Timing Belt Wear Question Completed 2-18-07
 

I would really appreciate the opinion of the group on an issue that is giving me concern.
Recently I did a TB retension on a friends 86.5. The car had about 1500 miles since a complete TB & WP 6 weeks ago.
The printing on the TB was worn to a point that it was becoming illegible.

My question is - would the printing on a TB that is 6 weeks old and only covered 1500 miles be worn or would you expect to see the printing in fairly new condition?

I have a collection of TB's, some of which have 40ish thousand miles on them and the printing is still legible.

Thanks in advance.
Roger :thumbup:

This is my old one after 22,000 miles / 6 years (with the new one on top)

What brand of belt was it?

Most of the old belts I've seen you could still read the lettering on the belt, and most were after 40K+ miles. Do you think the customer got a wall job? That's when they park it up against the wall and a day or two later call and say the car is ready, and your bill is $$$$$.$$. :evilgrin:

What does the water pump look like? Are the bolts and area clean? Does it look like the gasket is new for the pump? Is the belt showing any wear on the underside? What was the tension when you went to re-tension it?

Who did the water pump and belt replacement and what is their reputation with 928's?

Jim Mayzurk
93 GTS 5-spd

I am 90% certain it is Porsche OE.
I may have to go in and look again and take a pic.
The printing was the same as the one in Lu'c picture - the new one that is - just well worn.

I think it may be as simple as ink.

Or a bearing is dragging !

If it were just bad ink rubbing/washing off, you would expect the belt to look otherwise like new. If it is wearing off, the belt might look shiny. I wonder if one of the idlers is frozen. That could do it without a whole lot of noise I guess. Anything else in the pathway that contacts the backside would make a constant racket.

If it was a conti I could help you with it, the lettering stays on them for a while.

Rog, paint ain't no thang

Regardless of who made the belt, 1,500 miles is not much for the lettering to be gone, recheck everything.
You know what is at stake if the belt breaks.

The only two things that touch the back of the belt are the tension roller and the water pump pulley. Would a belt that is too tight wear the writing off faster? Are there any fluids that would dissolve the print off, such as coolant or oil? If so, some could have gotten on during the installation and rubbed off long ago as the belt circulated.

Matt

I just cranked the engine until I could see the printing down through the breather hole on top of the TB cover and it is worn to the point of being hard to read. The belt itself looks very worn.

The Water Pump looks clean but so is the engine - difficult to tell if it was replaced recently or not.

The tension was fine when I checked it - did not need any adjustment.

My concerns are two fold here :-
1) Was the job that was supposed to be done, done at all.
2) If it was not then we are looking at doing it again to ensure we have a good TB.

It is definitely the white type of printing that is typical of the Connti belts.
That is what concerned me in the first place.

I guess I am going in again to take a closer look.

Some of the rebuilt pumps I've seen have had a rather rough texture on the pulley surface: I do not think that would have any adverse effect on TB life .... but it may be hell on lettering.

The lower idlers face the backside.

Well it is over 2 weeks since I checked the tension and was beginning to doubt myself and that maybe I had imagined the whole thing and that the belt was not as bad as I thought. WRONG!

I just pulled the TB cover and this belt is worn out and could be the original. Car has 65k. :eek:
The belt is also running on the front of the cam gear on the passenger side. Was not like that 2 weeks ago.

I see a TB & WP job in its immediate future. :mad:

bump

did they just turn it over?

Yes, ASAP...

That's what mine looked like in the top cover, and this was underneath the center:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...8/IMG_0315.jpg

Zat ist not a new belt. (Or at least it doesn't look like a new belt.)

And as you noted it's not tracking properly.

There's only one course of action...

Bus, quit scaring the piss out of us with that picture!

Roger, so, what is the evidence that the timing belt was done 6 weeks ago?

Ach! 'tis not so scary that picture. That belt still has most of its teeth. Now this one on the other hand...
http://members.rennlist.com/worf928/minus-12.jpg

Bill,
"what is the evidence that the timing belt was done 6 weeks ago?"
The exchange of money and a receipt saying so. Being told that the TB&WP have been changed by the PO & the shop that did the work. Paying a price for a car that equates to one that has had that level of work done prior to purchase.

I will document the work for obvious reasons.

Starting to replace and check everything. I will report back when I have everything off.

My wild guess would be the new water pump is jamming and wearing the belt; of course it might have fixed itself by now if it was just something like too much paint on the impellor.
Anyway I do no like the look of the belt surface so I would change that; also find out why the belt is not tracking in the middle.
Did the change the cam gears when the they did the TB & WP job? I would expect to see some wear from when the belt tracked in the middle - if it ever did.

Marton

Roger, there is no way that belt is new.
I have done to many Conti belts to remember and that one has a bunch of miles on from just looking at it. :cheers:

I would think that if the waterpump bearing was dragging you would see coolant at the weephole in short time because the seal won't last with the heat that a bad bearing will generate. Are you seeing any coolant down on the top of the oil pan by the sender?

Other than the visual wear on the belt there are no other indications that there is a problem.

For what it's worth, about a year ago i had a h20 pump go bad after only 10K miles and the added friction was enough to wear the painted lettering off of the new timing belt. Any of the rollers going bad could cause what is shown, were they replaced as well?

Damn dude, my old belt with more milage looked way better than that one! Something is just not right here. There appears to be too much grease and dirt buildup in places that would take much longer to accumulate in. So sorry this happened to you. Looks like you caught it in time though.
I should not have looked at those pix so early in the morning- I feel kind of ill now. Maybe I better make sure mine is ok... I'll be right back...

KILLINGMOON:

Great avatar pic :thumbup:

Roger, I agree with the group, NO WAY that is a new belt! :grr: How far does the belt stick out past the cam gears? I think it's time for your customer to contact both the PO and the shop that did the work. Again, what is the reputation of the shop and how familiar are they with 928's? If possible get a copy of the bill to see the list of parts changed and the P/N's if possible. Does the bill show tensioner re-build, bushing or roller replacement etc? Did they charge for replacement anti-freeze, what shop consumables were charged? Your customer should also threaten to file a complaint with the local Better Business Bureau (BBB) and post the shop name here on Rennlist. :banghead: VERY FRUSTRATING

Jim Mayzurk
93 GTS 5-spd

what is it rubbing on. heck, mine is of the tensioner roller by a little, yet its not rubbing.

