I have a question regarding this topic. It has been stated here that with only
114,000 miles that it is unlikely that the engine has been over hauled.
Back when they were still quite new, I remember several early 440 Imperials
('66, '67, &'68) experiencing a failure in the timing gears and/or timing chain
right around 100,000 miles. When disassembled, the problem was usually due to
the excessive wear in the synthetic coating on the teeth of the gears.
I haven't heard much about this on the IML since I have been reading here since
July. I have driven some newer cars that have done this as well, but at much
higher mileage. Has anyone experienced this with their cars?
Paul
In a message dated 12/4/2003 3:21:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> Quoting Kate Triplett <ad_ablurr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > This thread is of considerable interest to me - I have as yet been unable to
> > obtain any previous maintenance records for my '68 Crown other than the few
> > receipts that "came with" in the glove box. The car does run splendidly with
> > nary a ping on 89 octane gas, though, so I suspect the engine has been
> > through an overhaul once in its life - mileage is now just over 114,000. I
>
> With only 114K, its unlikely that the engine was rebuilt, unless it suffered a
> catastrophic failure. The factory timing specs were often a bit conservative,
> and that might explain why it does not ping. Also, you may not be advanced
>all
> the way to the recommended 8 degrees. Most pinging problems in these old cars
> are more likely to be related to deposits due to too much city driving and not
> enough high speed.
>
> >
> > Did the dealers do a "warranty" change to these cars when the fuel changes
> > took place, or was the timing such that it was strictly after market
> > rebuilding?
>
> When unleaded gas was phased out, the 68 model year was long done with its
> warranty.
>
> D^2
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network