|
||
|
20th April 2018, 16:02 | #21 | |
same car since 2005
2001 Rover 75 2.0 v6 Connoisseur Saloon Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ellesmere Port , Cheshire
Posts: 3,810
Thanks: 379
Thanked 549 Times in 466 Posts
|
Quote:
See 4.1.2 on the Sealey notes . When the dipstick tube is removed oil spillage can occur so draining is recommended From memory , it's not just on automatics either
__________________
Who said it was simples ? |
|
20th April 2018, 16:45 | #22 | ||
Doesn't do things by halves
Rover 75 2.5 Connoisseur Auto (1999) Dealer launch model. Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Former Middlesex
Posts: 20,265
Thanks: 1,587
Thanked 3,749 Times in 3,181 Posts
|
Quote:
But I see your point now about inserting the claw end into the inlet cam first, thanks! I had been doing a dry run before removing the old belt which is now off. Quote:
Oh, welcome along T-Cut, nice to hear from you. Simon
__________________
"Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble." Sir Henry Royce. |
||
20th April 2018, 20:50 | #23 | ||||
This is my second home
Rover 75 2.5 V6 Connoisseur SE 4dr manual Wedgewood Blue 2 04-05/06/2001 Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N.E. Hampshire
Posts: 4,617
Thanks: 289
Thanked 308 Times in 243 Posts
|
Quote:
I didn't like the tension that doing this put onto my new belt, but I proved that it was possible! RAVE says with the pin fitted the front tools fit, and with the pin fitted the rear tool fits, therefore both front and rear should fit at the same time, and it is possible. I did try to fit my rear belts with the front tools engaged but it was bleedin' difficult - I had to turn the nut on the front tool whilst trying to maneuver the rear belt and pullies assembly into place. Very very difficult. After a ridiculous amount of failures, I think I did achieve it this way - but I might have given up, removed the front tools and pin and moved the crankshaft a tad. Cannot quite remember for sure, but I think I did succeed in what I was trying. But I am not sure it is worth bothering with, it seems to be fine to remove the pin and move the crank a tiny bit to fit the rears as the timing is set by the front tools Either way, the engine sounded beautiful afterwards Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now the first time I think they were a bit out (probably due to movement of the tensioner pulley which resulted in a horrible noise and tiny blisters on the belt), but the second time (after I had done the procedure correctly 4 years earlier) I think the LH front tool was not too far off from fitting, but still wouldn't. I don't think the RH tool fitted either, can't remember how far out it was. So it showed that after ~12,500 miles over 4 years the timing position had moved (any thoughts on this Kaiser?), presumably due to belt/component wear (according to that Gates document cambelts don't stretch, yet it is known that some secondary KV6 belts have been able to flap against the belt covers, so surely that is stretch?). Simon, I am certain that your engine would have had the belts fitted with the locking pin in and front tools engaged at the factory - so I think that as you now find that the front tools don't fit with the pin, that the timing position has moved from the original setting. Your thoughts? But the key to everything I am sure is the locking pin. With that in and the front tools in, the timing will be perfect.
__________________
"...the new Rover 75, which is a fabulous car......I think it looks fabulous....It's like sitting in a Rolls Royce......For me, this is the star of the show.....it looks so good" - J. Clarkson, motoring journalist on the launch of the Rover 75 in 1998. Last edited by Bolin; 20th April 2018 at 20:57.. |
||||
20th April 2018, 21:10 | #24 |
This is my second home
Rover 75 2.5 V6 Connoisseur SE 4dr manual Wedgewood Blue 2 04-05/06/2001 Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N.E. Hampshire
Posts: 4,617
Thanks: 289
Thanked 308 Times in 243 Posts
|
One further thought - before I removed the old cambelt, I tried to insert the pin into the hydraulic tensioner plunger (~12,500 miles/4 years after I had set it up).
The pin went in the outermost side of the tensioner body, through the plunger, but wouldn't go through the innermost side of the tensioner body - showing that the plunger was now sticking out by a fraction more than when I had set it up. Surely this must have been due to belt stretch? Or wear on the plastic idler or metal tensioner pulley perhaps? (much less likely I think). Whatever was the cause for the tensioner plunger to be sticking out a fraction more is probably also the cause for the front tools not to fit and the timed position to have moved.
