interference engine?

is the 1.8 engine an interference engine? meaning if the timing belt breaks, will the pistons smash the valves?

bump

bump

i dont know bout the 1.8 specifically, but I've been told both the 1.9 and 2.0 are. Someone else told me all small Ford motors are interference motors.

thnkas for the reply...actually i just found the answer on gates' web site, they have a list of all engines, and indicate which are interference engines and which are free-running. the 1.9 is a interference engine, however the dohc 1.8's are not. the sohc 1.8 in the older escorts are interference engines.

HMMmm..sure about this?I'll have to go check again..I read that in 1991 the 1.9 was redesigned..AND that 1.9's from 1991 to 1996 were non-interference engines.Seemed to add up to me as Ford THEN took out the timing belt change interval for these engines in their service.Plus..a LOT of people have lost belts with 1.9's and sufferred no engine/valve damage.That is RARE with an interference engine.Seems to me I came across another chart somewhere that didn't list them as interference engines..guess I gotta check it out..

From what I understand, 1.9s changed from interference to non-interference after March of 1991. My 1991 has a post-March engine and it is non-interference.

i think they are interference but i'm not talking from experience so i cna't guarantee it....

http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=981&location_id=540

go to that link and click on the easy download list at the bottom of the screen....from what i'm reading they are interference engines...

if this list is wrong, does anyone know whether or not the 1.8 engine is an interference, the list says no but if it's wrong about 1.9, i don't trust it at all.
please let me know what you guys find out

Very interesting stuff!..had a bit of time to do some DIGGING..

From Gates(technical).Ford Escort 1.9 interference engine.
From Goodyear(technical)Ford Escort 1.9 non-interference in 1991.
From Ford(technical)Ford Escort 1.9 non-interference.(In conversation he stated the following)Ford DID remove it's timing belt replacement service interval when this engine was redesigned in 1991 as a non-interference engine..HOWEVER the belt replacement was STILL pretty much mandatory on 1.8 interference engines.This led people to NOT change the belts on 1.8's..EITHER now..with a sharp increase in engine problems and complaints on out of warranty vehicles due to timing belt failures..BEYOND their service length.THIS was one of the reasons they redesigned the 1.9 in the first place in 1991..For more customer satisfaction.Due to the sheer volume of 1.9s produced and still on the road it can and does RARELY happen that perhaps an abused/overrevved/overheated/engine..perhaps a valve spring can break/keeper break/valve stem break/bind in the guide in the head..engine failure can STOP the belt..AND break it.Thus it is not ACTUALLY the belt breaking/tearing the teeth off that caused the problem..it is one of the timing belt sprockets trying to turn as the other is stopped because of mechanical problems that in this case actually snaps the belt.BUT then the belt is blamed for the problem.CLOSE examination/analysis of some belts in some destroyed engines CLEARLY point to the belt NOT failing..NOR worn prior to the engine failure said that an average 1.9 under average operating conditions with ONLY a belt failure there has been designed enough valve to piston clearance/interface that there will be no contact.Because of the above he feels that Gates is correct in referring to the 1.9 as "an interference engine". if this ONLY means that the engine will get a timing belt and MOST likely other needed maintenance,service..PROBABLLY at the same time.Regular timing belt changes mean a much better maintained and treated engine which leads to longer engine life and much greater customer satisfaction.Because of this Ford NOW reccomends that(yes..he conceded..contrary to earlier and service publication,manuals) belts be changed at 60,000.

well you have me confused now lol....you said that the 1.8 is an interference, gates said it isn't. did you have a typo or are you saying that it is an interference? thanks!

Interesting point..when I spoke to Goodyear he noted that 1.8's were interference..I didn't specifically ask Ford about 1.8's..he mentioned a few of them in passing..the manuals I have list a belt change for 1991-1996 1.8's NOT 1.9's.I would GUESS that that means that those 1.8's from 1991 to 1996 ARE interference..AND that the 1.9's in that era are not..hope this helps..

thanks for the help....reason im wondering is i just bought one im going to pick it up this weekend for a work car, i didn't know if i wanted to throw a timing belt in it or not...

hey check out this website i just found on it...


http://www.theautoshop.com/timing.html#FORD

http://www.patgosscarworld.com/ford.htm


this one's from ALLDATA...i think it's impossible for those guys to be wrong! :smile:


thanks for the help!
Jared

Jared..can't get that link?Can't find info. on the Alldata site?Wazzit say? Thanks..Arnold.

it says that neither the 1.8 or 1.9 are interference engines...but there is no change interval for the 1.9, 60,000 for 1.8.

