On Jun 15, 9:48*am, 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?

I've made this decision with just about every possible conclusion,
drive most of my cars ~150K miles, and I think it all depends on your
tolerance for risk, whether you can get by without your car, and
whether the car gets driven anywhere or by anyone that would make
being stranded a major issue.

High tolerance for risk, can get by without car, stranding not a
problem = Never replace it. If it goes (many never do), deal with
inconvenience, expense and/or stranding at that time (factor in
whether you would keep the car if it sucked a valve and whether your
model would).

High tolerance for risk, can get by for a little while, stranding not
too significant a problem = Push the schedule.

Low tolerance, need car reliably, and/or stranding a major issue = Do
it according to schedule.

My results: 33 cars so far (took me awhile to count!), several "true
American" makes, two German, two Japanese (American made), several so-
called American made multinationally. Mostly bought used, four
purchased new.

1 German, bought used, had valve/piston collision when the belt went
at less than 100,000 miles. Sold the car as-is.
1 American, bought new, dumped me WAY out in the country, but no
collateral damage. Less than 100K miles. Fixed.
1 Japanese replaced according to schedule, no further issues.

Balance = Belt/chain never broke while I owned the car. Of the
balance, all but three were driven more than 100,000, most approached
150,000, three were driven more than 200,000 miles but not by much,
one was driven almost 300,000 miles. At least six of these were from
an era when a timing chain would most likely have been used, so
possibly they should be removed from the equation (such as it is).