Wait, they are removing the engine??
Is it possible for you to go take pictures of the routing of the wires, belts, etc?
Not sure I've heard of an oil pump failure on these engines before.
Can a timing belt change make an engine fail? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lxfourseventy
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Wait, they are removing the engine??
Is it possible for you to go take pictures of the routing of the wires, belts, etc?
Not sure I've heard of an oil pump failure on these engines before.
In the TDI world timing belt mishaps were the main cause of engine failure due to it being an interference engine.
Now, this valve to piston contact could happen a lot of ways, but here are a few:
Now, this valve to piston contact could happen a lot of ways, but here are a few:
- Mistimed then cranked over - immediate bent valves
- Camshaft bolt not torqued properly - bent valves / destroyed head / possible rod bends between 500-5k miles
- Slightly mistimed where engine still runs - valves can bend a little but heat of engine straightens them again… for a while. Failure would eventually happen with valves snapping / dropping into cylinders
Good luck. I think you need to hold this shop responsible. It’s not the first time your car was running worse after them working on it. I wouldn’t pay them another dime.
- Thread starter
- #44
yes, i asked about one of the cam sensor wires and i was told it was good...but this is where i keep going back to, the engine was tampered with for preventative work- no check engine lights, bad symptoms were apparent to me nor were they caught by them while doing the work
So far they have been very kind to the matter- i'm still anxious because we will need to go to war if they somehow say it's not related- i simply can't get my head around how it's not related thanks to all the responses here. I use eneos oil synthetic oil, this shop did 90% of all this cars previous work and maintenance as well and it has a very long and maintained previous dealer records
I think they are taking the head off- perhaps i said it incorretly, the engine i think will remain inside but they will start to get to the cams etc.
You must have misunderstood them. One would not pull head(s), to inspect for damage. Nor would one pull head covers (AKA valve covers) which they could then see cams, as no need at this point. They'd test/inspect combustion cambers (cylinders, of which head is the top of), in 2 ways.
1) Compress test.
2) Scope (run camera in through spark plug hole and look).
Interesting they even mention oil pump. Not something
at this stage I'd consider...First, there are no reported oil pump failure I know of. They don't just fail, as more or less fail proof design. They can weaken with time, but this (low oil pressure) would not keep engine from running.
Although if oil stop flowing. It would run for awhile, but eventually the engine would seize. I can think of 2 reason:
1) Foreign object in oil filter, block flow. The Toyota filter is pre-lubed. It comes with a thin clear plastic cover, to protect the lube. The design is such, I can't see how someone could not remove plastic cover and still thread filter on. But it could happen I suppose! But seems they'd have to think plastic is meant to says.
2) No oil (Failing to fill crank case with oil, or failing install oil drain plug)
- Thread starter
- #46
they did mention there is oilYou must have misunderstood them. One would not pull head(s), to inspect for damage. Nor would one pull head covers (AKA valve covers) which they could then see cams, as no need at this point. They'd test/inspect combustion cambers (cylinders, of which head is the top of), in 2 ways.
1) Compress test.
2) Scope (run camera in through spark plug hole and look).
Interesting they even mention oil pump. Not something
First, there are no reported oil pump failure I know of. They don't just fail, as more or less fail proof design. They can weaken with time, but this (low oil pressure) would not keep engine from running.
Although if oil stop flowing. It would run for awhile, but eventually the engine would seize. I can think of 2 reason:
1) Foreign object in oil filter, block flow. The Toyota filter is pre-lubed. It comes with a thin clear plastic cover, to protect the lube. The design is such, I can't see how someone could not remove plastic cover and still thread filter on. But it could happen I suppose! But seems they'd have to think plastic is meant to says.
2) No oil (Failing to fill crank case with oil, or failing install oil drain plug)
JunkCrzr89
Competent Ignoramoose
WTF!? Completely unwarranted at this stage! Sounds like they’re not inspecting anything or looking for potential failure causes, despite what they’ve told you, and they have instead already decided *for you* that they’re going to drop another engine in. Less time and more money for them to not diagnose and repair and instead simply yank and drop engines…
Did they also change oil, during T-belt service! Hummmmmm!
