timing belt change needed?

"XS11E" > wrote in message
...
> Lanny Chambers > wrote in
> :
>
>> In article <Lyk%d.3523$191.3153@trnddc02>,
>> "Christopher Muto" > wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like I should make this a priority over cosmetic upgrades
>>> that I was considering.
>>
>> When you buy a used car, it's a good practice to make sure all the
>> maintenance is up to date--a "baseline" for future maintenance. In
>> addition to the timing belt, change all the fluids and both fuel
>> filters, plus the air filter, spark plugs, and plugwires. While
>> you're in there, clean all the chassis and engine ground points.
>>
>> And Pat is right on target about the water pump. I skipped it at
>> 60k, and it started leaking at 114k. Replace the TB idler and
>> tensioner pulleys, too.
>
> According to miata.net the following parts should be replaced:
>
> Timing Belt, Valve Cover Gasket, Front Crankshaft Seal, Accessory Belts
> (they need to be removed anyway, so it can't hurt to replace them now
> instead of waiting until they break), Anti-Freeze, (You need to drain
> it anyway, so you might as well do it now.), Woodruff Key, Camshaft
> seals, Water pump.
>
> I agree the idler and tensioner pulleys should be replaced also.
>
> A word about the camshaft seals, you don't need to replace them but
> they're very likely to begin leaking a few miles after the timing belt
> is replaced as mine are doing now. If they'd been replaced with the
> timing belt I'd be waaaaaaaaay ahead financially.
>
> Notice almost all the parts recommended are going to be free of labor
> since you're going to be in there anyway.
>
> You can bet when I replace my leaking camshaft seals the almost new
> timing belt, water pump and accessory belts are going into the trash,
> I'm NOT GOING TO DO THIS AGAIN!
>
> There's no possible way I can afford to do this so it's even more
> likely I can't afford to do it over, right?
>
> Damn, I'd like to find the moron who replaced my timing belt w/o
> replacing seals.... I have a couple of words I'd like to say to him.
>

Is the woodruff key also know as the timing tensioner spring? Also, is
replacing the timing belt tensioner pulley recommended/necessary?
This is for a '95 Tripple Black.
Thanks.

"Christopher Muto" > wrote in
news:TTD%d.14592$UV2.485@trnddc04:

> Is the woodruff key also know as the timing tensioner spring?

No, it's the key that keeps the crankshaft sprocket from turning on the
crank shaft. Sometimes they tend to wear so replacement will keep
things tight.

> Also, is replacing the timing belt tensioner pulley
> recommended/necessary? This is for a '95 Tripple Black.

It can't hurt but I'd check it very carefully and then decide.

Take a look he

http://www.miata.net/garage/timingbelt.html

Be sure to scroll down to the bottom so you read the whole thing, then
at the top click on the "additional photos" link, you'll see the
Woodruff key sticking out in the pic of the crankshaft sprocket after
removal of the pulley.

"Lanny Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Lyk%d.3523$191.3153@trnddc02>,
> "Christopher Muto" > wrote:
>
> > Sounds like I should make this a priority over cosmetic upgrades that I
was
> > considering.
>
> When you buy a used car, it's a good practice to make sure all the
> maintenance is up to date--a "baseline" for future maintenance. In
> addition to the timing belt, change all the fluids and both fuel
> filters, plus the air filter, spark plugs, and plugwires. While you're
> in there, clean all the chassis and engine ground points.
>
> And Pat is right on target about the water pump. I skipped it at 60k,
> and it started leaking at 114k. Replace the TB idler and tensioner
> pulleys, too.
>
> --
> Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
> '94C
> the alignment page:
> http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html


My Mazda dealer recommended against an automatic water pump change. They
preferred to inspect the existing pump and decide on that basis. I was
completely prepared to pay for a new pump and said so. I don't know why
they would follow this policy if it wasn't sound I know, I know - they're
hoping for a bigger repair bill later. Except I don't believe that. A few
examples of pumps failing shortly after a belt change doesn't prove
anything. In your example, you were practically due for a new belt anyway.

"Frank Berger" > wrote in
news:1111440828.054799dbd802053dce59ce6664f7cc2d@t eranews:

> My Mazda dealer recommended against an automatic water pump
> change. They preferred to inspect the existing pump and decide on
> that basis.

Bad idea. In 50 years of fooling with cars professionally and as a
hobbyist, I've never seen a water pump that looked any different before
failing. A brand new pump looks exactly like an old one the day before
it starts "weeping" and once they do begin to weep, the life span is
usually only days.

> I was completely prepared to pay for a new pump and
> said so. I don't know why they would follow this policy if it
> wasn't sound

I have no idea why they'd do that?

> A few examples of pumps failing shortly after a belt change doesn't
> prove anything.

