Change your timing belt:

Who is online