Re: Some details of the 2AZ-FE engine

Retired VIP wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:26:59 -0400, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> "Steve" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:AM6dnZjsFev_EhrVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> ****ms-in-a-bucket cam followers for valve adjustment is positively 
>>> stone-age (the last car I had so-equipped was a '78 Plymouth Horizon
with 
>>> the VW-based SOHC 4). Rocker-tip mounted hydraulic lash adjusters that
are 
>>> common now don't carry enough mass penalty to worry about and are
commonly 
>>> used in engines with 7500+ RPM redlines. That said, I never had to
adjust 
>>> the valves on that VW engine either. Everything else about it sucked,
but 
>>> the valves never needed adjustment! ;P
>> Numerous modern engines from Toyota and Nissan do not use hydraulic
lash 
>> adjustment. The most modern Camry V-6 does have hydraulic lash
adjusters, 
>> the older Camry V-6 and 4 cylinders do not. The engines without
hydralic 
>> lash adjustment do require routine valve clearance checking (if not
actual 
>> adjustment). I think this requirment is widely ignored. Interesting,
Fords, 
>> newest V-6 also does not have hydraulic valve adjustment - I guess they
have 
>> learned from Toyota.
>>
>> Ed 
>>
> 
> I guess I'm just to stupid for my ****rt.  How is increasing the amount
> of necessary routine maintenance as well as increasing the cost of
> operation a step forward?
> 
> Jack


    There are two problems with hydraulic lifters: they are more
expensive to build and, more to the point for us, they tend to fail long
before the rest of the engine. Who wants to have to spend $1k on new
lifters on a car with 150k miles on it? The ****m & bucket type setup
rarely needs adjustment when properly designed (and it is as used by
Toyota and Volvo in their older engines) and it doesn't fail. I've had
two cars and one motorcycle suffer from hydraulic lifter failure. I'd
much rather have the valves adjusted every 5 years or so.