95 3.0 motor interference?

I have searched and read that it is an interference engine and that it is not. Is there a definitive answer??
thanks

Archie

The 3.0L engine is a non interference type engine.
The timing belt could snap with no damage to the engine.

The 3.0L engine is a non interference type engine.
The timing belt could snap with no damage to the engine.


I have read several places that it is an interference engine, and the timing belt is not the easiest to replace on that engine.

I've seen this link listed several times. Seems many put faith in it. It says your engine is non - interference on page 7, ie, no asterix next to the engine. Read the notes at the bottom of the page. What did the dealer say? http://www.gates.com/downloads/download_common.cfm?file=TBR05.pdf&folder=brochure

I've seen this link listed several times. Seems many put faith in it. It says your engine is non - interference on page 7, ie, no asterix next to the engine. Read the notes at the bottom of the page. What did the dealer say? http://www.gates.com/downloads/download_common.cfm?file=TBR05.pdf&folder=brochure



Thanks for that link. I have not asked any dodge dealer around here. I was just basing my info from what i have read. Mine blew a headgasket so i just tore it all down. Pretty big job. Very time consuming.
Thanks for all the input.

Archie

Don't know about interference or not, but my ex-girlfriend's '88 GV 3.0 snapped its timing belt at the dealer as they were testing it back in 1989. Crashed the heads big-time. Fortunately she had a full coverage warranty that covered it, otherwise we would have been out big bucks.

Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that engineering a motor with a slotted rubber band for a timing belt on a motor guaranteed to crash pistons against valves in the heads when said rubber band timing belt fails is a terrifically bad idea? Man, if this is progress, please God, take me back to the 60's and give me BACK my timing CHAIN!

And while we're at it (ranting now, on a roll, I know) who invented the phrase "interference engine" anyway? Why not call it what the damned thing really IS... "Very BADLY designed with a dumbass slotted rubber band timing belt engine"... Ahhhh. I feel way better now. :)

Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that engineering a motor with a slotted rubber band for a timing belt on a motor guaranteed to crash pistons against valves in the heads when said rubber band timing belt fails is a terrifically bad idea? Man, if this is progress, please God, take me back to the 60's and give me BACK my timing CHAIN!

And while we're at it (ranting now, on a roll, I know) who invented the phrase "interference engine" anyway? Why not call it what the damned thing really IS... "Very BADLY designed with a dumbass slotted rubber band timing belt engine"... Ahhhh. I feel way better now. :)


Amen!