In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Tegger
wrote:

Say you spend $600 to get the job done /right/, which means water pump,
tensioner and coolant as well as the belt, all with proper OEM parts. And

you do this at 90K. Now you hang on to the car until 150K. This means
your
$600 is amortized over 60K miles. That's one cent per mile.

Now, say you wait until 120K to get the job done, but still get rid of
the
car at 150K. $600 over 30K is: two cents per mile.

Nonsense. You're still driving the same 60K miles between 90K and 150K,
and
you're still spending the same amount on the timing belt repair. The only
difference is when you buy the belt. Either way, you're amortizing the
same
cost over the same mileage, and get the same cost per mile.

Uh, I think that was Tegger's point, Doug.

Uh, I think not, considering that he explicitly claimed that the cost per
mile
to replace it later was double the the cost per mile to replace it now.

What part of "one cent per mile ... two cents per mile" did you find
confusing?

I found no part of it confusing. But then, I read it in context:

Premise: You'll save money by waiting.

Tegger's argument AIUI: No, you won't.

I understand that. And that's true: you won't save money by waiting.

You'll spend $600 to either:

1. Do the job now, and pay an amortized cost of .01 per mile for
60,000 miles.

OR

2. Wait, and pay an amortized cost of .02 per mile for 30,000 miles.

You and he both fail to understand that *that* is false: the amortized cost is
the same, because the car is driven 60K miles and thus the cost is amortized
over 60K miles, regardless of when the belt is purchased.

THERFORE, waiting doesn't save you a damn thing, and increases the
chance that the belt will fail while in service.

And that's true.