Mark,
Most of the rest of us need things like cam gear teeth, timing belts that stay in the right place and other minor details that work. You seem to have special dispensation from the gods of BWAAAAAH. They must like the way you drive! :roflmao: :roflmao:

What is the usual fix when the T-belt is running too close to the front
of the cam gears?
The passenger side on my 86.0 is getting close, about 2.0mm.

usually it is because the tensioning roller is not straight; bent bolt or similar.

Marton

there is a little tiny bit of play on the tensoner bolt. there is, obviosly the main washer, but ive seen PET drawings of a real thin washer as well. i think if i got rid of the slight amount of movement, radially of the tensioner, it would be straight on the roller . as you may know, the tensioner bolt has a thick body that bottoms out at the base of the water pump and that real thick washer. so, the top of the bolt with no washer, could be the reason for this. too think and there would be pressure on the bearing axially that probaby would not be good. but some .010 washer could clean up the angle slightly.
my belt runs to the front of the passenger pulley and pretty close to the front of the pulley, less 1/4" on the drvier side. it runs just over the edge of the tensioner roller. so far, no issues as it has always looked like this, over 5 race seasons and 18,000miles of street driving, 3 -4 different water pumps and several timing belts! and of course, NEW tensioner bolts. i had one break on installation and another was slightly bent over the course of 5 years. cheap insurance. that little big-headed (13mm) bolt, with the 10mm type threads, could be a real disaster! that bolt comes off and the heads are toast!

Mk

That belt is dragging on something. You can see the rubber sort of depositing (vulcanizing) in a liner fashion on to the top of the belt. If this belt only has 1500 on it, then there must be something (WP or tensioner roller) seizing up and causing this or it could simply have over 60K miles on it.

I guess I'll keep an eye on mine to make sure it isn't getting any closer to the front edge.

I would feel more comfortable with it running in the middle though, that's for sure!

Rog, is this who's car I think it is? A local Dr.'s car?

If so, I'd be really pissed off at the PO and that "shop".

Sean,
If I were to divulge that information to you I would have to kill you.

GLAD ANGELA'S BACK - thats cheered me up as all this crap weather is getting me down.

Me too, Sean!

Texass is the only place where it can snow and the only thing to accumulate is car crashes by the roadside...

Rog, come join us in Seattle - it's nice and sunny here, clear skies :thumbup: ...... payback's a b#tch isn't it lol

I saw the belt in person, and it's either very old, or scuffing on something for a while. It just doesn't look right in there. The center cover isn't off yet so we can't see of the rollers are dragging or not.

Doc

The belt is alive :confused:

No wonder it does not track right :icon107:

Marton

I visually viewed the belt with my eye, rather than a picture.

Marton,
These Americans have no sense of humour - I enjoyed your joke.
Roger

Hey Rog,

You offering pre-mortem viewings? I have a new concept -- who needs 'belts?' Let's get her some suspenders, eh?

Roger if you do not find anything when you take the belt off, see how much force it takes to rip one of the ribs off the belt.

Knew I should have stopped by on the way home today. Then I could have seen the offending belt and given a useless opinion of it.

Suspenders (Garters) now we are really talking!!!!

H,
Its snowing here and very cold - If I did not have a "full plate" of work I may hop on a plane.
Roger

It's been done already, see above. :typing:

Ugh, grammar Nazis.

I fear that once you are done with 'your plate' you will be able to buy the plane!

Thanks for all the great investigative work.
You were on to it a few weeks ago!
Commendable diagnostic skills, Rog!

I guess I am still missing that.

grammar Nazis????

:icon107:

See post #43. Our friend from Switzerland is having a bit of fun with my verb-subject/predicate malfunction.

Hell, we are Southern, a lot of folks think we talk funny also. :p

Our friend from Switzerland is a Brit - Brit's rule when it comes to grammar and English.

When I became a US citizen I was tested for my knowledge of English by an American :icon501: :icon107:

Why can I not find a "stirring" smiley?

worse Rog:
When i worked at a large US company I wanted to give my parents a tour of the manufacturing plant. I was a manager. I had arranged for an escort for my parents. I had a white badge (non-US) and was stopped by a red-badged gate guard (US Citizen) who could not speak English, he was apparently Eastern. He could not understand enough to call the person who was to escort us, and shooed us away saying "no America, no America" ... THEY FLEW home that day and never saw the plant.

Ahhhhh a fellow Canadian! :)

lol Imo :D

Hi Gang,
First: I agree this TB is not new, no way. If a TB shows that much wear after 1500 miles, it would have produced some sort of noise and would have failed 5 miles later.

Second: I had a lot of fun in my old job at Sheppard AFB. One of my duties was to proof read USAF officer performance reports. The look on some faces after I rejected reports due to grammar: PRICELESS :)

Hi Schocki

:_otopic:
Reminds me some years ago I did a project for the British RAF with a big technical team.
The last deliverable to a tight time schedule was a user manual. None of the team could write so the content of the manual was awful.
I delivered it to the Project owner who handed it over to Quality man. His report was,
Font Correct
Font size Correct
Line spacing Correct
Paper size correct
Grammar Correct
Manual is 100% OK.

Marton

Hi Schocki

:_otopic:
Reminds me some years ago I did a project for the British RAF with a big technical team.
The last deliverable to a tight time schedule was a user manual. None of the team could write so the content of the manual was awful.
I delivered it to the Project owner who handed it over to his Quality man. His report was,
Font Correct
Font size Correct
Line spacing Correct
Paper size correct
Grammar Correct
Manual is 100% OK.

Marton

Ahhh...did you just double post :icon107:

10 YARD PENILE-ITY FOR IMPROPER RENNLIST etiquette! :D

no no :D

Only 10 yards penalty? Thank you thank you I am not worthy

Marton

Timing Belt Removed - New Pictures
 

I removed the TB covers on Friday and took some interesting pictures.

It is possible that only the WP & TB were changed and nothing else and I mean nothing else!

The WP looks new, however if the TB was new it certainly experienced some serious wear in a few miles.

At 45 BTDC the timing marks were lined up perfectly. Prior to removing the TB the tension was spot on.

The belt is tracking forward on the right side cam gear and rubbing against the roller arm.
Both the idler and tensioner pulleys show uneven wear.
The pivot bolt looks straight to the eye.
All the bolts & washers seem to be in the right place.

