3.0na questions

[2.2turboscotty]

i just picked up a 93 lebaron convertable 3.0 auto. i got the car free and the top, body and interior are very nice. the motor has 130k on it and the water pump went south and took the t.belt with it. i timed it with a new belt and just let the water pump go just to hear it run. well, it sounds like it has bent some valves or something, spins over quick and will not fire up. i have never had one come in the shop with a broken belt before, so my question is does anyone think it could be more than just bent valves or has anyone seen anything worse like broken pistons? i have another motor sitting here but it has 230k on it and i would like to use the 130k engine because 100k is alot of difference in miles. give me some feedback on what i should do. i was also thinking of rebuilding the original motor and putting a turbo on it, but putting the high milage motor in the car to get it going. i have never owned a 3.0 car but i hear they are good motors. any advice would be great!
thanks, scotty

[edraws]

Did you double check the timing?

I just did an engine swap a couple months back due to a thrown rod. I didn't time the new engine properly and it sounded just like that.

Had the timing checked and it was way off, so we re-timed the engine and it fired up no problem after that.

As far as I know, the Chrysler/Mitsu 3.0 is a non-interference engine. So even if the timing belt did break it shouldn't have damaged the valves hopefully.

[2.2turboscotty]

yes, i did check several times and it is dead on. i checked in my timing belt book and found i had it right. i looked on alldata and in the book and both said it was an interference engine. the guy that gave me the car had been working on it and he said that it just died going down the road, i wish it had just stalled when idling, but not my luck. my wife likes the car and since she drives a wrangler with 35 in. tires it will help her with gas milage and tire wear. do these cars get decent gas milage when running right? what do you think i should do? swap heads or replace engine?
scotty

[cleverklutz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2.2turboscotty i looked on alldata and in the book and both said it was an interference engine.

That is without a doubt true. The 3.0 is a mitsu motor. I don't think Mitsubishi has ever made a motor that ISN'T an interference engine. The 3.0 is one of their better motors though. It makes about the same power as the 3.3, but the torque comes in at almost have the rpm. (2400 rpm.) If I were you I'd pull off the heads and see how bad it is. If it hasn't dropped any valves and hammered the pistons to crap, then I would just take the heads to a shop and get new valves and seals put in. You can then have the peace of mind it won't burn oil because of used valve stem seals.

I have a 1993 Dynasty with a 3.3. It is very good on fuel considering the size of the car. This last tank I drove lots of city driving, I drive it on very short, hard stop and go driving. Then the highway driving I did do was wide open, about 160km/h. When the tank was under 1/8th. I drove it 100km to the gas station doing 90-100km/h. After a hard run like that I still averaged 25mpg. (Using Imperial gallon, 4.5L/gallon). If I would do all highway and drive nice I should easily pull 30's. I would think the 3.0 should be even better on fuel because it's smaller and of a more effiecient design. (SOHC vs. pushrod).

Good luck.

[Una]

The 12v 3.0 is a non-interference engine. I know this the hard way. Forgot to tighten the cam sprockets, one of them spun on it's dowel pin, fixed that and it came back to life. Not to mention all the 3.0 kids on Allpar's forums confirmed that it wasn't interference when I was ready to scrap the car. You got something wrong if it won't start...

[Ondonti]

Its not interferance. If you think it is, then you obviously have never worked on one. My buddy put his 3.0 pistons in backwards, and he tried turning the crank with a wrench and it wouldnt turn...... Since we knew the engine was non interferance, I told him his pistons must be in backwards. Yup.

The 24v version of the motor is interferance.......and of course information about that motor does people on this website absolutly no good.

I would have to say your explaination doesnt give any information to be able to say whats wrong. What doesnt do you hear, what makes you think "such and such" is wrong.......

Ive spun bearings, thrown rods, and blown 5 pistons in 3.0 motors.

[Una]

Yeah, Ondonti is the resident 3.0 guru. At least I know a couple of things about it tho..

[lotharamc]

I had the timing belt break on my old 3.0, and they are not interference engines. The horrendous ticking is the lifters in the rocker arms. When I put mine back together after a considerable amount of time, it sounded like all the valves were bouncing around ontop of the pistons. It will quiet down after awhile.

If its not running, and you have it timed right, there is something else wrong. Make sure you have gas, and spark.