I have also heard that both the the 1.9 and 1.8 are non-interference. But I have heard of damages with a belt failer, but but 9 out of 10 times it perfectly fine after a T-belt break.

Ya..just wanted to clear this up..LMAO..ROFL..ok I used to work as an automotive machinist..building engines..AND I have built a LOT of engines..I am NO stranger to using degree wheels..micrometers meausring to .0001..ten thous's..putty on top of the pistons to meausre/shape piston height/configuration,combustion chamber volume/ configuration,applying air.water pressure,measuiring valve opening,lift....VALVE CLEARANCE INTEFERENCE..using "cut away" cylinder heads to get a good look at clearance with different lift,duration cams..BUT THIS!..actually NO I have never done this on a Ford 1.8/1.9..I am TEMPTED to go and get a 1.9 and DO THIS just to have an ANSWER!!!..

Let's take a look at the Gates information..the Gates information says they ARE interference engines ..fair enough.

BUT! I literally happenned to stumble across(unrelated) some OLDER Gates information..SOOoo..being NOSEY I "HAD" to take a looksee..WOO HOO..NON-INTERFERENCE engine..

I dug back as far as I could in relation to ONLY 1991 and on 1.9's..WELLLLLLL...Gates USED to say they were non-interference..THEN at some point started listing "SOME" 1.9s as interference..WOO HOO..I kept digging..later and later Gates information..well golly gee..before I knew it Gates was listing ALL 1.9's as INTERFERENCE.Sure is GOOD for the automotive service industry..that's "odd" that for example a 1991 1.9 used to be non-interference engine and now it is an interference engine..


I'dno..see..I just sortta figger that it either IS OR ISN'T.and they and others surely do know!.I mean this is NOT complicated..the belt breaks and the valves stop right where they are..either the are extending into the combustion chamber and are GONNA get clipped as the piston comes up or they are not.I am sure we can pretty much discount abuse/floated valves/stuck valves etc.Under average operating conditions..this is a HUGE number if 1.9's produced..

Judging from the large numbers of people that HAVE lost belts without damage..I have to conclude that Gates is simply wrong..AND they have changed their information from right to wrong

Just makes it VERY! confusing for us mere mortals to find out...

The 1.9 motor thats in my 92 Escort slipped about 5 teeth on the timing belt. I poped on a new belt and it's been fine since than, I still drive the car today. If it was interferance, it should of been toast. so there more proof it's a non-interferance.

My '95 1.9 just died a few days ago. Upon restarting it there has been some serious valvetrain noise as well as low compression. I had it towed home instead of risking any further damage. I think the belt slipped but I haven't got that far yet, as I'm just guessing by the positions of the timing marks. Judging by the noise it's making I'd say there was some interference going on. I'll be pulling it apart tomorrow and see what's up.

Can I find diagrams online on how the timing marks are lined up? The stores are closed now.

i was driving about 55 mph and my timing belt broke. i suffered no damage whatsoever with my 94 tracer 1.9

I read, (somewhere, don't remember) that about half of the 1.9's are non-interference (the first half) and the other half are interference (the later half). I don't remember where I read that, but that could explain Gates changing his mind.

Ok it is Oct 13 2006 ( friday the 13th )
My wifes car ( 1991 Ford Escort 1.9L 4 door ) last night quit running on the way home from dinner.
I was with her and our daughter, she was driving ( I had beers ) and we were slowing down fast.
I said BABE step on the gas !!!!
She said I am ...........and it would not gooooooooo..then it died.

We coasted to the shoulder,....and YEPPPP DEAD,....Dash lights lit up.

She got got it started again,......smelled a funny smell ( I will explain later ).

It ran real rough........we were were maybe 1/2 a mile from home.

It crapped out again..........and would not restart.

We were able to get wife home from friendly elderly women passer-byers.
While my daughter and I stayed with the car.

YES WE TRUSTED 2 ELDERLY LADIES....or should I say 2 ELDERLY LADIES TRUSTED MY WIFE.

Well they took her home to get my CHEVY TRUCK ( hehehehehehehe )

Wife brought back CHEVY TRUCK (hehehehehehe)
And I pushed the Found ON ROad DEad ( FORD ) car home.

once in the driveway I stared investigating more.
THe DASH SHOWED THE LIGHT OF " FUEL CUTOFF"

the fuel cutoff POPPET was not POPPED ( in the trunk r/h side)...it was good to go ......
so I popped it UP ( as in cutoff ) the re depressed it ( for ON or working )

Did not fix it.

