WQ Fiesta timing belt

[hawkeye66]

Can anyone tell me if dropping 2 teeth on the timing belt will damage the 1.6 duratec engine.

[russellw]

What do you mean by 'dropping' teeth?

[hawkeye66]

By dropping teeth i mean the timing belt has gone slack and the belt has jumped two teeth out of time with the cam shaft.I have since found out that this has been terminal for the engine as it has been re timed and sounds like a diesel,many bent valves.Engine had only done 97000 kms.

[b weetman]

Would have to. Maintenance schedule recommends timing belt and valves at 120000. Not looking forward to that, ours has done 90,000. How did the belt slip, were you revving it over 4?

[Pursya]

As the maintanence schedule says 120k for belt replacement I would be having a chat to Ford about some contribution to the replacement engine.
I did a supercharger on a Eunos 800M when it was 8 years old and had done 100k.
Mazda paid for the new supercharger but still cost me 3k to fit it!

[oemdenied]

Unless the car has been maintained by a Ford dealer and it is still in warranty, which is wont be. I highly doubt Ford will contribute to your engine.
Belt replacement time is dictated by km and time.
Reving the engine over 4k has nothing to do with the failure. The 1.6 duratec is a high reving engine that makes all of its power high up in the rev range. The 1.7 FRP variant makes peak power at 7000rpm with a rev limit of 7200rpm.
Lots of factors could have contributed to the failure such as oil leaking onto the belt, a foreign object fallen in past the cover etc.
Your cheapest option will probably be to source a 2nd hand engine and have it fitted - replace water pump and cambelt BEFORE install at the very least.

[Pursya]

My Eunos was not maintained exclusively by Mazda.
And I was not the original owner.
And it was three years beyond warranty.
Belts should be dictated by kms and if it has failed before that time I think you have a valid claim.
Under Australian consumer laws the item must be fit for purpose. And if the belt has failed well ahead of the scheduled replacement you could argue that it was not fit for purpose.
Remember that the scheduled replacement that a car manufacturer would specify for this part would be much much earlier than their testing would indicate it would fail.

[oemdenied]

Originally Posted by Pursya

My Eunos was not maintained exclusively by Mazda.
And I was not the original owner.
And it was three years beyond warranty.
Belts should be dictated by kms and if it has failed before that time I think you have a valid claim.
Under Australian consumer laws the item must be fit for purpose. And if the belt has failed well ahead of the scheduled replacement you could argue that it was not fit for purpose.
Remember that the scheduled replacement that a car manufacturer would specify for this part would be much much earlier than their testing would indicate it would fail.

You are very very lucky they contributed but I can see why they bought the part under goodwill and you paid for it. A supercharger is not a consumable part that is designed to be replaced so it would come under fair use guidelines. Please don't confuse goodwill and warranty as they are 2 very different things.

Service schedules in the owners manual quite clearly state KM or time which ever comes first for all services. To enable a warranty to be valid it must be followed. The 3 most important rules in a nutshell being: Services must be carried out by a qualified mechanic, at the appropriate intervals, using OEM parts or OEM equivalent quality items (such as Ryco for oil filters) If you fail to meet those 3 rules you should and more than likely would lose a court case if you tried to go down that route as if the conditions of warranty are not met; why should you get a repair carried out free of charge under warranty?

In the case of Timing belts, time IS an important factor that can not be ignored due to deterioration of the belt over time regardless of if the car travels distance or not.

By consumer law the car is fit for purpose and was right up until the timing belt was not replaced at the manufacturer's recommended replacement interval.