What is causing the belt to track forward or at least be positioned forward and the uneven wear on the rollers?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Car is an 86,5 with 60k miles.
:bigbye:

My bet is a bent tensioner pulley bolt. At least I think that's the bolt - it's the one that BigDave found as the cluprit for his TB failure as well as a few others.

I would first evaluate the carrier arm bushings: does the arm have any play in the radial plane?

Andrew,
The bolt looks perfectly straight with a steel rule - how bent are we talking?

Garth,
No play on the tensioner roller in either plane.
There is some slight wear in the two non metallic bearing inserts where the pivot bolt passes through.
Maybe .015" total. They will be changed.

Check the plastic bushings in the Tensioner arm where the shoulder bolt pictured passes thru. If the shoulder bolt is straight it is probably worn bushings. It Could also be that the tensioner arm is bent but i doubt it.

Sterling,
Everything is being replaced - just trying to understand what happened in the first place.
The idler bearing has a small amount of play - maybe .025" total. Definitely on its way out.
Whats amazing is that IF the WP is new they took the idler pulley of the old one and put it on this one with the wear in the bearing - negligent in the first degree!
Roger

Ben,
See post #70.
Roger

This was my experience:

Here are some pictures of the bushing in the tensioner arm that failed causing all the damage. The pictures arent the best, basically the bushing cracked and ovaled out which alloud the tensioner to rock in relation to the rest of the pulleys pushing the timing belt forward into the tensioner bracket (thats what the shiny silver grooves in the arm are, the belt cut them in)

http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/ten1.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/ten2.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/ten3.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/ten4.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/ten5.jpg

Here are pictures of what it looked like with the belt still on it, you can see how the pulley is cocked at an angle to the crank pulley...

http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/al1.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/al2.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/al3.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/al4.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/al5.jpg


And this is the end result

http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/result1.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/result2.jpg
http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/result3.jpg

The driver side head has all the exhaust valves bent severely, the passenger side isn't as bad, but they still need all new exhaust valves and guides...

bunch of Porsche valvetrain parts... http://www.lasotaracing.com/carter/broke/parts.jpg

Rock on, i just did a quick cursory check of the thread.

Roger,
How does the bolt look if you roll it slowly over a very straight surface (like glas)? Is it really straight?

Looks like there is no visible wear on the rear portion of the cam gear that drives the camschafts. Looks like the belt was always running this far forward... strange

Roger
I noticed the same thing on one we did last year.....we we put it back together we put one washer on the wrong side of the idler pulley it was just enough to through the belt forward (like yours) & it even ground on the harmonic balancer......did you note where the washer was when you removed it?

Schocki,
Straight when rolled on glass. If it is bent in any way it is a couple of thou only.

Brian,
That was my first thought as the unworn portion of each roller is equal to the size of the large washer on the pivot bolt between the idler pulley and the carrier.
I checked against PET and everything seems in the right place.

Rick,
I have all the symptoms you had but in the earlier stages it would seem.
I still cannoy understand why the TB is riding off the pulleys. By the wear they have been like that from the start.

The wrong washer option is probably the cause. I was just wodering about the yellow paint on one of the cam gears. Seemed untouched after 1500 miles the paint should be gone for sure.

I was going to agree with Schocki, but the cam gears look new all over, so no old wear tracks. Are they new?

I've had one 86 where I ended up with the belt tracking forward and hanging slightly off the front of the tensioner pulley, but not this much and not wearing on the front edge like this. I took it apart two additional times and could not figure it out. Isn't that encouraging?

The WP could have the pulley set forward for some reason, forcing the belt out. See where the belt is riding on that pulley. This is the only pulley in the system with edge walls and if the belt rides forward on both cam gears, it would be suspect. If the belt is being forced forward by the tensioner pulley misalignment, the passenger side is affected more than the driver side, so the path is more forward on the passenger side cam gear, while the driver side stays centered. Oh, and you could imagine that if the WP pulley axis were somehow canted up, that this would cause the belt to run forward, but I don't see how that could happen.

This looks so far off, I wonder if there might be some model year part mixups that could result in this. I can't remember if mixing parts can do this. Garth went through the various tensioner arms in a post long ago and seems to know the most about this.

If it's straight, it's straight. On to other culprits.

Roger,
Does the TB run against the WP roller notch? If you have an old WP lying around, measure the distance of the notch towards the WP housing and compare. The WP roller notch is the only thing that keeps the TB from falling of the gears anyhow. If I'm not wrong (haven't looked at mine for a while). Could it be a incorrectly assembled rebuilt WP?

The cam gears are looking very good with very little wear on them as is the oil pump gear.
No records of these being changed.
The TB & WP job 1500miles ago states very clearly that the only things changed were the WP & TB. No other parts and the parts cost and labor seem to bear that out.
The tensioner has not been touched at all and the rollers are not new and probably original.

Here's the roller assembly as it came off the car.

WOW, is that belt wear pattern off-center on the roller!

Did you get a look at the belt position on the WP pulley as Schocki and I mentioned, before you removed it?

The lack of any wear pattern on the cam gears is odd if they weren't replaced. The wear pattern on the roller suggests the belt has been doing this longterm and a new WP with something amiss with the pulley alignment wouldn't be the cause. Still, the fact that the whole belts rides forward points to it.

The bolt that holds the washer is only for picture demonstration purposes, correct?

Here's what mine looked like. Yours doesn't look bent.

http://www.928oc.org/928oc_michigan/tbelt006.jpg

Bill,
Go back and look at the pics in post #67 and that shows the TB on the idler roller.

Schocki,
No thats the pivot bolt - pre 87 has a bolt.

Is that washer the right one? On PET it just gives a part number and no size.
The size of the un-worn parts of the rollers seems to equate to the thickness of that washer.

??

Yes, I saw that it was forward on that as well. The belt is forward throughout its entire length.

That thick washer appears to be correct for 85-86. It appears the arm and roller is located OK, but the belt isn't.

Roger - did you comment on the condition of the pivot bolt plastic bushings yet?

Oh, and ANY play in the tensioner roller bearing is bad. These should be real snug, just like a fresh WP bearing. Maybe that's all it is, perhaps along with some looseness in the pivot bushings. I assume the circlip is on the tensioner roller shaft too.

