Died!?!

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:14 pm

area52 wrote:

Got it towed to a shop I trust. It was the timing belt, they say it stripped? I tend to believe them since it acted like it did not have any compression at all.

Off to the timing belt threads to get some numbers and prices!!

Make sure you take a look at this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=62278

And here is the link to my writeup:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=60858

If the timing belt did slip then you may have gotten lucky and you just need a timing belt replacement and a rocker arm replacement to be right as rain again.

I've dealt with a slipped timing belt before so if you need more information shoot me an email through my email listed here.

geordi · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:27 am

tregrrr wrote:

area52 wrote:

*snip* It was the timing belt, they say it stripped?*snip*

geordi wrote:

Get pictures of that belt, I find that VERY difficult to believe. *snip*

x2

But IF it is stripped... why?? Is there something that might have grenaded to stop one toothed cog in the system whilst the others wanted to still turn thus taking away those valuable teeth?? as far as the 80k mileage and dead belt, is the 100k requirement not established based upon a statistical extrapolation?? I know Mean Time Before Failure in electronics is established that way; an acceptable number of premature failures being set at some arbitrary % is established by our favourite bean-counting engineers. then they put the service life at a point that hangs 0.5% ( or 0.1% or 2% or whatever the arbitrary percentage is) out to dry. Considering 12,000 USA/CAN CRD's that means 60 jeeps are destined to get new rockers provided the 100k limit is followed by everyone. There will be some who earn new rockers by pushing the issue too long, and there will be some who avert it by being proactive and replacing an unknown time-bomb premature TB failure a couple thousand miles early for whatever reason....

Its the laws of averages and they don't lie. Sometimes they can be bent a bit, but bye and large they hold true... just ask the owners of casino's :jester:

On any given day they may lose $$$ but in the long run they see what they expect to see

I agree about the MTBF on electronics, but at the same time, I don't think the beancounters chose like that for the timing belt. I tend to think that they would have instead chosen a conservative limit like VW did, ensuring that people would always change the belt WAY before it was really needed. The new (in 1999) TDI design originally came with a 40k mile timing belt change rating! Thankfully, they quickly increased this to 60, 80, and finally 100k, changing NOTHING about the belt, but only upgrading a couple idler pulleys and the bearings inside them.

Our belt is built by the same company, Gates (Or Goodyear, but both are acceptable) and made from the same materials.

Wobbly · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:14 am

"it acted like it did not have any compression at all."

Was the compression actually tested?

tregrrr · **Joined:** Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:37 pm **Posts:** 59

geordi wrote:

**snip** I agree about the MTBF on electronics, but at the same time, I don't think the beancounters chose like that for the timing belt. I tend to think that they would have instead chosen a conservative limit like VW did **snip**

I would hope so too, but we are after all talking about:
-a piece which affects longevity of a unit beyond warranty coverage
-an industry that will stifle recalls until its imminent that legislators will force the issue, or that the cost of liability exceeds cost of fix

my cynical :2cents:

WolverineFW · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:14 pm

tregrrr wrote:

geordi wrote:

**snip** I agree about the MTBF on electronics, but at the same time, I don't think the beancounters chose like that for the timing belt. I tend to think that they would have instead chosen a conservative limit like VW did **snip**

I would hope so too, but we are after all talking about:
-a piece which affects longevity of a unit beyond warranty coverage
-an industry that will stifle recalls until its imminent that legislators will force the issue, or that the cost of liability exceeds cost of fix

my cynical :2cents:

I believe the Euro 2.5l motors had a 100,000 km timing belt interval. This was raised to 160,000 kms for the 2.8l. I would hope there had been some verified reasoning for this change.

area52 · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:06 pm

Ok update time:

I ordered all the timing belt recommended stuff (water pump, thermostat, idlers, tensioner) and it took over a week to ship and a week to deliver. Got it all here, told the mech. to tear it apart.

I went and looked at it today, timing belt is definitely missing about 6 inches of teeth. So, they looked on their computer, says valves are probably shot which means removing the head.

head removal and valve replace - quoted 10.4 hours ( somewhere around that number) without price of valves/pistons. Who know if the pistons are shot? Could spend that and find the pistons are fubar and then its just wasted money.

They said an entire engine replacement is about 10.9 hours (complete with swapping over all accessories) plus cost of new/junkyard/replacement engine (??$$)

area52 · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:13 pm

Sir Sam wrote:

area52 wrote:

Got it towed to a shop I trust. It was the timing belt, they say it stripped? I tend to believe them since it acted like it did not have any compression at all.

Off to the timing belt threads to get some numbers and prices!!

Make sure you take a look at this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=62278

And here is the link to my writeup:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=60858

If the timing belt did slip then you may have gotten lucky and you just need a timing belt replacement and a rocker arm replacement to be right as rain again.

I've dealt with a slipped timing belt before so if you need more information shoot me an email through my email listed here.

So how do you tell if its just the rocker arms, without pulling the head? or can you?

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:47 pm

I think you need to separate head removal - (which makes a lot of sense at this point - just to check)
and replacing the valves - the valves shouldn't be bad - it's designed to break the rocker arms - although things don't always go as designed - so I think pulling and inspecting the head is reasonable - before it's inspected - you're guessing.

geordi · **Posted:** Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:11 am

The rocker arms ARE the designed failure point. They do NOT NEED TO PULL THE HEAD, just the top. Unfortunately, pulling the top cover means pulling the entire fuel rail off, and the cams. The cams are inside the top cover, for some stupid reason.

You will most likely find all of the arms cracked, this is CORRECT and will be about $65 each to buy replacements. Wobbly on here has a set for sale (or did) so you might want to talk to him about those.

The pistons and valves are most likely just fine, you can do a pop-test on each valve after removing the top cover by pressurizing the cylinder through the glowplug hole, and tapping each valve with a mallet. Do this with the crank at 90* ATDC (the timing belt position) please, just to be certain. When you compress the valve spring and open the valve, you will hear the "pop" of each valve. They should all sound the same. If any sound different or are leaking from the closed position... You have valve issues.

I'm not expecting that tho. My new engine was RUNNING after a mechanic installed it, and over-torqued the tensioner bolt b/c he was a Beavis. On the test drive, it spat the tensioner off the front of the engine and snapped EVERY ROCKER ARM. There was no other damage.

Died!?!

Who is online