timing belt change needed?

"Generic" > wrote in
:

>
> "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.

There's exceptions to every rule.

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.

Wow. My experience with the cars I bought in the 1990s.

'91 Nissan Sentra, 170k miles before I sold it, no water pump leak.
'93 Geo Prism, 60k miles before trade-in, no water pump leak.
'98 Chevy Monte Carlo, 122k miles so far, no water pump leak.
'98 Ford Windstar, 120k miles, sold it, no water pump leak.

So I must be *really* lucky?

Dana

"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.
>
>
>

You may be right, but that figure sounds so outlandish no one is going to
believe you. I've never had a car where the water pump failed before 80,000
or maybe even 100,000 miles. That includes a 1969 VW Squareback, a 1973
Audi 100 LS (the water pump was about the only thing that DIDN'T fail on
that car). a 1976 VW Rabbit, a 1979 Buick LeSabre, a 1985 Dodge Caravan, a
1992 Nissan Sentra, a 2000 Ford Explorer and a 1996 Miata.

Gee, how much later on Japanese cars. I just sold a 1989 Camry 4 cyl
with 232.000 + miles on it. Two belt changes and a clutch at 225,00. The
water pump was still going when I sold it. You might think more about
changing your coolant mix more. That is the real killer of water pumps !
People just don't pay attention to the coolant like they should !!

Bruce RED '91

"XS11E" > wrote in message
...
> "Generic" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "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.
>
> There's exceptions to every rule.
>



True, but 30,000 miles is an exception as well, at least for the miata, and
most if not all other modern cars as well. If the average life of the water
pump was
that low, we would see constant complaints here about them going out,
especially considering the labor involved in replacing the water pump on the
miata.
The same complaints would also occur if the average life was only 50K
miles. I have inspected and worked on quite a few miatas and have never seen
one that had a factory water pump give out before 100K miles. I am sure that
it happens, but it isn't common.

pat

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:08:53 GMT, "Frank Berger"
> wrote in
news:1111460890.635f8555dbb7001c0b4d3195ed9f9256@t eranews:

[heavy editting]

> I've never had a car where the water pump failed
> before 80,000 or maybe even 100,000 miles. That includes a 1969 VW
> Squareback,

If the water pump had failed on your squareback, I would say you were
the most unlucky dude on the planet!

I've never had a front CV joint fail on my Miata either!


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:40:00 -0700, XS11E >
wrote:

>"Generic" > wrote in
m:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
>There's exceptions to every rule.
Yeah, like every water cooled car I've ever owned, including Fiats.
Never replaced a water pump after only 30K on any of them either.

I'm not buying it and apparently neither is anyone else.

In article >,
XS11E > wrote:

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

You've been working on too many Ladas. I've never replaced a water pump
on any of my cars, except the Miata. Most of them had over 80k on them
when sold, and my current Accord has about 170k.

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

Generic wrote:

> No intention of offending the OP, but it seems like old truths die hard.
> Swaps are most strongly advocated by those with a potential conflict of
> interest. It's sort of like saying "You'll ruin the engine without changing
> the oil every 3,000 miles" while factory service manuals and 3rd party tests
> now say 5k, 7.5k or 15k.
Agreed, but, be careful...

> Not to mention the cars with oil quality sensors.

Have you ever seen an oil quality sensor? I haven't. They
don't exist. The "oil change" light on modern cars represents
an educated guess based on factory testing and engine operating
factors. The ECU calculates when to turn the light on. You
could change the oil weekly and the light will still come on
as long as you don't reset the computer's notion of when the
oil was changed.

> If tire wear wasn't obvious some would advocate changing tires every 15k-30k
> like the old days!

Heh. If mine only lasted that long.

> Technology improves over time. The auto shop profit motive remains constant.

Totally true. That's another tangent, though.

"Red" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:08:53 GMT, "Frank Berger"
> > wrote in
> news:1111460890.635f8555dbb7001c0b4d3195ed9f9256@t eranews:
>
> [heavy editting]
>
> > I've never had a car where the water pump failed
> > before 80,000 or maybe even 100,000 miles. That includes a 1969 VW
> > Squareback,
>
> If the water pump had failed on your squareback, I would say you were
> the most unlucky dude on the planet!

Oops.