Timing belts

On Nov 16, 9:06 am, norm46 wrote:
> Just my 2 cents but I had a 1990 Corolla that went 180K+ when it
> broke. My 1999 Camry had 170K when it broke. I had a 1990Corolla that
> had over 180K with the original belt. It's not good because the car
> stops right where it is. No other damage. I don't own the 2 Corollas
> but the Camry has a new belt and is running fine.

Mine broke at 105000, but if it broke in a bad area id be dead.
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

"ransley" wrote in message

> On Nov 16, 9:06 am, norm46 wrote:
>> Just my 2 cents but I had a 1990 Corolla that went 180K+ when it
>> broke. My 1999 Camry had 170K when it broke. I had a 1990Corolla that
>> had over 180K with the original belt. It's not good because the car
>> stops right where it is. No other damage. I don't own the 2 Corollas
>> but the Camry has a new belt and is running fine.
>
> Mine broke at 105000, but if it broke in a bad area id be dead.

As in just outside YOUR house?
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

I changed my 96 4 cyl at 60K and again at 120K. At 120K it was cracked
pretty bad and the idlers were both making noise.
If it breaks while you are on the highway, a piston could come up and hit a
valve....then you got major problems.
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

"WMB" wrote in message

>I changed my 96 4 cyl at 60K and again at 120K. At 120K it was cracked
>pretty bad and the idlers were both making noise.
> If it breaks while you are on the highway, a piston could come up and hit
> a valve....then you got major problems.

It depends on whether the engine is interference (a piston could come up and
hit a valve) or non-interference (the valves cannot come in contact with the
pistons even if the timing belt breaks). Most Toyota engines of that era
were non-interference. Interference engines typically have timing chains
(but not always).
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

Mark A wrote:
> "WMB" wrote in message
>
>> I changed my 96 4 cyl at 60K and again at 120K. At 120K it was cracked
>> pretty bad and the idlers were both making noise.
>> If it breaks while you are on the highway, a piston could come up and hit
>> a valve....then you got major problems.
>
> It depends on whether the engine is interference (a piston could come up and
> hit a valve) or non-interference (the valves cannot come in contact with the
> pistons even if the timing belt breaks). Most Toyota engines of that era
> were non-interference. Interference engines typically have timing chains
> (but not always).
>
>

The '96 Camry four is non-interference, and the change interval for
normal use is 90,000 miles. If the belt was badly cracked after 60k
miles, it was either cheap aftermarket or the engine was run very hot,
often.
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

"Leftie" wrote in message

> The '96 Camry four is non-interference, and the change
> interval for normal use is 90,000 miles.

Has it changed since 1995? It was 60000 for that model year.
And it was the same for both schedules A and B:
http://www.camrystuff.com/manuals/Gen3/ma.pdf

> If the belt was badly cracked after 60k miles, it was either
> cheap aftermarket or the engine was run very hot, often.

Or the person doing the service at 60k did not do their job
and the belt trully was 120k miles old...
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

On Jan 24, 11:35 pm, "Mark A" wrote:
> "WMB" wrote in message
>
>
>
> >I changed my 96 4 cyl at 60K and again at 120K. At 120K it was cracked
> >pretty bad and the idlers were both making noise.
> > If it breaks while you are on the highway, a piston could come up and hit
> > a valve....then you got major problems.
>
> It depends on whether the engine is interference (a piston could come up and
> hit a valve) or non-interference (the valves cannot come in contact with the
> pistons even if the timing belt breaks). Most Toyota engines of that era
> were non-interference. Interference engines typically have timing chains
> (but not always).


Does anyone know - did the Celica 94-99 have interference engines?

Michael
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

According to the Gates timing guide (www.gates.com), Celica GT, ST,
GTS 1.6-2.2L are all non-interference type, with a 60K severe service
replacement interval.


