"Simon Worby" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:41:54 -0000, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >If you take the service literally in your way, will you renew the
> >serpentine belt every 10,000 miles after the first 40,000?
>
> That's not a logical interpretation. My understanding is to check
the
> belt at 40k and frequently thereafter. If you replace it, then you
can
> wait another 40k or so before re--checking.
My interpretation is that you should check it frequently irrespective
of when it was changed after the first 40k due to possible wear in
other components in contact with the belt. Not that it will do any
good, because a failure might be reiltively sudden.
>
> >Do you change the tyres at every scheduled inspection and before
they
> >wear out or even show any significant visible wear? This is a
proper
> >and valid comparison for which the consequences of failure of this
> >rubber wheel component is potentially catastrophic and the chances
of
> >failure are higher than for a serpentine belt.
>
> I don't think this is a valid comparison.
>
> The effects of tyre failure are acute and potentially damaging, but
> generally fixed at the roadside by using the spare tyre.
Furthermore,
> *usually* you get warning of a tyre that may fail.
No you don't. No more than for a belt, which may well have noises from
its area before failure.
And even if you
> don't have a spare tyre, chances are you can get one quickly.
If your dealer does not have a spare belt then it is not fit to be a
dealer, especially if a number of its customers can be conned into
changing their belts on a regular basis.
>
> The effects of a failed serpentine belt are less dramatic, but
> generally not fixable at the roadside (no parts) and would be very
> frustrating as (whatever the weather conditions) you cannot continue
> with your journey. If it happens you are stuck, possibly for quite
> some time.
These belts are specifically designed to have a long, near maintenance
free life. Quite frankly, anyoe changing before 100k miles or before a
strip-down to change another component is IMHO daft. They just last
and last. 5000 hours is the minimum one should expect of one. This is
at least 150,000 miles. In fact the automatic tensioner and alternator
are far more likely to fail and the belt should be changed when one of
these goes. If the tensioner fails, then it goes without saying that
the belt will fail within a few short miles or sooner.
>
> >There is, of course, nothing to stop you changing the belt any time
> >you like. Smacks of 'recreational maintenance' though, even if you
pay
> >someone to do it.
>
> Personally I will be changing mine at the first sign of "damaging"
> wear as described in the service manual. For what it costs, I'd
rather
> not squeeze the extra 10k miles out of it with the risk of a
> time-consuming breakdown.
>
You may find some horizontal cracks in the teeth of these belts from
80.000 miles up, but these are usually cosmetic and do not effect
performance of the component. If the belts show wear due to the pulley
grooves cutting into the belt backing, then it is time to change. This
is unlikely before 150,000 miles.
These are not fan belts and are far and away more durable. Even the
best fan belts will last 80,000 to 100,000 miles these days if
properly tensioned, before replacement is advisable.
Huw
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 27/12/03
