In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 06/15/10 11:00 am, SteveB wrote:

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.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

We had a '96 Dodge Stratus ES (Mitsu****ty 6-cyl interference engine).
At 55K or so, the water pump went, so I said, "Replace the timing belt
while you're about it, even though it's supposed to be good until 100K.
No point in paying for all that labor twice over." At about 85K "Bang!":
broken timing belt; not worth the cost of repair. I don't know whether
the independent repair shop -- in another State -- did not in fact
replace the timing belt as instructed and for which I paid or whether
they didn't check and replace the idler/tensioner pulley, whose bearings
might have been ruined by the leaking coolant. The local Rescue Mission
to which I donated it told me they couldn't find a replacement engine
for it that was any good, so they just sold it to a wrecking yard. They
also said that the company through which they offer warranties on the
cars they recondition and resell won't do warranties on cars with those
engines.

Our current Chrysler 300M is a few hundred miles shy of the 100K at
which timing belt replacement is recommended, and you bet I'll be
getting the job done within a very short while -- and I'll insist on
getting the tensioner and water pump replaced at the same time. All the
dealers around have quoted me about $1200 for that lot; I haven't yet
got a quote from an independent.

I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of
the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of
the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...

Combined total? What, are you selling some weight loss program now?
(these 600 people lost a total of a thousand pounds !!!!!!!!!)

Let's see: 1,000,000 miles divided by six cars is 167,000 miles. I'd say
if you're not getting 300k out of a car, you must be buying ****ty cars.
With timing chains that you can frame and hang on the wall after the
rest of the car disintegrates around them.

In article
, ****ty
Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of

the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...

Combined total? What, are you selling some weight loss program now?
(these 600 people lost a total of a thousand pounds !!!!!!!!!)

Let's see: 1,000,000 miles divided by six cars is 167,000 miles. I'd say
if you're not getting 300k out of a car, you must be buying ****ty cars.

Of course, being better informed than you, *I* would say the reason I'm not
getting 300K out of a car is generally because I try to drive decent cars,
which means not keeping them that long. And specifically because we had one
stolen at 198K, and another totalled at about 162.

You also obviously failed to understand the significance of the fact that
three of those vehicles, we currently own. Hint: that means they're continuing
to accumulate mileage.

If you *are* getting 300K out of a car, then regardless of what you're
*buying*, you're *keeping* ****ty cars.

I prefer to get rid of them before they get that way. But hey, if you like to
drive ****ty cars just so you can brag about getting 300K out of them, be my
guest. You must really enjoy that 1973 Plymouth, huh?

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:30:53 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article
, ****ty
Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of

the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...

Combined total? What, are you selling some weight loss program now?
(these 600 people lost a total of a thousand pounds !!!!!!!!!)

Let's see: 1,000,000 miles divided by six cars is 167,000 miles. I'd say
if you're not getting 300k out of a car, you must be buying ****ty cars.

Of course, being better informed than you, *I* would say the reason I'm not
getting 300K out of a car is generally because I try to drive decent cars,
which means not keeping them that long. And specifically because we had one
stolen at 198K, and another totalled at about 162.

You also obviously failed to understand the significance of the fact that
three of those vehicles, we currently own. Hint: that means they're continuing
to accumulate mileage.

If you *are* getting 300K out of a car, then regardless of what you're
*buying*, you're *keeping* ****ty cars.

I prefer to get rid of them before they get that way. But hey, if you like to
drive ****ty cars just so you can brag about getting 300K out of them, be my
guest. You must really enjoy that 1973 Plymouth, huh?
If you put the miles on fast enough and take care of your car, it
doesn't have to be a ****ty car at 300,000.
A friend commuted to Toronto every day for 5 years.
His commute alone was 150+ miles per day round trip. That's 200,000
miles just to and from work. A trip to BC and back to visit family is
another 4500 miles - twice in 5 years and you may as well say 10,000
miles. Add your normal family driving to that and it's not hard to put
300,000 miles on a car in 5 years - and still have it look and run as
if it only had 50,000 on it.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:



If you *are* getting 300K out of a car, then regardless of what you're
*buying*, you're *keeping* ****ty cars.

I prefer to get rid of them before they get that way. But hey, if you like to
drive ****ty cars just so you can brag about getting 300K out of them, be my
guest. You must really enjoy that 1973 Plymouth, huh?

Current vehicle is a 98 avalon with 225,000 miles. It runs and drives as
new.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:41:57 -0700, Smitty Two wrote:
Current vehicle is a 98 avalon with 225,000 miles. It runs and drives as
new.

Ours is a year older and has about 185,000 on it. Still on original
battery, alternator and exhaust. It goes through oil and power steering
fluid quite quickly, and one of the rear power windows gave up (motor
fault), but I can't really complain.

cheers

Jules

On Jun 15, 2:34*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:





On 06/15/10 11:00 am, SteveB wrote:

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.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. *If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

We had a '96 Dodge Stratus ES (Mitsu****ty 6-cyl interference engine).
At 55K or so, the water pump went, so I said, "Replace the timing belt
while you're about it, even though it's supposed to be good until 100K.
No point in paying for all that labor twice over." At about 85K "Bang!":
broken timing belt; not worth the cost of repair. I don't know whether
the independent repair shop -- in another State -- did not in fact
replace the timing belt as instructed and for which I paid or whether
they didn't check and replace the idler/tensioner pulley, whose bearings
might have been ruined by the leaking coolant. The local Rescue Mission
to which I donated it told me they couldn't find a replacement engine
for it that was any good, so they just sold it to a wrecking yard. They
also said that the company through which they offer warranties on the
cars they recondition and resell won't do warranties on cars with those
engines.

