> ok, i let the car sit for hours then i went and started it up and took it
> for a drive. turns out it didnt make a single sound the first ten minutes,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> the timing tomorrow by ear until i get a timing light, i really dont have
> to drive much this week anyway.
It's unlikely you'll get the timing correct by ear. You could easily be off
+/- 5° and not be able to tell if it's correct.
You still need to double check the mechanical timing if you haven't done
that already.
> I guess im very very lucky to have no valve damage . i read that only 25
> percent of honda timing belt breaks end up with no damage. from now on im
> never going to let a timing belt go past 60k and i will check my belt
> every 10k.
Why? Simply removing the upper belt cover won't show you much except
whether or not you have an oil leak. To really inspect a belt, it needs to
be removed from the engine and bent backwards from it's normal orientation
to open up the teeth. However, it's not recommended to do this on a good
belt as it may weaken it. Just change the thing at the recommended interval
and be done with it.
> i believe i didnt get bent valves due to the fact that my belt didnt
> actually break, instead a few teeth on the belt just came off.
This IS a broken belt. It's the principle mode of failure.
> there was a six inche strip on the belt with no teeth.
That's more than a few. That's a near catastrophic failure.
> also, there was a lot of oil and grime in the bottom of the timing belt
> cover
It sounds like you had a bad oil leak which caused the belt to fail. Oil
contamination on the belt will soften the belt degrading the rubber and lead
to its premature failure. I hope that you replaced the cam seal, front
crank seal, and valve cover gasket while you were in there. Otherwise...
> i believe that the belt slipped enough to shut off the engine but not
> enough to cause the pistons to crash into valves.
Maybe, however it doesn't take much on an interference engine to bend
valves. The engine can still run being one or perhaps even two teeth off on
the mechanical timing. Any more and the valves will get bent. Six inches
of shredded belt teeth is more than enough to lead to damage. You may want
to do a compression check once you've got the mechanical and ignition timing
straightened out.
> the belt that i took out was honda oem, that's probably why. i should
> have bought a honda oem but i dont think i will have this car when
> it hits 290k. it has 230k on it now and it looks great and runs great.
Then again, you may have just gotten extraordinarily lucky. Sometimes if
the belt breaks at idle, then there may not be valve damage though this is
rare. However, if the belt broke with the engine at speed there are nearly
always bent valves.
Eric
lamont1 - 19 Oct 2004 16:36 GMT
1) actually, i retarded the timing, i believe that a retarded timing cant do
damage to the engine like advanced timing can, perhaps i will get low
effiiciency on gas but i wont run the risk of damaging pistons and valves .
2) i seriously doubt that i have bent valves. my theory like i said before ,
is that some teeth came off and the engine stopped. when i pulled over i
tried to crank the car then tried to crank it in the impound lot, that might
ripped more teeth off.
3) the belt didnt break due to an oil leak its due to the fact that the belt
probably has 100k+ miles on it. i replaced it with a new dayco belt that i
bought at strauss discount auto.
3) i really dont think the mechanical timing is off because after i put the
new timing belt on and tensioned it, i set the first piston to tdc and
checked the marks on the pulley twice.
4) i retarded the timing last night and every thing is running perfectly
with no noises but i will still get a timing light and adjust it next week.
5) im the luckiest man on earth hahahhaha
Jafir Elkurd - 19 Oct 2004 23:13 GMT
86-89 accord usually DON'T bend valves when the belt breaks. If you had
done this in an 88 prelude Si, you'd be the luckiest man on earth.
> 5) im the luckiest man on earth hahahhaha
lamont1 - 23 Oct 2004 08:39 GMT
I HEARD THAT ALL HONDAS ARE INTERFERENCE ENGINES. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE
87 ISNT?
> 86-89 accord usually DON'T bend valves when the belt breaks. If you had
> done this in an 88 prelude Si, you'd be the luckiest man on earth.
>
> > 5) im the luckiest man on earth hahahhaha
Caroline - 23 Oct 2004 17:04 GMT
Gates.com says most Honda models from the 1970s to 2001 have interference
engines, but not all. (It doesn't have info on 2002 to the present engines.)
NOT interference, according to Gates:
Civic 2001
Passport 1994-2001
http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=981&location_id=540&go=preset663Gates
(open the pdf file listed near the bottom)
So I don't know if the statement below about the 1988 Prelude is correct. Gates
mentions Si versions of the Civic but not the Prelude, so maybe Gates is
incomplete.
But nor can I tell if there are some interference engines whose valve design and
timing are such that, even though it's interference, the damage is less likely.
> I HEARD THAT ALL HONDAS ARE INTERFERENCE ENGINES. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE
> 87 ISNT?
> > 86-89 accord usually DON'T bend valves when the belt breaks. If you had
> > done this in an 88 prelude Si, you'd be the luckiest man on earth.
> >
> > > 5) im the luckiest man on earth hahahhaha
Eric - 24 Oct 2004 03:52 GMT
> But nor can I tell if there are some interference engines whose valve
> design and timing are such that, even though it's interference, the
> damage is less likely.
It would depend on where the cam stopped rotating. If it stopped in a
position such that the valves were only half-way open then one might escape
valve damage.
Eric
Caroline - 24 Oct 2004 06:04 GMT
> Caroline wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> position such that the valves were only half-way open then one might escape
> valve damage.
This is true of any interference engine, no?
Damage is never guaranteed when a TB on an interference engine breaks; it
depends on where the timing is when the belt breaks, engine RPM at the time of
breakage, etc.
I'm wondering whether there are certain designs of interference engines that, I
dunno, have a different valve angle or some other design feature that reduce the
likelihood of damage when the TB breaks.
Michael Pardee - 31 Oct 2004 00:03 GMT
> Gates.com says most Honda models from the 1970s to 2001 have interference
> engines, but not all. (It doesn't have info on 2002 to the present
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=981&location_id=540&go=preset663Gates
> (open the pdf file listed near the bottom)
Gates can be wrong. It lists my 85 Volvo 765T (2.3L B230FT) as interference,
when it definitely isn't (even if fitted with an aftermarket cam).
Mike
N.E.Ohio Bob - 21 Oct 2004 19:01 GMT
> 5) im the luckiest man on earth hahahhaha
No, Dan Quale is. bob