I checked all fuses and relays that I could manually see.......ALL GOOD.

OKKKKKKK....let see if there is or is not fuel to the clyinder.
On the fuel injector Tree there is a valve that ...---to most looks like ----a tire or biclycle valve........

I depressed the inner valve of it to relieve all fuel ( it said fuel cuttoff on the dash ......so I am gonna check it :-)

So all fuel is relieved from it in the standing state.

I had my wife attempt to start the car ...while I am depressing the fuel valve ( as in letting the air out of a tire ) ....I have never been "caught" letting air out of tires. Well anyways we were checking if we were getting fuel to the engine,

As my wife was attempting to start the car while I was depressing the fuel valve ( looks like tire valve) ....YESSS we got fuel ...and a full steady stream....while cranking the engine over for a few seconds,,,....( if working you will get fuel on you...just to let you know ).

So now, I know it is not fuel cutoff.......or any form of a fuel relay.

Ok this next step, maybe I should of done this before the fuel spray check but ....I still did it ) ...but was aware of the fact.

Anyways.....lets see if I have spark......I did the screwdriver in each spark plug wire ( take wire off of plug side and insert a screwdriver in where the spark plug tip would touch) ...............................and put it close to ground to see if you get an spark ( ARCH ) when another person attempts to start the car .

Each plug wire coming from the coil .......had spark!!!!!!!!! YESSSSSSSS

OK so what does that tell me ....I HAVE FUEL ...I HAVE SPARK.....
which right away triggered me .....OHHHHHH DAMN ........I hope I have COMPRESSION.

Now for those of you who know...(if you have those first two FUEL ans SPARK ) ......you dont want it to be the last item I mentioned.......COMPRESSION
Well it was....
The fastest way my mind thought of was ....take off the oil filler cap on the valve cover....shine a light inside ....and watch a spring while wife attempts to again start the car.......
The Valve spring did not move.

OHHHHHHHH CRAP ( and other words ) came to mind
I blew a timing Belt.

Off came the valve cover.............( 3 quick bolts)...
We already been turning the car over already .....so .....I told wife for assurance ....to attemept to start the car again......I WAS RIGHT
No valves moved.............and CAMSHAFT GEAR and TIMING BELT never moved.

First thing I thought ....WE ARE SCREWED AGAIN
( because this happened to us in a 1996 Neon...and blew a timing belt and it bent many valves)

Lunchtime next day I went and bought 1 each timing belt ( 1= square tooth $13,...1=round tooth $24)....because I forgot what it looked like at 10pm that night.

a HAYNES MANUAL....and some hand cleaner goop ( heheheheheheh )

I decided....well lets just replace the timing belt and see if the valves are bent.

Took it all apart, with a co-worker.......teeth were missing from one section (about 3 teeth).....and at the crankshaft area ...well they were all gone right at the crankshaft area.

thats why it would not grab ...and thats why it restarted one last time for a bit ......( whick explains the SMELL from earlier as I mentioned...When the car restarted after killing the first time ...well it was burning alot of raw fuel )

SO we replaced the timing belt ....( mine was the SQAURE TOOTH BELT $13 )
I will be taking the unused round tooth back for return

After we got the Timing Belt onto the crackshaft and CamShaft .....

( remember #1 valves should be closed both intake and exhaust...if you know the strokes and the valve cover is off ...you can see the intake and exhaust valves open and close ....remember INTAKE COMPRESSION POWER EXHAUST....you do not need a compression guage or the screwdriver in the cylinder feel etc.......if you know the strokes and workings of the valves especially if you can see the valves moving ) (smiles)...but only do the visual TDC ( TOP DEAD CENTER ) alignment if you really know what you are doing.

Anyways once we got the belt back on ...and the engine mount was still off ....we cranked the motor .....

IT STARTED UP !!!!!!

We reassembled the rest of the car.

THE VALVES DID NOT BEND !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Total Time Spent ----no lie 2 Hours total
$ spent before returns=
$13 Timing Belt
$17 Haynes Manual
$1.19 Hand Cleaner

Price of wife not driving another Mopar product = PRICELESS

Thanks for passin' that along. Some of 'em had round teeth and others square. Good thing to get both if you didn't remember which they were. To my knowledge, only the first generation scorts from 1981 to 1990 were interference engines. Didn't know Neons were interference. Never cared too much for Chrysler products, myself. Well. It's great you got her fixed. Saved yourself about $300. All the best. Dave

I was driving on the highway and the timing belt broke; a semi went past by and with a push of wind it caused the belt to break. Didn't suffer any engine damage on my 89 w/1.9.