Apart from the inference that I'm stupid- thanks for the responses. My gripe
is with the company and their total disdain. To get fobbed off repeatedly
since last September is appalling. In my original posting (just after the
belt failed), I explained that I had experienced a loss of compression- took
the car in to the dealer and asked for their advice about the cambelts ('cos
that's what I originally thought had happened). They told me that there was
not a problem and that there was no need to replace the belt early.. they
claimed that the cambelt horror stories were restricted to the 4 cylinder
engines. Having had a belt failure on a GTV (inside warranty and well, well
before the recommended mileage) and no problems on the 3 V6 cars I had
previously owned, I believed them.
OOps.. I now realise why Stephen H called me a fool. Obviously for
believeing an Alfa Dealer... or perhaps for just persisting with Alfa even
after 20 years of driving them and being treated like an idiot by them.

"Muttsdanglers" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> Hi Stephen
>
> Your right, we can't expect the manufacturers to guarantee to cover every
> part, but when the manufacturer
> states the mileage or timespan in which a part should be replaced it then
> becomes a whole new ballgame!!
> My lawyer argued that if they set these dates / mileages and i followed
> the service plan to the letter, use
> all (in my case) Toyota parts supplied and fitted by the main dealer, then
> that made the toyota dealership totally responsible for all of the repairs
> to my car when the cambelt snapped 10k earlier than it should have done!!
> So i ended up getting all of my money back plus the costs!!
>
> Paul
>
>
> "Stephen Poley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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
>
>