What does prove something is that the belt replacement is recommended
at 60,000 miles and the life span of the water pump is usually figured
to be 50,000 miles. The pump should be automatically replaced unless
it's already been done, but if that were the case wouldn't the timing
belt have also been replaced at the same time?

In article <1111440828.054799dbd802053dce59ce6664f7cc2d@teran ews>,
"Frank Berger" > wrote:

> > And Pat is right on target about the water pump. I skipped it at 60k,
> > and it started leaking at 114k.
>
> In your example, you were practically due for a new belt anyway.

Correct, if 6000 miles is "almost." Naturally, I did the TB (again)
while it was apart. BTW, both of my pulleys were dry and ready to seize;
they may or may not have reached 120k. I don't consider any of this a
big deal, just normal maintenance. The car is so cheap to own otherwise,
I can't complain about such things.

My point was only that it might be foolish not to replace the water pump
on a 100,000-mile Miata, as long as it was down for a TB change. Ditto
the pulleys

--
Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
'94C
the alignment page:
http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:13:08 -0700, XS11E >
wrote:

>"Frank Berger" > wrote in
>news:1111440828.054799dbd802053dce59ce6664f7cc2d@ teranews:
>
>> My Mazda dealer recommended against an automatic water pump
>> change. They preferred to inspect the existing pump and decide on
>> that basis.
>
>Bad idea. In 50 years of fooling with cars professionally and as a
>hobbyist, I've never seen a water pump that looked any different before
>failing. A brand new pump looks exactly like an old one the day before
>it starts "weeping" and once they do begin to weep, the life span is
>usually only days.
>
>> I was completely prepared to pay for a new pump and
>> said so. I don't know why they would follow this policy if it
>> wasn't sound
>
>I have no idea why they'd do that?
>
>> A few examples of pumps failing shortly after a belt change doesn't
>> prove anything.
>
>What does prove something is that the belt replacement is recommended
>at 60,000 miles and the life span of the water pump is usually figured
>to be 50,000 miles.

By whom? 50,000 miles for the water pump's life span sounds awfully
short.

Natman > wrote in
:

>>What does prove something is that the belt replacement is
>>recommended at 60,000 miles and the life span of the water pump is
>>usually figured to be 50,000 miles.
>
> By whom? 50,000 miles for the water pump's life span sounds
> awfully short.

It's actually fairly long, 30,000 miles might be a bit closer to
average.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:04:01 -0700, XS11E >
wrote:

>Natman > wrote in
:
>
>>>What does prove something is that the belt replacement is
>>>recommended at 60,000 miles and the life span of the water pump is
>>>usually figured to be 50,000 miles.
>>
>> By whom? 50,000 miles for the water pump's life span sounds
>> awfully short.
>
>It's actually fairly long, 30,000 miles might be a bit closer to
>average.
>
>
So if you change the pump when you change your belt at 60K, then
you've beaten the average water pump life by a factor of 100%? Then
the average guy is going to have to change the water pump TWICE for
every belt change? I don't think so.

You really ought to think these things through before you make up your
"facts".

"XS11E" > wrote in message
...
> Natman > wrote in
> :
>
> >>What does prove something is that the belt replacement is
> >>recommended at 60,000 miles and the life span of the water pump is
> >>usually figured to be 50,000 miles.
> >
> > By whom? 50,000 miles for the water pump's life span sounds
> > awfully short.
>
> It's actually fairly long, 30,000 miles might be a bit closer to
> average.

What brand of car? What era? My old car (Toyota) went 175,000 on the
original water pump. The car got retired for other reasons but the water
pump was still going strong.

-John

Natman > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:04:01 -0700, XS11E >
> wrote:
>
>>Natman > wrote in
m:
>>
>>>>What does prove something is that the belt replacement is
>>>>recommended at 60,000 miles and the life span of the water pump
>>>>is usually figured to be 50,000 miles.
>>>
>>> By whom? 50,000 miles for the water pump's life span sounds
>>> awfully short.
>>
>>It's actually fairly long, 30,000 miles might be a bit closer to
>>average.
>>
>>
> So if you change the pump when you change your belt at 60K, then
> you've beaten the average water pump life by a factor of 100%?
> Then the average guy is going to have to change the water pump
> TWICE for every belt change? I don't think so.
>
> You really ought to think these things through before you make up
> your "facts".

The fact is I've got 50 years changing water pumps, starters,
alternators, clutches, transmissions, engines, etc. I also can read.
One of the things I can read is odometers. The 30,000 mile figure came
from Consumer Reports in an article about buying used cars some years
back. The later water pumps on some Japanese cars do last longer but
30,000 miles is still close to an overall average.

You really ought to think these things through and do a little research
before you post.