OT - Decision Process: Replace Timing Belt Now or Wait?

Page 6 of 6  


Do you not think that the mechanics (plural) who said "wait" know whether or not the "failed belt causes damage or just leaves him stranded"?
Assuming they took that into consideration and still said "wait", doesn't that bring it back to the "decision process" independent of the vehicle?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One thing I've learned over the years, ASSume nothing. Lots of dumb people out there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
First, sorry I lost track of who was who and thought your post stating that you left out that info on purpose was speculation by someone else.

I would hope they would know that.

I don't follow your logic at all. The vehicle IS part of the decision process. Maybe you should ask THEM why they came to the conclusion they did. If they don't say anything about what will happen to the engine if the belt fails (or say nothing will happen), continue looking until you find someone who does. Maybe they just believe that there is very little chance of it failing, which is the only way I can imagine the type of engine not figuring in.
Alternatively, we still might be "failing to communicate" and by "independent of vehicle" you really do mean that you are asking for a decision process that includes a step like: "if the vehicle has an interference engine do A, otherwise do B".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

re: "I don't follow your logic at all."
Completely understandable! I'll try to explain what I meant.
I was trying to say that the mechanics did take the vehicle type into consideration and came to the conclusion that it's OK to wait, based strictly on how long they've seen the belts last.
But from the consumer's standpoint, I don't think waiting to replace a belt at 110K if you aren't planning on keeping the vehicle to 220K makes sense. If the odds are that you'll get rid of vehicle somewhere between 110K and 180K, you'll need a belt anyway, so why put yourself at risk? And I mean any level of risk, stranded or destroyed engine. There's no need for it.
In that respect, I don't think "interference" enters into the decision, since, even if you believe the mechanic's time frame, you'd never enter the "danger zone" any way because you'd change the belt before 100K anyway.
I'm not sure if that makes any more sense, but I tried!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/16/2010 1:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

So since you acknowledge you purposely left out key information how could you hope to get reasonable answers about the "decision process"? In what way would it have hurt to disclose the type of vehicle so the very pertinent info as to whether it was an interference engine or not?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

See my reply to Larry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Kit come with a water pump? A lot of them are starting to bundle both.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:41:57 -0700, Smitty Two wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.