Roger,

These at the least should be inspected at every TB service and condition noted. It wasn't on mine at either Stuttgart Motorwerks (Pete Martin) in Hendersonville, NC or Midwestern Autogroup (MAG) in Dublin, OH. It was about 18 months after the TB service at MAG the valves were bent. I also have to take responsibility for not inspecting it myself but I can plead nonprofessional ignorance. Hopefully I've learned from this expensive lesson and by sharing others will not have to go down the same hard road.

As a side note both MAG and Stuttgart Motorwerks are usually well regarded.

Roger it is likely the crank gear and enough play in the rollers, as well as a tensioner needing rebuild. That belt has taken strain

I've seen this before on my '85 and it was a combination of a few parts being every so slightly worn out. I had a slightly worn tensioner roller and slightly worn pivot bolt bushings. Each part was so slightly worn that it didn't require changing but as an entire assembly the end play was what cause the belt to be pushed off centre. Sor of like: a little wear here and a little mear there adds to be a significant aomount at the end.
I would replace the tensioner roller with a new one and replace the pivolt bushings too. As soon as there is some play in the tensioner assembly the tensioner rolle will start pushing on the t-belt on a non perpendicular angle and this will make the belt migrate (usually towards the forward direction).

I hope this helps.

BTW, that pivot bolt you pictured may be straight, but it is corroded and probably worn. Hence, it may have play even with new bushings. So, good idea to change that bolt too as you are doing.

I should add that even though I mentioned the WP pulley as possibly being a factor in throwing off alignment of the whole belt, I haven't actually encountred this. So, it's just a hypothetical possibility I threw out. Most likely, as the consensus seem to be, the problem is in the tensioner carrier arm pivot bolt, bushing and roller. Also, it looks longstanding. The shop that serviced this without doing those parts should be run out of business, unless the PO insisted on only doing the TB/WP.

The carrier arm set up pic in post #85 looks fine: there does appear to be erosion on the bearing surfaces of the pivot bolt as Bill noted - I was just out in the garage checking bushing fit on some old warrior pivot bolts vs a new one. New is good :) ... but it takes a lot of wear to give significant play in the radial plane.
The circlip behind the tensioner roller being missing is the most common culprit causing the TB to track over the forward edge of the roller; however, the bolt penetration in pic #85 suggests that it is correctly in place.

When the carrier arm, as shown, is bolted to the pump, are the dimple of the carrier arm, center of the tensioner roller, axis of the piston rod, and centerline of the tensioner all sitting on the same vertical plane .... as the center line of the pump pulley?
If not, that often leads to the problem .... again, provided that there is no wobble fore and aft of the carrier arm. Again, it is the circlip and correct spacer that determine this .... which appear correct: hummmmmm .....

Remote as it may be, it is the height of the boss on the water pump that is the last element causing all these parts to sit in the same plane. So, is there any sign that some imaginative sculpting may have been done to this particular pump - to decrease the height? I ask, knowing that we previously caught a 16v to S4 'conversion' .... so maybe someone fixed a damaged boss ?????

A last thought, unless someone already noted it, is that the pump pulley may not be fully pressed onto its shaft .... which would cause the obvious ...

Just to reiterate - I am replacing EVERYTHING with new.
Just trying to understand how this situation occured.

The WP is new (will also be replaced) and is correct and has not been tampered with.

The position of the belt on the crank gear was correct and on the oil pump gear and the left cam gear. It should have been correct on the WP becuase the pully keeps it that way.

So we are back to the wear within the tensioner area , rollers, pivot bolt. Or an incorrectly assembled roller assembly.

When all the parts arrive and I can start putting her back together we will see if anything changes.

Just wondering, does the shaft for the large tensioner roller have the c-clip on it? Otherwise it will be located too far back, there have been 2 cars here in the PACNW with that problem recently.

Chris

Hi Roger,

Very strange, I do not see anything in the fotos or posts to explain the belt mis tracking.

Also strangely the inside of the belt looks pretty new unlike the outside. I still think it had a roller sticking which caused the external belt wear but if they all turn OK now then I have no idea why the belt did not return to tracking correctly.
I assume you did check the water pump roller was turning OK before you removed the WP?

Good luck

Marton

Dry tensioner. ??

The tensioner has received no TLC in a number of years and may be original.
Had oil in it.

Did the main chamber with the washer springs have oil, or just the cavities on the back side? Cracked rubber boot?
I'm just wondering because it seems like most people who post about finding a wandering belt also find a dry tensioner.

Well, this is a generality, but suits the situation. Rollers which have a slightly concave face will run the belt up one side or the other. rollers that are slightly convex will tend to self center. The reason is beyond the scope of this discussion, but that's the way it works. So, a roller, in this case, a pulley with teeth cut into it with a concave face will route the belt to the side.

Doc

Roger:

I see that you say the belt was NOT forward on the left cam gear. From the pictures, I thought it was. Anyway, if it was mostly forward just on the right cam gear, then that is more evidence that it is the carrier arm bushings, bolt and roller at fault.

OK & the reason for the wear on the other side (non tooth) side of the belt?

The tooth side does look very new in the fotos; maybe different in reality!

Marton

Any comments from the PO or the shop they used?

I don't see how they could have missed the poor tracking of the belt.

I will leave the naming of the shop who did (didn't) do the work to the owner of the car.

Bill,
Heres a pic of the left hand cam gear with the TB in place.
Slightly off center but no where near the front as on the right side.

If the tensioner wasn't dry, or had more than a couple of drops of oil in it, then the only thing that could be causing it would be worn tensioner arm bushings.

John, what about a worn crank gear and wear on other components?

Hold on, let me get some photos together to compare with Roger's.

Back of the belt sure looks like its been abused.

Hey, is that silver grade anti-sieze compound on the back of that belt?

Ben,
No its the camera light.
H,
Most everything else is good. The wear in the tensioner bushings is the worst. The pivot bolt seems to be staright but worse for wear.

I still can't get my head around why the belt was not central on both rollers. The wear indicates it had been like that for a long time.

Lot of wear on the smooth side of the belt and shown by a lot of wear on the idler roller.
Idler rollers I have seen do not normally show much wear???

I was just kidding

I would think that the other gears would wear long before the crank gear.

These photos are from my car (86 with 78k). Look familiar? The timing belt had been changed 6 or 7 years ago. I don't know how long it had been riding forward.

