>
>First of all, what's an "interference engine"? I've never heard that term
>before.
www.google.com
>
>Secondly, I'm puzzled by some people's reluctance to answer the OP's
>question: "Is 50K a short lifetime for a timing belt?". It's immaterial
>whether he's established whather this is the cause of his problem - and
in
>his followup he even said "Lets just assume it is the timing belt".
The manufacturer has a specified change interval. The belt itself
should last at least that long. The things the belt is turning can
fail and take out a perfectly good belt long before it is scheduled to
be replaced.
>
>I'd say that if the replacement interval for routinely replacing the
timing
>belt is X thousand miles and the replacement belt fails within that time,
>someone should be held liable - whether it's the manufacturer (defective
>part), garage who fitted it (defective workman****p) or car maker
(incorrect
>service interval specified).
Again, it depends on why the belt failed. If the water pump is driven
off the timing belt and fails it will tear up the belt. Same with the
tensioner. The cam could even quit turning... Most of the belt
manufacturers limit their liability to the cost of the belt.
>
>On a related note, I'd like to know how a garage can examine my fan-belt
>(well, alternator and power-steering belt) amongst other things at a
>service, and mark it as "visually checked - OK", and yet the belt breaks
one
>week later... Surely the reason for visually checking a belt is to
detect
>imminent failure *before* it happens, to avoid stranding me in the middle
of
>nowhere late at night, requiring me to be towed home. To add insult to
>injury, the replaced belt broke one month later because there had been
>undiagnosed damage to the crankshaft pulley that hadn't been picked up
when
>the belt and idler pulley were replaced :-( The garage reluctantly made
a
>goodwill payment of a mere £20 - less than a tenth of the cost of the
belt
>replacement.
>
Belts often look "good" and fail. That is why belts have a prescribed
change interval. Yours is a perfect case of "something else failed".
In your case the belt probably did look fine, the crankshaft pulley
was damaged and chewed hell out of the old belt pretty quickly. The
new belt lasted a bit longer just because it was new before the same
damaged pulley got it. A damaged crank pulley is a pretty rare thing
so the shop didn't notice the damage (on some cars you can hardly even
see the crank pulley from above). Crappy situation but it happens.
Steve B.
|
