On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:30:10 GMT, "Domestos" >
wrote:

>> In fact, anyone who follows the change interval specified by any
>> manufacturer is a fool, IMHO. I always change my belts somewhere between
>> 50% and 75% of the quoted mileage - a £300 belt change is a lot cheaper
>> than a new engine.
>
>I disagree, the change interval specified by the manufacturer should be well
>before the required time to change, else they are leaving themselves open
>( or so you would think! - but they use the old trick of its a moving part)
>. If a belt needs to be changed before this guideline then the company is at
>fault as they have supplied a faulty part. It should last as quoted!!!
>
>If a buyer follows the handbook service intervals I see no reason why a
>cambelt should not last at least the guideline mileage. Obviously this
>should be open to interpritation...
>
>i.e. 74,000 miles or 3 years. Which ever comes first etc...
>
>Buying a new car should mean that you should not have to change anything on
>it in the first three years... i.e. they should have an unlimited mileage
>warinty on all parts!!!

What - even tyres?

Seriously, I don't think it's sensible to expect manufacturers to
guarantee all parts for the service interval. There is a sort of
bell-curve for part life, and some parts will fail early. If we demanded
guarantees for everything, manufacturers would respond by specifying
much more frequent changes and we'd probably end up worse off.

But for parts where failure means danger (brakes) or damage which goes
well beyond the cost of a replacement part (cam-belt) then I think it is
reasonable to demand guarantees. [1] And in those cases I think using
the small claims court is an excellent idea.


[1] Or alternatively a means by which an owner without special skills or
equipment can check for wear/consumption regularly - as with tyres and
oil.

--
Stephen Poley