The belt on the passenger side cam gear (shown) was more forward than on the driver side. Both gears are in excellent condition and show no worn spots or dishing.
http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/01tbelt.jpg

The belt had just started grazing the tensioner arm.
http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/02_beltgrazing.jpg

The belt was riding off of the tensioner roller.
http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/03_roller.jpg

The tracking marks on the old roller (new roller on left). The roller didn't appear to be worn. There was no side-to-side movement and the roller rolled freely without any binding.
http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/04_roller.jpg

The shaft bolt was not bent (YET). The washer is the correct one and in the correct place.
http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/05_shaftbolt.jpg

The bushings were not cracked. You can see where the belt was rubbing on the tensioner arm. Also, you can see that the lower face of the bushing is a little shiny. I believe this is caused from the belt pulling on the tensioner arm when it rubs, which causes the arm to flex downward on the bolt, which would have eventually bent it. The shiny area on the bushing is then caused by pressure in that area from the thick washer (see previous photo). Increased pressure from the belt on the tensioner arm could probably cause the bushings to crack.
http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/06_bushing1.jpg

The other bushing.
http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/07_bushing2.jpg


Here is what Roger has said so far:
The belt was more forward on the passenger side than on the drivers side.
The tension was fine.
The pivot bolt appears straight.
The cam gears are fine.
No play in the tensioner roller.
There is some slight wear in the two non metallic bearing inserts where the pivot bolt passes through.
Tensioner needs TLC, but has oil in it.
The lettering on the back of the belt was worn (normal?).

Here is what I found with mine:
The belt was more forward on the passenger side than on the drivers side.
The tension did not seem too tight; although I didn't have a kempf tool at the time.
The pivot bolt is straight.
The cam gears are excellent.
The oil pump gear is excellent.
The crank gear is excellent.
No play in the tensioner roller.
I don't remember any looseness in the shaft bolt, but the two tensioner arm bushings appear slightly worn. The wear is even on both bushings, which may or may not keep the tensioner roller in a perfect vertical plane. The shaft bolt is shiny where the bushings rub, but it is not worn uneven. It is not dull looking like Roger's.
The rubber boot on the tensioner was cracked and the main housing where the belleville washers reside had two drops of oil left in. The chambers on the back of the tensioner had a thimble full in them.
The lower idler roller was binding, but still rolled.
The lettering on back of the belt was gone (normal?).


I did the full t-belt procedure with rebuilt tensioner. I didn't change the any of the gears. I changed the water pump and changed the lower idler bearing. I've put 500 miles on a new t-belt and the belt hasn't moved off center at all; at least not yet. I think the problem is either in the tensioner or in the bushings. If Roger didn't find anything wrong with his tensioner, then it is probably the bushings; unless his lower idler roller was binding too, then I guess there is a chance that could cause the belt to wander on the tensioner roller.

Edit: I was originally thinking that somehow the tensioner wasn't dampening the vibrations properly, because it was dry, and letting the belt become slack on the tensioner roller for short moments. But now it kind of looks like the bushings cause this.

John,
Thanks for taking the time to post and I think we have a "match".
Seems to be the same issues.
I will change everything out and see.

New Question - what about using a post 87 WP and using the added bracket from the pivot point to the WP. Will the tensioner roller assembly with a later idler roller fit or do I need to change something else???
This mod would stop this happening again.

John,
I am using your 928 manual side by side with the Pirtles writeup. Noting differences and comments.
I will let you have a copy after this is done.

This was the set up on my 82S, New type WP, new idler roller, old tensioner assembly and old roller.

Marton

Jim Baily responded to this question not too long ago. IIRC, the center timing belt cover is different along with the WP pivot. There was a longish list of parts needed for the 'upgrade.'

I'll see if I can find his post.

EDIT: Cannot find it. Jim will need to dredge...

Dave,
The bushings for the tensioner arm are the same.
The center TB cover is different but can be changed to accept the extra bracket very easily.
The 87 WP does not come with the pivot pin so I will need that plus the bracket.
Also the screw and a couple of special washers.
Any other gotchas?
Is the tensioner carrier the same?
87 is 928 105 489 02 the one we have here is 928 105 489 0R (yes R )

Ah, yes, a much better shot. Looks fine.

John Kelly's post with pics illuminates this as well. The rust inside the plastic bushing signifies a lot of corrosion that shouldn't be there. Perhaps poor sealing of the pivot bolt. Whatever the cause, rust is very abrasive.

To clarify my decision about upgrading to the later style bracket between the WP and Tensioner roller carrier.
To me this will greatly decrease the possibility of this situation happening again.
Does the group agree that this is a positive upgrade?

Forgot about that point.
Whoever (PO) put the new style WP pump in, they also modified the center TB cover.

I think they did it with a lumberjack axe; does not really matter as it is only cosmetic.

I will try to tidy it up when I put it all back together.

Marton

In my case, the water pump roller bearing seized but I assume this was in no way related to the later WP version installed.

Marton

"R" indicates a casting number AFAIK.

PET shows 928 105 540 05 as the carrier part number for an 86.

Calling Mr. Bailey....

Rog I went through this with my '85 Euro. The tensioner sits farther forward, so the tbelt cover in the centre must be replaced with an S4 one. You may have to mod the driver's cover shorter to fit it. The tensioner arm and tensioner must be upgraded as well. The new pump will spin against the old centre cover as well so double reasons to change it ALL.

Interesting - when I did this to my early 87 it was just a case of cutting away a small piece of the cover to accommodate the new bracket.
I would have thought that an 86.5 and an early 87 would be practically the same.

Calling Mr Bailey please!

Roger, an 86.5 might in fact have a lot of S4 parts. Lord knows its true for the electrical bits.

Yo! Jim?!

According to PET the 86.5 and the early 87 had the same center cover.
As this mod worked on my early 87 my gut tells me it will be OK on the 86.5.

Oh Jim are you out there :bowdown:

The attached pics illustrate in one case, the 'S4' carrier arm and stud array on the left used from '87 - '95 compared to the late 32v arm assembly as used through '86.5 with the pivot bolt .... on the right.
The second image shows the 7.4mm ( ~8mm) differential offset observed in the piston rod dimple of the arm for pivot bolt applications from mid run 16v motors through to end of the early non-S4 32v motors ( both have the tapped hole for the tensioner alarm, beginning ~'83). The arm on the right is the same in both pics - sort of a 'mid generation step.
The forward offset was to center the line of force acting on the TB so as to minimize any residual torque forcing the tensioner roller and carrier arm to twist sideways ..... causing the obvious mistracking.The major change was a thicker mounting flange for the tensioner body .... which brought everything 'in-line'.
The S4 pivot stud not only added more robust M10 threads into the pump body, but increased the span between the pivot bushings - further stabilizing the arm: the last evolution was the cross brace from the arm tip to the pump body.

