Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Search the maintenance guides for answers to 99.999% of Omega questions

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Usual cambelt arguement  (Read 10401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

STMO999

  • Guest
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #60 on: 03 September 2009, 21:27:27 »
That's two of my 'ex' posts been resurrected. Gives me the willies I tell you. :o
Logged

robbo299

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • luton, beds
  • Posts: 593
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #61 on: 03 September 2009, 21:30:14 »
It took me a couple of mins reading it to realise ;D. A lot of members have asked in the past what the difference is in the different kits so i thought i would post the pics up :y
Logged

zYx

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Kent
  • Posts: 196
  • Member of Mayday
    • Black 3.2
    • View Profile
    • Grischke Solutions
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #62 on: 04 September 2009, 06:57:31 »
Quote
It took me a couple of mins reading it to realise ;D. A lot of members have asked in the past what the difference is in the different kits so i thought i would post the pics up :y

Thanks for your pics, now I can see the difference :)
Logged

Marks DTM Calib

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • West Bridgford
  • Posts: 34014
  • Git!
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #63 on: 04 September 2009, 08:01:10 »
Quote
I got caught out by this old thread as well :-[. If any body needs to know what the 3 kits look like for all V6 engines from 2.5 to 3.2 see pics below. The part numbers are SKF reference numbers NOT Vauxhall`s. :y

 





As you can see the rear tensioners are different in each kit. Hope this helps :y

Not quite right.

The only difference between the lower 2 kits is the back plates for the tensioner (note, the original one can be used). The picture makes the idler look diferent because one is up side down but, they are actualy the same part.

The top kit has a different lower idler (its not concentrenic so  not adjustable) but, the earlier adjustable one can be used and again, the tnsioner backng plate can be re-used,


Logged

gee-man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • cambs
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #64 on: 05 September 2009, 20:48:33 »
is 4 years or 40k for all, recommended best practice
Logged

Martin_1962

  • Guest
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #65 on: 05 September 2009, 20:57:28 »
My lower idler is adjustable as was the one I took off
Logged

Aeroman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • 0
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #66 on: 29 October 2009, 23:29:12 »
While on the subject of V6 cam belt kits, I have just done one on a 1999 Omega 2.5 using the SKF kit AS 920 1887. The tensioner backplate is 01.

The belt is a Powerdrive one but the white timing marks were wrong. The crank and pulleys 1 and 2 were OK but the marks for pulleys 3 and 4 were well out.

I checked and double checked that I hadn't done anything stupid but no, it was the markings.

Any one else had this ?
« Last Edit: 29 October 2009, 23:32:23 by Aeroman »
Logged

TheBoy

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 107026
  • I Like Lockdown
    • Whatever Starts
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #67 on: 30 October 2009, 08:58:26 »
Quote
While on the subject of V6 cam belt kits, I have just done one on a 1999 Omega 2.5 using the SKF kit AS 920 1887. The tensioner backplate is 01.

The belt is a Powerdrive one but the white timing marks were wrong. The crank and pulleys 1 and 2 were OK but the marks for pulleys 3 and 4 were well out.

I checked and double checked that I hadn't done anything stupid but no, it was the markings.

Any one else had this ?
Not sure thats the right backplate, I would have thought that would be an EB. What was the old backplate?
Logged
Grumpy old man

Elite Pete

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Chester
  • Posts: 19580
  • My spider senses are tingling
    • Audi SQ5 GSX1400
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #68 on: 30 October 2009, 09:23:13 »
Quote
While on the subject of V6 cam belt kits, I have just done one on a 1999 Omega 2.5 using the SKF kit AS 920 1887. The tensioner backplate is 01.

The belt is a Powerdrive one but the white timing marks were wrong. The crank and pulleys 1 and 2 were OK but the marks for pulleys 3 and 4 were well out.

I checked and double checked that I hadn't done anything stupid but no, it was the markings.

Any one else had this ?
I take it you are using a proper locking kit.
Logged
Retired

Marks DTM Calib

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • West Bridgford
  • Posts: 34014
  • Git!
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #69 on: 30 October 2009, 09:37:30 »
01 is correct for the later engines setup (with different oil pump).

EB is the earlier type
Logged

Aeroman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • 0
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #70 on: 30 October 2009, 17:46:05 »
Just to confirm a few points:

The plate I removed was an 01 too.

Yes I used the locking kit.

----
The new belt was the same length and number of teeth as the old one.

The real giveaway was that the four cam marks on the belt were wrong. The distance between 1 and 2 was OK as was 3 and 4  but the two pairs of markings (that is between 2 and 3) were about 6 teeth too close together so they wouldn't all line up when threaded round the intermediate adjuster. (The adjuster only compensates for about 1 or 2 teeth).

The distance from the crank marking to the cam pulley 1 marking was correct.

Weird eh!!
« Last Edit: 30 October 2009, 17:46:31 by Aeroman »
Logged

zYx

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Kent
  • Posts: 196
  • Member of Mayday
    • Black 3.2
    • View Profile
    • Grischke Solutions
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #71 on: 16 February 2010, 21:33:23 »
never mind
« Last Edit: 17 February 2010, 07:18:17 by zYx »
Logged

Entwood

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • North Wiltshire
  • Posts: 19566
  • My Old 3.2 V6 Elite (LPG)
    • Audi A6 Allroad 3.0 DTI
    • View Profile
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #72 on: 16 February 2010, 21:38:05 »
That scared me .. STMO as an ex-member .. then I saw the date of the posts !!!

Some dusting due on this thread methinks !!!

And doing the job without the correct locking kit is IMHO .. plain stupid  :(

Cable ties and bits of wire are NOT sufficient to do the job properly.

comes under the heading "bodged" IMHO .... sorry ...  :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/
« Last Edit: 16 February 2010, 21:40:53 by entwood »
Logged

waspy

  • Guest
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #73 on: 16 February 2010, 21:39:31 »
10 out of 10 for improvisation :y :y :y :y

& 10 out of 10 for making me think i was seeing things ;D
Logged

STMO999

  • Guest
Re: Usual cambelt arguement
« Reply #74 on: 16 February 2010, 21:43:19 »
Quote
That scared me .. STMO as an ex-member .. then I saw the date of the posts !!!

Some dusting due on this thread methinks !!!

And doing the job without the correct locking kit is IMHO .. plain stupid  :(

Cable ties and bits of wire are NOT sufficient to do the job properly.

comes under the heading "bodged" IMHO .... sorry ...  :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/


 :-* :-* :-* ;D
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Page created in 0.01 seconds with 17 queries.