[2.2turboscotty]

i am not doubting anyone on this, i am getting different answers on the 3.0. i have worked on many 3.0 engines putting waterpumps on and timing belts, also many seals as they tend to come in with oil leaks. i am by no means a guru on the 3.0, and this is why i asked some of you because many of you have these motors and are gurus. i never claimed to be any kind of expert but don't treat me like i have my head up my butt, i came to ask for help because i only know that the timing marks are correct, the car has fuel pressure and spark at the wires. it spins over quite freely almost like it has no compression. i called friend at dodge dealer that is also a TD guy and he was going to speak to some of the older mechanics and see if any had seen bent valves when belt breaks, i personally have not seen one with broken belt. the car broke down on the other owner, who has passed away, so i can not get any other info as to what it did when it finally died. i want to thank all that have replied and thank those in advance that will, i feel that the car is worth fixing and since my friend has passed away it holds some sentimental value to me. if motor is non interferance then does anyone have any other ideas and are these motors know for any common faliure?
thanks as always, scotty

[roguetrip]

did u pull the distributor or any plug wires when changing out the timing belt and waterpump, if so that maybe something is wrong there

Also have you done a compression test on each cylinder incase its something actually wrong with the engine?

Check the fuse box for blown fuses

also check to make sure you didn't pull any connectors apart, like the map sensor or something near the timing belt, maybe even broke a wire not paying attention when pulling something out.

I'm quite a guru since i own a 1990 12v v6 daytona, and a 1992 24v v6 dodge stealth, and also owned a 1992 lebaron convertible 12v v6, and i will tell you that the 12v chrysler 3.0 is NOT-interference, while the 24v stealth is interference. I had my timing belt break on my daytona and the engine came out fine, also bought my lebaron with a broken timing belt and bad water pump that sat for a year but replaced my parts and it kicked over like it was new.

[Una]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2.2turboscotty i am not doubting anyone on this..... i never claimed to be any kind of expert but don't treat me like i have my head up my butt....

I think I speak for everyone when I say we meant no such thing. Somethings things come accrossed too harsh on the forums. I know in my post I was just trying to make it absolutely clear that you can't bend the valves in these engines. Just trying to save you alot of time and labor pulling the heads when that's not the problem. Just check out some of our suggestions (I didn't make any, I don't know that much about the 3.0's), and you're bound to nail down the problem.

[Ondonti]

Its not physically possible to bend the valves in the 12v 3.0 unless you break a spring retainer.....and thats not going to happen.

24v 3.0 heads will bend valves, they are interferance motors.

The pistons will blow up long before the valves. Ive got 5 busted pistons in a box here. compression was low, especially in the one where the top of the piston started to shear off.

[2.2turboscotty]

it had been a long day at the shop, no cars to work on, business is little slow, i may have taken the post wrong. i was also confused because i was getting different answers on the interferance part, book says one thing and others say something different, sorry guys i know yall were just trying to help.on the good note, i got it running and it runs very well. when i had gotten the car the belt was broken, water pump shot and the rotor button was chewed up. i looked and it looked like jesse had broken the button trying to take it off the distributer, metal piece still stuck on shaft. i was able to remove the metal part and i put new button on it, well i did not notice that he must have thought that distributer had jumped or something becuase the dist. looked like it had been moved. i double checked timing and all marks were right, but rotor button pointing at plug wire #1 not at the post that went to #1 on the under side of cap. i put dist. back in correctly and guess what? it fired up and ran nice and did not even smoke!!!!!! i noticed that a freeze plug in the back is leaking a little so back out tonight to get that straight. thanks guys i can't tell you thanks enough times, i am greatful for all the advice and help!!!!!
scotty

[2.2turboscotty]

hey una or ondonti, do yall know what sizes the freeze plugs are on the back of the 3.0? i called but the parts store guy asked what size? i need to get them today and take them home to do the repair. i think that should get it going.
thanks, scotty

[big_P]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ondonti Its not interferance. If you think it is, then you obviously have never worked on one. My buddy put his 3.0 pistons in backwards, and he tried turning the crank with a wrench and it wouldnt turn...... Since we knew the engine was non interferance, I told him his pistons must be in backwards. Yup.

Who the hell could have done that?


You da man, Brent