On Jan 26, 11:58 am, wrote:
>
> Does anyone know - did the Celica 94-99 have interference engines?
>
> Michael
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

That why I would change out the pulleys and water pump at 60K miles.
At 60K typically the tensioner pulley is dry and start to make minor
noises. The idler is usually still good for another 20-30K, but
changing out both adds another $40-50 to the belt, so just do them.
Not to mention the water pump and oil seals.

Timing belt often fail because of a seized water pump. So when these
parts become hard to turn, the belt needs to work much harder.

I'd use a Gates timing kit: www.gates.com


On Jan 24, 2:32 pm, "WMB" wrote:
> I changed my 96 4 cyl at 60K and again at 120K. At 120K it was cracked
> pretty bad and the idlers were both making noise.
> If it breaks while you are on the highway, a piston could come up and hit a
> valve....then you got major problems.
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

As others said, the 96 (5SFE, 2.2L) is a NON-INTERFERENCE engine, like
most Toyota engines. Honda is quite another story.

On Jan 24, 2:32 pm, "WMB" wrote:
> I changed my 96 4 cyl at 60K and again at 120K. At 120K it was cracked
> pretty bad and the idlers were both making noise.
> If it breaks while you are on the highway, a piston could come up and hit a
> valve....then you got major problems.
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

Pszemol wrote:
> "Leftie" wrote in message
>
>> The '96 Camry four is non-interference, and the change
>> interval for normal use is 90,000 miles.
>
> Has it changed since 1995? It was 60000 for that model year.
> And it was the same for both schedules A and B:
> http://www.camrystuff.com/manuals/Gen3/ma.pdf


I honestly don't know where the revision was made, but I'm fairly
sure that Toyota decided at some point that 90k miles was ok for
light/normal use and 60k was only necessary for heavy use. Our '95 has
gone about 85k miles and 9 years on the current OEM timing belt and
water pump, with only coolant changes, using OEM coolant. (I wouldn't
recommend this as a rule - my housemate is cheap!) So I think 90k miles
or about 6 years is fine, given good quality parts, occasional coolant
changes or flushes, and gentle driving. We live in the Northeast, so the
engine has seen temperature extremes every year.


>
>> If the belt was badly cracked after 60k miles, it was either
>> cheap aftermarket or the engine was run very hot, often.
>
> Or the person doing the service at 60k did not do their job
> and the belt trully was 120k miles old...

Definitely possible.
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

Toyota first assumed 12K miles per year (therefore 5 years/60K miles),
and I believe in 1998 according to the Gates timing guide, that they
changed annual mileage to 15K miles and added 1 year to the timing
interval (therefore, 6 years 90K miles).

This should better help them compete with Hondas, for example, which
specify 7 years, 105K miles. I heard some VWs use 120K mile
intervals.

But in 4-cyl Toyota engines, by 50K miles the belt already stretched
(no automatic tensioner). So IMO 5yr/60K miles would be the better
option, especially for those who change it themselves. But 90K should
still be fine if the owners need to pay.

On Jan 28, 4:34 am, Leftie wrote:
>     I honestly don't know where the revision was made, but I'm fairly
> sure that Toyota decided at some point that 90k miles was ok for
> light/normal use and 60k was only necessary for heavy use. Our '95 has
> gone about 85k miles and 9 years on the current OEM timing belt and
> water pump, with only coolant changes, using OEM coolant. (I wouldn't
> recommend this as a rule - my housemate is cheap!) So I think 90k miles
> or about 6 years is fine, given good quality parts, occasional coolant
> changes or flushes, and gentle driving. We live in the Northeast, so the
> engine has seen temperature extremes every year.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts 

wrote in message

> Toyota first assumed 12K miles per year (therefore 5 years/60K miles),
> and I believe in 1998 according to the Gates timing guide, that they
> changed annual mileage to 15K miles and added 1 year to the timing
> interval (therefore, 6 years 90K miles).

Has the engine changed in 1998?
Or just the schedule was changed/revised?

Does it affect model years 1998 and newer?
Or does it update schedules for older model years, too?
 >> Stay informed about: Timing belts