Re: Timing Belts

["R. Cummings" <cumm@flash.net>]

>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:47:25
>To: "James Marriott" <marriott@lesbois.com>
>From: "R. Cummings" <cumm@flash.net>
>Subject: Re: Timing Belts
>
>>
>>Bummer. I knew there _had_ to be an advantage to the 8.5:1 2.2 in my '87
>>4kq--it's non-interference! ;-)
>>
>James,
>Boy you know it. My case was interesting because I went to the dealer when
the car had 40k on it and asked their Audi specialist mechanic whether the
pistons would interfere with the valves. He told me "no problem" and that he
was changing belts at the 60 to 80k mileage. 
>
>So I went on my way thinking "I'll just wait and see what happens and when
it rolls to the side of the road I'll change the belt." When the water pump
failed, I changed the belt and the pump, put the car back together and guess
what, it ran awful with no compression in two cylinders.
>
>When I took the head to the machine shop, the owner said that up until my
version there was no interference - lucky me to get the first one. The car
does have great performance though. This particular machine shop has gone
from rags to riches based on manufacturers building interference engines
with rubber belts. They had racks and racks of heads from Hondas and Audis
and others. They love it.
>
>Bob Cummings
>87 Coupe GT 110k 
>
>Bob Cummings
>