The vertical plane through the center of the cam, crank, oil pump and water pump pulley drives was unchanged from '78 - '95: that is why it is a breeze to update easily.

Garth's post should be stuck in the newbie thread. I don't know how many times I've gone looking for those pics.

Hi Garth,
Great info my friend and thanks for taking the time to post.
My carrier arm is the same as the one on the left in the top picture and the one on the right in the lower picture.

So I should be good to make the change - Yes?

Y'all have me confused mon ami ... the top pic left arm is the S4 type, and has the machined boss on the upper left to mount the idler roller directly: the arms to the right in both pics are identical, and are late 'pivot bolt' generation - the main difference re. the S4 is that the idler roller presses on to the pump boss ... which is absent on the S4 pump.

Before typing more, which change are you referring to? .....doing the S4 arm/pump/stud to replace the later gen pivot bolt type?

Hi Garth,
"doing the S4 arm/pump/stud to replace the later gen pivot bolt type?"

I did this on my early 87 which already had the later style WP.
Just added the bracket that goes from the pivot point to the WP.
Apart from the bracket the only other change was the slight mod to the center cover to accommodate the bracket.

I am assuming that I can do the same with the 86.5. Except in this case would have to use the later style WP and Pivot pin, the updated idler roller and screw that holds the bracket to the pivot point.

Am I making the right assumption or do I need a different roller arm?

Start with 86.5
Update brace
needs pump update
ok
update pump
needs idler arm update
ok
update idler arm
needs updated tensioner
ok
update tensioner
needs centre cover update
ok
update centre cover
needs updated driver's cover
ok
update driver's cover


Simple isn't it :)

The roller arm and new tensioner is the straw that broke the camels back.

Yessir it is.

I will recommend we stick with the original setup and do a visual/tension check every 12 months.
Thanks for all the wonderful advise.

PET shows the same tensioner part number for 85, 86 and 87 USA motors? 928 105 066 00.

:confused: so why is the tensioner different?

The same tensioner will work, as will the center cover; however, the S4 carrier arm is needed for the revised mounting of the idler when switching to the S4 type pump as noted in my previous post.
The cover issue comes into play if the cross brace is added .... otherwise, no change.

I've thought of drilling & tapping the head of a pivot bolt and making a cross brace to the old style pump - just haven't bothered yet .... will do it first on some poor unsuspecting 928'er who wants a hand with a TB ... :roflmao:

Should not; as somebody else posted - all the gears & rollers are in the same vertical plane - if not in the same vertical plane, then the TB would not run straight.

Marton

OK

For the '85 Euro I did this on, what I listed is correct but that is, granted, a 16V. The US 85/86 pumps have no boss for the little brace but I can't say for sure if that is on the S4 plane or not. I am pretty sure that the hole of the S4 arm (that you need Rog) and that of the 85/86 are different I/D's because the S4 bolt and the 85/86 boss are different O/D's. Garth can you confirm/deny?

So, Rog, I'm sorry, looks like you need an updated roller but NOT a tensioner, because the tensioner and arm are already in the same plane. Let's let Garth confirm. About the arm, we need to make sure the I/D of it is good for S4 pump.

HH, it is a real schmozzle of parts - but I see your point; maybe this will unschmozzle some of it :) .

From the better close up attached, the 'S4' set up on the left is compared to the early generation 32V ( and some of the last 16v).
All pivot studs and bolts are of the same 12mm diameter - and both use the same bushings in their respective arms: the stud has 38mm of working length for the bushings as compared to the 28mm distance of the bolt. With the latter, there is also the 6mm thickness of the underlying spacer .... plus the height of the water pump boss. The boss is absent on the S4 gen. pump. These features are combined to set the large tensioner roller in the vertical plane of the TB & drive components.
It is the presence or absence of the pump boss that dictates which carrier arm and idler roller to choose .... for the pumps are otherwise identical [ the last gen pumps have additional reinforcing ribs cast in as well as additional tapped holes for the cross brace - but are dimensionally identical].

Anyway, the pic says it better than I :p
The idler rollers are almost identical, but the S4 version shell has a #6905 bearing pressed in vs the # 6004 used for the early 32v.

Garth? I don't suppose you have any images of the different water pumps? That would complete the picture.

Yeah, the same question came to my mind. Garth has already pulled a lot of part rabbits out of his hat.

Surely Garth isn't out of Rabbits? Say it ain't so Garth :)

Put two rabbits together ..... and wait a few days ..... should be 'wots of wabbits' in the near future.
Hummm - I've got a S4 pump here, no 16V pump - but maybe some pics: Actually, I think Roger previously posted excellent pump pics back when a hacked uprebuilt pump would not allow the cross brace to fit.

Interesting topic...good start for an article on "How To" update your early car's Idler Roller and Cam belt System to S4 standards....

I wonder if there's any market for an update kit?

Harvey

Once all the parts are recieved I will post pictures and try to show everything side by side.
Last part to arrive is the roller carrier arm. Coming from Germany.
Roger

Attached is a list of the old & new part numbers showing what needs to be changed.

I just modified the file with an update on the idler roller number

Rog,

You need an award for posting that information! Thanks!

Harvey

Old & New Water Pumps
 

To save Garth having to go out in the cold and chase rabbits here are some old & New pics.
Let me know if we should add anything else to clarify better.

I will be posting pictures of all the different parts side by side when they are all here.

This car is "Risky Biz" and is owned by Kim here in DFW and I would like to thank her for letting me document the process on her car.
:bigbye:

Interesting stuff Roger!

PROJECT - RSKY BIZ . . .
 

Hey Roger,

No problem. Happy to supply you with this interesting project, for the benefit of 86.5 928's everywhere. . . (lol)
I'm envious -- in the ER we don't have this luxury of 'posting' a diagnostic dilemma, and awaiting international feedback!