Our current Chrysler 300M is a few hundred miles shy of the 100K at
which timing belt replacement is recommended, and you bet I'll be
getting the job done within a very short while -- and I'll insist on
getting the tensioner and water pump replaced at the same time. All the
dealers around have quoted me about $1200 for that lot; I haven't yet
got a quote from an independent.

I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of
the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decided to replace timing chains with timing belts? I grew up with
cars that had timing chains and they lasted forever.

Paul

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:15:51 -0700, Pavel314 wrote:
Who decided to replace timing chains with timing belts? I grew up with
cars that had timing chains and they lasted forever.

Hmm, I've had a few Triumphs with chains - the chains were prone to wear,
the drive sprockets were prone to wear, the tensioners were prone to wear
etc. - I don't think they were particularly any more robust than belts;
the only advantage was that you'd often hear them when they started
wearing, so they were unlikely to get to the point where they snapped or
jumped a tooth (replacement interval was 30k miles)

I don't think I've got a belt or chain in the truck - it's just gears
(pushrod engine, so the cam's pretty close to the crank). I suppose they
wear, too...

cheers

Jules

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:15:51 -0700 (PDT), Pavel314
wrote:

On Jun 15, 2:34Â*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:





On 06/15/10 11:00 am, SteveB wrote:

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.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. Â*If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

We had a '96 Dodge Stratus ES (Mitsu****ty 6-cyl interference engine).
At 55K or so, the water pump went, so I said, "Replace the timing belt
while you're about it, even though it's supposed to be good until 100K.
No point in paying for all that labor twice over." At about 85K "Bang!":
broken timing belt; not worth the cost of repair. I don't know whether
the independent repair shop -- in another State -- did not in fact
replace the timing belt as instructed and for which I paid or whether
they didn't check and replace the idler/tensioner pulley, whose bearings
might have been ruined by the leaking coolant. The local Rescue Mission
to which I donated it told me they couldn't find a replacement engine
for it that was any good, so they just sold it to a wrecking yard. They
also said that the company through which they offer warranties on the
cars they recondition and resell won't do warranties on cars with those
engines.

Our current Chrysler 300M is a few hundred miles shy of the 100K at
which timing belt replacement is recommended, and you bet I'll be
getting the job done within a very short while -- and I'll insist on
getting the tensioner and water pump replaced at the same time. All the
dealers around have quoted me about $1200 for that lot; I haven't yet
got a quote from an independent.

I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of
the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decided to replace timing chains with timing belts? I grew up with
cars that had timing chains and they lasted forever.

Paul
SOME lasted forever. The 2.6 Mitso****ty would have been farther ahead
with rubber bands, much less regular timing belts.
I've replaced a LOT of Chevy and Mopar timing chains over the decades
as well - and many of them before 100,000 miles.

On Jun 15, 5:08*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:15:51 -0700 (PDT), Pavel314
wrote:



On Jun 15, 2:34*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

On 06/15/10 11:00 am, SteveB wrote:

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.

On my vehicles, I operate in a "run until failure mode" for MOST things.
That does not include tires, brakes, and safety items. *If the vehicle is
driven locally, and it throws a timing belt, a short tow would be in order.
If it is used for trips, it would be a longer tow, and failure on the
Interstate or in another state would be a more serious scenario.

With belts now being common, there is less damage when the timing belt is
thrown, versus a timing chain, so you don't really risk massive damage from
failure.

If it was my car, I'd drive it until failure.

We had a '96 Dodge Stratus ES (Mitsu****ty 6-cyl interference engine)..
At 55K or so, the water pump went, so I said, "Replace the timing belt
while you're about it, even though it's supposed to be good until 100K.
No point in paying for all that labor twice over." At about 85K "Bang!":
broken timing belt; not worth the cost of repair. I don't know whether
the independent repair shop -- in another State -- did not in fact
replace the timing belt as instructed and for which I paid or whether
they didn't check and replace the idler/tensioner pulley, whose bearings
might have been ruined by the leaking coolant. The local Rescue Mission
to which I donated it told me they couldn't find a replacement engine
for it that was any good, so they just sold it to a wrecking yard. They
also said that the company through which they offer warranties on the
cars they recondition and resell won't do warranties on cars with those
engines.

Our current Chrysler 300M is a few hundred miles shy of the 100K at
which timing belt replacement is recommended, and you bet I'll be
getting the job done within a very short while -- and I'll insist on
getting the tensioner and water pump replaced at the same time. All the
dealers around have quoted me about $1200 for that lot; I haven't yet
got a quote from an independent.

I'm just sitting here reading this thread and smiling to myself as I think of
the Dodge truck and two Saturn SL2s we have now, and our three previous cars
and trucks, with a combined total of over a million miles ... and timing
CHAINS in all six...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who decided to replace timing chains with timing belts? I grew up with
cars that had timing chains and they lasted forever.

Paul

SOME lasted forever. The 2.6 Mitso****ty would have been farther ahead
with rubber bands, much less regular timing belts.
I've replaced a LOT of Chevy and Mopar timing chains over the decades
as well - and many of them before 100,000 miles.

Timing chains on a Chevy small block would get slack in them and wear
a whole through the timing chain cover.