On Jun 15, 12:04*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...
On Jun 15, 11:24 am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article
,

DerbyDad03 wrote:
This question is about the decision process involved with replacing
the timing belt in a vehicle "now" or "later".

Let's not confuse the issue with cost or voiding warranties, etc.
Let's assume there is no warranty to deal with and that the cash is
readily available, both now and later.

Here's the situation a friend and I were discussing the other day:

The manual - and therefore the dealer - says the timing belt on his
vehicle should be replaced at 90K, which is right where he's at.

He called around to various repair shops for a price and multiple
places told him "I've never seen a timing belt go on that vehicle
before 110K. The dealers just want their money early. There's no need
to replace it at 90K." He was even able to "verify" that opinion on
the web.

OK, so let's say that you are planning to keep the vehicle for the
foreseeable future, probably well beyond 110K. That means that you
will need to replace the timing belt, probably in about a year, to be
safe.

So here's what I was thinking:

There's a pretty slim chance that you'll keep the vehicle for the full
life of the second timing belt. That would put you in the 220K range.
Even if you replaced it at 90K and it really will last 110K, that's
still pushing 200K.

Why would you wait until next year and not replace it at 90K? Even at
the dealer's "accelerated" schedule, you're good until 180K, by which
time you'll probably have gotten rid of the car, so why not be *extra*
cautious and replace it now?

Thoughts?

If the valves crash on that particular vehicle, replace now. If it's
your only vehicle and having it break down would pose significant
inconvenience, replace now. Otherwise stretch it out a bit if you feel
like it, but since cash is available, what's the point of delaying? So
you can boast in the barroom about how much smarter you are than the
engineers who designed the car and specified the maintenance schedule?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While I am of the "do it at 90K" opinion, no one has addressed the
fact that more than one independent repair shop - one of which I
recommended because they've treated me right in the past - said to
wait.

Why would they give up a job - and risk their reputation - when they
have every "right" to just point at the manual and say "replace it at
90K"? Why push off a job now that they might not get a year from now?

=================

Because they'll say anything to get rid of a customer who wastes their time
with pointless attempts to predict the future. People like that cost them
money.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a good question why they would say that. If a mechanic told me
not to replace a timing belt that the manufacturer says to replace at
90K because the mechanic has not seen one fail before 110K, I'd get a
new mechanic. The guy is an obvious idiot. To me, knowing that
you've seen them fail at 110K, 90K sounds like the appropriate place
to change it.

Or how lucky do you feel today? As others have pointed out, it also
makes a big difference if the engine design is interference free or
not. If it is, then failure just means a tow, which by itself could
be bad enough, depending on when it happens and the resulting
consequences and costs. Also, since in this case apparently the car
will be kept for significantly longer, but not long enough to require
a second belt, the only apparent advantage in delaying is if something
else were to happen to the car, eg totalled in a wreck or other repair
that could be done at same time, that would impact on this decision.