Thanks to all, btw, for your interest on RSKY BIZ's behalf -- she's a keeper, that is, after her affair, with Rog!
Yes, that 'unconditional love' -- for my 928...
(But Rog, I am enjoying her Guards Red, firebox cuzin' loaner... thank you!)

Kim :cool:

Kim, you may never get your lil girl back. I've fallin in love with her and unless you claim her soon. She will be trapped in my garage.

CALLING 'UNCLE ROG'!!!!
 

ROG:
Get the spy cam going . . .

Sean, she is ALL me --
as in 'a lot to handle', amigo!' ;)
Just want you to know what you might get into, ahead of time!

Seriosly, there is enough material in this thread for a 'documentary', of sorts... the 'How-To from Camp Tyson's 928 Spa!'

I tell ya, after Rog, you telling me you posted pics on Rennlist the first day... and I pulled up BUS's TB pulverized debris shot....

I checked for a pulse (mine), then did some deep breathing....
the rest has been 'cake' -- just knowing that pulverized belt wasn't RSKY BIZ's!

OK, gang -- gotta work..
Sean -- go take pics of YOUR car, again, eh?
Kim :bigbye:

Great pics Roger - the other interresting mod to the S4 type pump is the additional reinforcement ribs around the pivot stud hole ( and a little weight trimming on the right side), which the pics nicely clarify.

UPDATE 2-13-07
 

Well finally I received the roller support arm :thumbup:

Found a Gotcha though - behind the idler roller is a circlip (C clip) - I remembered this from all the post 86 cars I have done.
This part is not called up on PET and I do not know the part number - if anybody does I would really like to know so I can add it to the list of parts required for the change.

Later style WP went on with no problems and I have R&R'd the tensioner.

Once I sort the circlip out she will be back together and running again.

Thanks for the input and I hope this is a useful thread.

Roger :bigbye:

Tensioner missing part
 

The oft mentioned missing "circlip" Do you have a picture of that?

Hi Roger,

Looks very nice now.

Marton

We're sure the dimple in the new carrier arm and the tensioner plunger align, I hope :)

Steve G,
I wish I had a picture as that would mean I have one :>)

See post 131 - first picture bottom right hand corner - thats what I am looking for.

Roger

That type of clip is pretty generic. You should be able to get it at your local NAPA or even possibly a good hardware store. Ask for a 'snap ring' and take the shaft it fits with you. If you don't already have it, a compound snap ring plier is useful to remove and install.

Hope this post was useful, wouldn't want to be a noob with no clue. :)

User, uh, Doc

Roger, did you see the thread about two parts cars in Houston?

I guess in "H's" eyes I am a noob as well - I better be carefull what I say while he is looking at the thread.

H,
Not long until I find out about the alignment!

Maybe I didn't read closely enough, but was there ever a determination made about the cause of the belt wear on the smooth side? Or was it judged to be in the realm of normal? Sorry, I had to ask. I'm such a noob.
Glenn

Glenn,
The belt wear still has a ? in my eyes but maybe it is normal.
It does come in contact with the idler roller and thats about all.
Roger

Water pump too...

Sorry to offend, closed the thread.

I know this isn't much of a contribution...but if you try to scrimp on a snap-ring plier set, you'll probably regret it when working on some 928 snap rings. I went through a couple of cheapie pliers before I realized that it takes a small AND VERY STRONG TIP for some snap rings. Bending and breaking tips was too common an occurance and can be very frustrating. This is where the Harbor Freight tool failed on me.

Harvey

Roger,
The two external snap rings are 24x1mm and 18x2mm for the idler roller and tensioner rollers respectively ....

Garth,
The 18x2 could be difficult - I am still looking.
Roger

OK its the 24x1 that I am looking for - if anyone knows where I can get one let me know please.
Roger

Looking at the DIN standards for Metric Circlips (Snap Rings).

Shaft diameter is 25.2mm - Groove I/D is 24.5mm - Groove width is 1.5mm

DIN 471 External Metric shows the closest match

Shaft Diameter 25mm - Groove I/D is 23.9mm - Groove width is 1.3mm
Snap ring I/D 23.2mm x 1.2mm thick.
Part number = D1400-25

I need to track down one of these puppy's.

What suprises me is that if Porsche were to use a non standard snap ring then they would call out a Pt Number for it on PET - but no number exists.

Roger, are you looking for the snap ring which helps locate the large roller on the shaft? Just ordered one from 928specialists, I have the part number at home.

Apologies if this is not what you are looking for, this thread is long !

Chris

Went back and looked at PET as I could not believe Porsche would not have a number for the circlip.
If you are interested look at PET MY 88 illustration 103-10 and find item 47 on the list of parts.
Item 47 is not shown on the diagram. However it is a circlip with a Pt No N0122771 which is an update from Pt No 900 908 006 00
I just ordered one and we will see if it the right part.
Roger

Chris,
No it is the other one and I may have found the Part Number - see my last post.
Roger

Well I checked with the guru's - DR & Jim B :bowdown: - and drew a blank.
I guess I am on my own here!

NAPA, try PN 1342, 1340 or 1047, 1045. 0.924" I know it's not metric, but looks to be close. Take your shaft with you.

Doc

myself, I never go anywhere without it,

Have my new TB installed but battery is flat
Tomorrow is the big day

Marton

Way too much info.

Why did you install a timing belt on your but?

Well the Roller Arm assembly is ready to go on the car, If I can only get the right snap ring. :surr:
The right one is being sent overnight from Atlanta so we will see.
If not I will use the closest match.

The rollers all line up perfectly with the belt on the cam gears and WP etc.
The Tensioner lines up perfectly with the plunger on the arm.

928 porn

At precisely 6:40 this evening in true "ER" style "Risky Biz" came back to life and purrs like a kitten.

I will report in detail on my findings with regard to the C clip issue tomorrow.

Had to go out this evening and rescue a stranded Shark in the North of DFW.

:cheers:!!!!!!

Nice job Dr. Roger!!

Roger,
Who got stranded? Anybody the rest of us know?

And by the way, are you going to Richard's Sunday to help with the MM(?) and pan gasket(?). Maybe need directions if I get my rear struts on in time.

My partners (business that is) his daughter stuck a blade of a pair of scissors into the ignition lock and broke the tip of in there. Don't ask as I Don't know at the moment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that is funny :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

But probably not funny to fix...

RSKY BIZ IS COMING HOME!!!
 

