leboyd1

A friend of mine (really, my 400 is a '98) had his timing belt slip on his '96. This was because the belt tore when what looked to be a rubber grommet got caught in it.

So, we broke it down, replaced the belt, put it back together and ... still wouldn't start. So, we broke it down again, triple checking the belt alignment, put it back together and ... still wouldn't start. (we're getting very quick with this now as this is our 5th or 6th timing belt job between his and my LSs and Toyos.)

Now we're at a loss of ideas. Previously, he had replaced the coils, wires, etc. Anyone have any ideas on where to go next?

Here's a tip we figured out this time on the tensioner. Instead of putting it in a vise and using a small pin, you can put a screw driver between the pulley and the mount. By leveraging the pulley up with the screw driver, there is plenty of room to start the bolts for the tensioner.

Hopefully, someone has a tip for us

Thanks!

renato902

You do know that the 96 LS has an interference engine and if the timing belt tears, the engine will sustain extensive damage (bent valves). Also, you should be looking to see what kind of rubber grommet it was and where it came from. I'm no mechanic, but that's just my 2 cents Hope it all works out for you guys though. I'll do some research and see if I can help you guys out I can point you towards this thread for now: https://www.clublexus.com/forums/ls4...ge-issues.html

Thermactor

iTrader: (1)

For fun and profit, I recommend a compression test. That'll help tell if valves are bent.

renato902

True that, yeah give it a shot.

PureDrifter

iTrader: (10)

3rd in for a compression (or better yet, a leakdown) test.

if the belt slipped enough the pistons and heads are done for.

leboyd1

I'm getting conflicting information on whether the LS has a noninterference or interference engine (all years, not just early vs. later years). Can someone confirm one way or another which years are what (if different) and what the source is? I've seen other posts where belts have slipped and yet there was no damage to the valves or pistons.

Just trying to some 100%-for-sure information.

It also seems that if there was damage done to the engine, we could hear the damage occur or the results of the damage even if it won't start. My experience of bent valves (or an International) was you can hear the problem.

Thanks for the help!

renato902

Agreed. I think 95+ 1UZs are interference but I don't have enough experience to be able to tell you for sure. Once again, I'll point you to this thread (a couple of posts are about a person with a 97 LS which has actually had the experience of a valve making contact with the piston), read up: https://www.clublexus.com/forums/ls4...e-engines.html

LiCelsior

iTrader: (32)

90-94 non interference, 95+ interference.

deanshark

Everything I have read before, and after, getting my 93 has said 95 and up are interferance engines. That was the MAIN reason I went with the 93. I completely love the body style of the 95 - 2000 but didn't want to take the chance on the bent valves if the belt went. I know this is just more conflicting info but I'll try to find some 100% for you.

leboyd1

Interesting set of posts on the link... However, more than ever it indicates the engines are *non* interference. Anecdotal statements like "I KNOW that my piston..." are always suspect. Sometimes their true, sometimes not.

The key to me is the statement he makes *just before and in the same post*:
"I subscribed to the All-Data shop manual for my 1997 LS. You can check the Gates and other T-belt manufacturers, they all display lists of interference and non-interference engines.

All say the same thing. The old Corolla FE 4-cylinder and the new variable valve timing V-8s are the only Toyota with interference engines."

All-Data, Gates and others say it's non-interference. Yet this person "knows" it's interference, but in his case no damage was done. Hmmmm...

I'd really like confirmation - wouldn't you?

LiCelsior

iTrader: (32)

leboyd1

Quoting yourself doesn't help the discussion... Where's your source?

LiCelsior

iTrader: (32)

after owning my LS for almost 3 years and reading on threads that people constantly keep making or bumping up asking about inteference motors. Puredrifter would agree with me and hes been in a LS longer than i have.

leboyd1

I'm not attempting to start an argument - I'm attempting to end one.

I've own three LS 400s since 1995, starting with the 1990 model. I've done almost all of the maintenance and repairs on these cars myself. I kept them all well beyond 150,000 miles. I blah, blah, blah --- But none of this experience, reading of All data, reading the forums here and others definitively answers the question.

I've read the posts about interference/non-interference - and probably have repeated the 90-94/95+ myself. But with the recent experiences I've had, I really question this.

So, all I'm asking is for someone to give a source that says these are interference engines. Right now all the sources we have say they are non.

PureDrifter

iTrader: (10)

you and every other person wants to "end the discussion" on interference motors.

look up the past THREE threads (of hundreds...) and read the outcomes. i'm going to post this ONCE for you:
Listen to the multiple people telling you from both experience and research that the '95-97 LS400 is an interference motor. if you want sources, find our past posts where we post them all up and you can do all the hours of reading/calling mastertechs/lexus corporate and prove us right.

good luck.