Do you not think that the mechanics (plural) who said "wait" know
whether or not the "failed belt causes damage or just leaves him
Assuming they took that into consideration and still said "wait",
doesn't that bring it back to the "decision process" independent of
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
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".
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!
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?
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.
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
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
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).
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.