If I was in your shoes. I'd take to a Toyota Dealership, and have diagnostic work done. Ask for proof of how they come to conclusion and what they find w/pictures. Along with estimate to repair to factory spec w/OEM parts.
You may have and insurance claim.
- Thread starter
- #49
I hope this goes easy... i assume they will cover any/all rebuild costs/engine replacement. I do like that idea, i definitely will want pictures/proof and will have to have 1-2 more shops involved to also diagnose if they refuse to pay- either way at this stage-their insurance should cover their mistakes. they should't have changed the oil.
What data are you using to indicate the non-VVTi are interference motors? This has been debated here several times over the years and all conclusions have pointed to it the pre-2006 2UZ as being non interference.
I think the biggest argument for the non-VVTi being an interference motor is that Toyota doesn't explicitly say its not. There have, to my knowledge, been no pre 2006 piston/valve contact failures posted here. 2006/07 are a different story. The VVTi motors have had documented damage from interference.
To be honest, I've been in the 200 forums of late and just now getting back into putting energy into The Mule. So maybe I've just missed those conversations. If there is evidence I'd truly like to know and will gladly change my understanding.
Here's what I've seen posted:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
I stopped at five references. @2001LC is a very experienced Cruiser wrench. If it was the case he'd likely have seen it.
Yeah, that 50 degree note and 'can cause damage' note is the genesis of this discussion. I've just yet to read where this actually occurred. The two camps seem to be 'the manual warns' so it must be vs. mechanics who have seen real-world failures saying it can't be. While I can't argue with the prudent approach of following the manual, I also find it hard to argue with those with real-world experience indicating otherwise.
Ideally, there would be someone with a scrapped 2UZ who could put it in TDC and then rotate the cam fully and with a scope looking for witness marks on the carbon on piston top
Oil? Where? Make sure you do NOT pay to get your LX back on the road. They mess it up.
My data is the FSM (posted earlier in this thread) and my own wrenching experience. I was definitely not aware of how much this has been debated on Mud specifically, so I guess my comment was too hasty as there's clearly some anecdotal evidence that the earlier 2UZ's have escaped a failed belt without internal damage. Surprising to see such vast argument against Toyota literature regardless - I guess it's possible they wanted to include the interference warning so customers would take the 90k service interval seriously? I'll adjust in the future my blanket understanding that all 2UZ's are likely to suffer damage when a t-belt fails.
I've had 4 2UZ's total (2 LC100's, a 4th gen 4Runner, and 1st gen Tundra), all non-VVTi. There is some debate I've seen around J-Vin trucks vs USA, but community knowledge on all 3 platforms, all 3 FSMs, and various forums is that 4.7's are interference engines that will be damaged with a failed timing belt.
All auto manufacturers have made thousands of mistakes over their lifetimes including Toyota. All service manuals have errors. There's hundreds of data points on this - the valves and pistons of a non-VVT 2UZ-FE do not interfere. That is by definition a non-interference engine. The reason for Toyota's misstatement on this will likely never be known.
- Thread starter
- #56
The news you have all been waiting for is in: The timing belt tensioner was found to be loose. The shop is very kind and doing the right thing and will take care of the situation for us. They are looking to acquire an engine now. Is this a good time for engine mounts or anything else to be replaced?
Geez so sorry, that's such a bummer.
So an AISIN tentioner failed? Are you sure they installed an AISIN kit (Check the spelling).
Based on the miles, yeah, get new engine mounts; install all OEM parts, if A/M, don't do it. Also check the condition of exhaust manifold/exhaust gasket.
- Thread starter
- #59
good tip, yeah the AISIN whatever kit failed- the mechanic said they will be using an OEM toyota part tensioner this time, not the kit. I mentioned the mounts they said they will check them, certain things like this and exhaust manifold/gasket i will be very assertive and anything while it's open since I feel like we do deserve a level of over the top care for our troubles regardless. I've always trusted this shop but will definitely need longer detailed warranty/guarantees with the new engine.
JunkCrzr89
Competent Ignoramoose
That’s installer error. Shop should pay for everything, and I mean everything.
