Originally posted by ZetecRacing:
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
Having your belt break and no harm happening does not mean it's a non-interference engine. 19 out of 20 belt breaks might do no harm, and then the 20th one is disastrous.



OK so you are telling me that an interferance design would have no problems 99% of the time


At least 50%, I bet, because the time when the belt is under the most tension is probably when it's just starting to pull some valves open from a closed position, meaning it will probably break with the valves closed more often than with the valves open.

Originally posted by ZetecRacing:
well I do interfearnce design engine means each and EVERY time you snap a belt you need to replace internals. on an interference engine if timing is off by even a small amount it would cause danage to the valves and pistons. snap a belt and say good bye to the valve rods pistions and in worse cases the head as parts tend to get wedged into the cylinder walls.



Okay, so you're saying that if an engine has clearances wide enough so that it only smacks the piston into a valve on about half of all belt-breaking instances, you call that a NON-interference engine? What do you tell the poor slob who was in the wrong 50%?

If that's what you're using the term "non-interference" to mean, then what's the point of even having such a term?