__________________
"...the new Rover 75, which is a fabulous car......I think it looks fabulous....It's like sitting in a Rolls Royce......For me, this is the star of the show.....it looks so good" - J. Clarkson, motoring journalist on the launch of the Rover 75 in 1998. |
20th April 2018, 21:59 | #25 |
This is my second home
75 Tourer 2.5 Auto, 1.8T, 75V8ZT Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Johannesburg ZA
Posts: 6,200
Thanks: 1
Thanked 859 Times in 613 Posts
|
Timing does not "move", unless jumping teeth.
__________________
Worth his V8 in gold |
20th April 2018, 22:29 | #26 | ||
This is my second home
Rover75 and Mreg Corsa. Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sumweer onat mote o'dust (Sagin)
Posts: 21,751
Thanks: 341
Thanked 3,660 Times in 2,924 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
TC |
||
20th April 2018, 22:57 | #27 | |
This is my second home
MG ZT CDTi Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: carrick
Posts: 7,859
Thanks: 3,494
Thanked 2,657 Times in 1,973 Posts
|
Quote:
Looking at the first image in this thread, you can see the belt 'rippled' as it sits on a sprocket. Then looking at the image Brian posts of a newly fitted belt, it doesnt have these depressions. I can kind of understand and accept how the belts cannot stretch as they have cord as reinforcement, which does not stretch. Well that is how I imagine it not able to stretch. Then as you say T-Cut, I can see how compression could make the belt 'shrink' (and become slack at the same time!) As a question, could this compression, if allowed to continue, compress the belt so much, that it eventually becomes brittle or at least loose its flexibility? (this is not a question to enflame or resume the 'discussion' in the closed thread, rather a thought that popped into my mind with T-Cut's suggestion of the compression)
__________________
It is not gloss primer .............. it is duct tape silver! |
|
20th April 2018, 23:19 | #28 | |
MG ZT Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posts: 20,151
Thanks: 3,565
Thanked 10,837 Times in 5,718 Posts
|
Quote:
When the belt is at end of life, the lower lands of the belt wear as well as appearing to give a fuller engagement in the pulley, however when compared to a new belt, and this is why I always use Gates HTD Powergrip over Dayco, the teeth of the Gates Powergrip being a circular round profile, rather than the Dayco reinforced parabolic tooth profile. The Dayco tooth profile is supposed to disperse wear dust more efficiently, however I have found when removing Dayco belts from various cars fitted with them, there is evidence of more backlash compared to Gates given similar mileage covered. This tooth wear also can crate the anomaly of the timing marks "not quite lining up" as the amount of backlash can be multiplied by the number of teeth fully engaged in each pulley, in the case of the front belt of the KV6 sixty fully engaged teeth in contact with the three pulleys. Brian |
|
20th April 2018, 23:41 | #29 |
This is my second home
Rover 75 2.5 V6 Connoisseur SE 4dr manual Wedgewood Blue 2 04-05/06/2001 Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N.E. Hampshire
Posts: 4,617
Thanks: 289
Thanked 308 Times in 243 Posts
|
Interesting stuff, so it is thickness wear not stretch.
But it does affect the timing! And if you were to fit a new belt using marks from where the timing had moved to with a worn belt, and then do the same every 6 years, the timing will surely get more and more away from where it should be? Question is, how significant would this be? There was a service procedure for replacing KV6 belts without tools for diplomatic cars, by making new marks on the secondary pullies, but I think that related to the earlier KV6 in the 800 (apparently the engine would run OK but the timing wouldn't be spot on due to the belt manufacturing tolerances). I guess that the belt manufacturing tolerance would be more significant, based on the above, but it's a guess P.S. Simon, did you check how much the plunger protruded before removing the tensioner bolt? Would be interesting to compare.
__________________
"...the new Rover 75, which is a fabulous car......I think it looks fabulous....It's like sitting in a Rolls Royce......For me, this is the star of the show.....it looks so good" - J. Clarkson, motoring journalist on the launch of the Rover 75 in 1998. |
20th April 2018, 23:59 | #30 | |
This is my second home
75 Tourer 2.5 Auto, 1.8T, 75V8ZT Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Johannesburg ZA
Posts: 6,200
Thanks: 1
Thanked 859 Times in 613 Posts
|
Quote:
Absolute nonsense in terms of any measurable effect. Fitting a new belt, and all is back to where you were!. ExactlY.
__________________
Worth his V8 in gold |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|