is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?

In article <4d5l2hF186088U2.RemoveThis@individual.net>,
Bill Putney <bptn.RemoveThis@kinez.net> wrote:

> Is that true specifically of 94's?

Yes.

> I may have read discussions on this
> in the past in which it was concluded (at least by some) that certain
> years were iterference, others were not (even though the Gates guide
> shows them all as interfeence).

The Gates book has its share of errors.
(in this case, errors sell timing belts)

I've replaced scores of these belts and not a one ever bent a
valve. That is more than a coincidence.

My Mitchell On Demand lists the 3.5 as a non-interference engine,
it also lists the 3.2 as an interference engine. The Mitchell
text is direct from ChryCo.

The engine has been out what, 13 years now, yet I have yet to see
anyone post a complaint of a 3.5 with bent valves in -any-
appropriate newsgroup, plenty of incidences posted for other
engines that -are- interference though.
 >> Stay informed about: is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine? 

Thanks for all of the replies. I'm in the process of taking a cautious
approach. I'm going to replace the timing belt. I'm going to leave off
the harmonic balancer and the accessory belts. Then I'm going to start
the engine. If it seems to run ok, then I will replace the water pump and
finish the job.

Random


aarcuda69062 <nonelson RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:nonelson-
1E1354.07552419052006 RemoveThis @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:

> In article <4d5l2hF186088U2 RemoveThis @individual.net>,
> Bill Putney <bptn RemoveThis @kinez.net> wrote:
>
>> Is that true specifically of 94's?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I may have read discussions on this
>> in the past in which it was concluded (at least by some) that certain
>> years were iterference, others were not (even though the Gates guide
>> shows them all as interfeence).
>
> The Gates book has its share of errors.
> (in this case, errors sell timing belts)
>
> I've replaced scores of these belts and not a one ever bent a
> valve. That is more than a coincidence.
>
> My Mitchell On Demand lists the 3.5 as a non-interference engine,
> it also lists the 3.2 as an interference engine. The Mitchell
> text is direct from ChryCo.
>
> The engine has been out what, 13 years now, yet I have yet to see
> anyone post a complaint of a 3.5 with bent valves in -any-
> appropriate newsgroup, plenty of incidences posted for other
> engines that -are- interference though.
>
 >> Stay informed about: is the 3.5L 6 cyl 1994 LHS an interference engine?