YAHOO!

Roger, that is awesome news!

I am most happy to free up a bay in your ICU for the 'incoming wounded'...
Heartfelt thanks to you and 'Renner's everywhere' who contributed to getting her up and running again.
Will talk in AM...

I can't believe how much one can REALLY MISS a car!
~Kim

PS: Let me know if I can help with your new patient...
'Foreign bodies' (or things where they're not meant to be) are one of my specialties! ;)

What am I missing here? I didn't catch that post....I'll do a search.

I have a ton of things to do Sunday so will not make it to Richards until Monday

Found the thread, I think I'm in Monday, at least 'til early afternoon.

I'm free Monday, where are we going? Can I meet you somehwere?

Doc

Doc,
See you there https://rennlist.com/forums/928-forum/330761-dfw-mm-replacement-realgasket-maybe-more.html

TB is too big to fit anywhere else

Super magnet?; with luck the tip is not actually trapped by anything?

Marton

Final Chapter
 

Everything is complete.

The last issue that held me up was the retention clip for the idler roller.
This was not identified on the PET diagram.
There was an item 47 C Clip Pt No N0122771.
I ordered this to see what it was.

My friends (The two Johns) at Autobahn Porsche in Ft Worth, also helped me locate a correct size Snap Ring to do the same job.
Pt No 900 041 013 01.

See the pictures of both clips in place.
On the later cars (post 86) there was a snap ring used.
I decided to go with the snap ring as it was a more substantial retention than the C Ring.
The C Ring I think would do the job but best to use the Snap Ring IMHO.

Picture of the updated tension arm and rollers in situ.
Also the slight modification of the center TB cover to accommodate the new bracket.

I also updated the list of parts needed for the conversion.

Enjoy :thumbsup:

Very cool Roger. :thumbup:

tres cool :thumbup:

The Master has spoken.

So is Risky back in business?

Ready and waiting to be claimed by her owner

CLAIMING RSKY BIZ!!!
 

HEADED YOUR WAY! :bigbye:

:cheers: Without getting too gushy...I am appreciative of Roger, his enthusiasm for these cars, his desire to fix things the CORRECT way, and am glad that he lives in my area. I know there are others around the country that feel the same way about these cars and correctly repair/replace/and fix them. I'm thankful for all of them and all of their help.

You can all wipe tears away now.:cheers:

John,
I did not know you cared so much!!!
Be careful or Justin will get jealous.
Roger

justin who? doh wrong forum/..............im leaving now

THE TRYST IS OVER -- SHE'S HOME AGAIN!!!
 

Fellow Sharkophiles,

RSKY BIZ is back 'on the prowl. . . and purring'! http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-10772.gif

Just tucked her in -- following a night of frisky driving, once again. Roger, the best thing I did was to hook up with you when I was considering her purchase. Little did I know at the time . . .

It's comforting to witness your diligence and perseverence to sort out issues and, as John said, correct them the proper way. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...s/b9fb202a.gif

My sincere thanks, as well, to all 'Renner's' who contributed to this diagnostic dilemma and subsequent modification of RSKY BIZ.

'Rennlist -- 928 support like no other'. . . :bowdown:

Thank You, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ies/thanks.gif
Kim

PS: Who would have guessed it would take a Timing Belt change to get the CD player working again??? Rog -- you're awesome!!! ;)

Glad to hear it!! "Welcome Back".

Well done Rog: no one should doubt again the ease and feasibility of updating the cam drive/water pump systems of these cars - from '78 to '95, or any point in between.
My '80 has had its development arrested at the '85 level for the last three years or so while the S4 pump, brace, cover, etc to take it to the S4 generation sit on the shelf ... the :grr: 27 year old original water pump refuses to leak .... so I haven't the heart to cut its life short :).

RSKY BIZ - enjoy the ride!

I told you I was trying to get not too gushy, but I really do appreciate all your help, guidance, and friendship.

I'm telling Zane!!!

(beware creative editing)

Doc

Well welcome back in to the fold Kim. I wondered where she was when I stopped by Rog's place today. Glad she is back on the road and I'm looking forward to seeing her at the track on Saturday.

:thumbup:

Oh, and to give an example of Rog's desire to keep these things on the road and always willing to lend a helping had. I stopped by today to tear up the mounting hardware off a burnt '87, after an hour or so, Rog had my passenger door off, putting in a new window motor so my better 1/2 could have some fresh air.

This man should never have to buy his own beer.

Hey Roger, how much did the conversion add to overall costs?
I'm geting ready for a TB/WP and considering your conversion.
Looking through the TB cover observation holes, I have the same condition with passenger side cam belt riding on the edge compared to driver side.
Thanks

BTW, I may drive down to MSR on Sunday morning.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :thumbsup: ROGER...YA DA MAN!!!

Sean,

It's great having RSKY BIZ back and FRISKY as ever! http://planetsmilies.net/grinning-smiley-9520.gif

Don't know if it's just me, but if Rog took the dang door off yout car, to give your 'better half' some 'fresh air' . . .
you might consider letting her out a bit more. http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-10733.gif

There might not be too many of those 'hood shot' foto shoot opportunities, otherwise, my friend. . . http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ties/booby.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...305/busted.gif

BIMMERMIKE
Michael,
The additional cost is about $200 of which nearly $160 is in the new roller arm.
The other GOTCHA is the WP as I found that you could not use an early core as a replacment on the later style pump. So that could add another $100 to the price.
Worst case $300. Best case if you could get a WP core and a used roller arm it could be $100 or less.
Roger

RSKY BIZ IS BACK IN ACTION!
 

Hey Roger,

I took her out for a drive to the MS Ranch Sunday to meet up with some folks doing the PCA DE. . . Had a blast of a drive! Especially since they've added the 'esses' on I-30 in Arlington! The place got a lot closer -- driving RSKY BIZ...

The two of us -- just 'purring along'. . . ok http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...102926-tmi.gif

'All she wants to do is 'fly'. . . no warning lights... just fuel & fun!

Now that's my kind of post TYSON's SPA attitude! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1.../yesmaster.gif

All of your diligent attention to the timing belt situation seems to have been a success! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...05/yourock.gif

Will drive by for a 2K re-check.... http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-10772.gif

Many Thanks! :cool:

Kim,
Glad she is behaving her self.
Now you need an X pipe to really liven things up:>)
Roger