Timing Belt Pics at 16 years and 128,000 miles

"Natman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:10:24 -0500, "Chas Hurst" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Natman" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:11:50 -0800, "Dana H. Myers"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>BRUCE HASKIN wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The 60,000 mile mark is a safety net for Mazda.
>>>>
>>>>How so? Mazda warranties end at 3yrs/36k miles.
>>>>
>>> Imagine how you would feel if the recommended period were 100,00 miles
>>> and your belt broke at 90,000. "I was going to change it, but it
>>> hadn't even reached the recommended mileage! Those !%#^#! at Mazda
>>> don't know anything!" etc, etc. A belt that breaks before the
>>> recomended mileage is a reputation killer. Mazda doesn't want ANYONE
>>> to break a belt too soon, so the recommended mileage has to be
>>> conservative and lots of belts are going to last more than 60 K,
>>
>>Isn't the recommended change interval 105,000mi in CA?
>>
> Yes it is, but Mazda was forced to use that interval by California
> law. If you read the fine print, you have to take the car in at 60 and
> 90K for an "inspection", meaning you get 3 bills from the dealer
> rather than one.

That 60k and 90k inspection involves a lot more work than the t-belt. I was
actually refering to your question concerning a belt breaking at 90,000mi.
Do Miatas have a history of failing before the recommended change mileage?

Chas Hurst wrote:

> That 60k and 90k inspection involves a lot more work than the t-belt. I was
> actually refering to your question concerning a belt breaking at 90,000mi.
> Do Miatas have a history of failing before the recommended change mileage?

No, just the opposite. Most miata timing belts will make it past the
California 100,000 mile maintenance mark.

There has probably been a miata timing belt that broke before 60,000
miles, maybe even more than one.
If so, either that belt or something interacting with it was almost
certainly defective or improperly installed.

I still have never even heard of a miata timing belt breaking before
80,000 miles, and I have to take the owner's word on that.
I have never personally dealt with one that had the belt break before
about 120,000 miles, and this includes quite a few older miatas that I
have dealt with in the last 6+ years.

I know a Camry owner who went over 220,000 miles without ever touching
the timing belt, tensioners or water pump before the belt finally broke.
I would consider that to be pushing it. :-)

Pat

Natman wrote:

> Yes it is, but Mazda was forced to use that interval by California
> law. If you read the fine print, you have to take the car in at 60 and
> 90K for an "inspection", meaning you get 3 bills from the dealer
> rather than one.

I have never understood this.

If you do take your car in for the 30K & 90K "inspection", and the belt
breaks between 90,001 and 99,999 miles, is Mazda required by law to
replace it for free on California cars at that point?

If not, then what purpose does this California legal requirement serve?

Pat

Natman wrote:

> It's not a question of warranty. Let's say the belt breaks at 90K.
>
> If the recommended interval is 100K the car failed despite your
> having followed the recommended maintenance schedule. Not the kind of
> thing that encourages you to buy your next car from the same maker.
>
> If the recommended interval is 60k then you shrug your shoulders,
> admit you shouldn't have let it go so long and admire the car for
> holding out as long as it did. Then you blame Ford.

I agree, except that I would blame Ford first, then shrug my shoulders,
blame Ford again, admit that I shouldn't have waited so long, proceed to
blame Ford again, admire the car for holding out so long, and then blame
Ford at least once more. ;-)

Pat

A dealer would be happy to replace a bad belt under warrenty at 100,000
miles. Naturally, replacement of other parts-
Leaking water pump, bad idlers, etc. would not be covered by warrenty. If
this were done at the average dealer's rates ($85hr here) I could afford to
provide the belt for free, and not bother with even submitting a warrenty
claim. If I used the book labor rates, and split the labor charges
accordingly, I'd still come out ahead. If I used the common trick of
stacking the labor, I'd be so far ahead labor hour wise that the book belt
replacement time would be sort of buried.

"BRUCE HASKIN" > wrote in message
...
> No, just bad for the Miata name. Just like the Vega had a bad name for
> Engine problems. Whsn you start seeing Miatas at the side of the road
> from belt failures, it would not look good, is what I mant.
>
> Bruce RED '91 :-)
>

pws > wrote:

>Natman wrote:
>
>> Yes it is, but Mazda was forced to use that interval by California
>> law. If you read the fine print, you have to take the car in at 60 and
>> 90K for an "inspection", meaning you get 3 bills from the dealer
>> rather than one.
>
>I have never understood this.
>
>If you do take your car in for the 30K & 90K "inspection", and the belt
>breaks between 90,001 and 99,999 miles, is Mazda required by law to
>replace it for free on California cars at that point?

As far as I understand it, even if you do *not* have 30k and 90k
inspections done, Mazda is required to replace it for free if
it breaks before 105k mi. Then, I may be wrong.

>If not, then what purpose does this California legal requirement serve?

You think that legal requirements satisfy logical purposes? How long
have you had this problem?

Leon
--
Leon van Dommelen Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .)
http://www.dommelen.net/miata
EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:28:37 -0500, "Chas Hurst" >
wrote:


>
>That 60k and 90k inspection involves a lot more work than the t-belt. I was
>actually refering to your question concerning a belt breaking at 90,000mi.
>Do Miatas have a history of failing before the recommended change mileage?
>
The 90k breakage was completely hypothetical, intended to show the
diffrence in the comsumer's attitude based on the recommended change
interval.

No, Miatas do NOT have a history of failing before the recommended
change mileage for two reasons:

They typically go a long time before breaking the belt.

The recommended change interval is very conservative, for the reasons
explained in my prior posts.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:16:00 GMT, pws > wrote:

>Natman wrote:
>
>> Yes it is, but Mazda was forced to use that interval by California
>> law. If you read the fine print, you have to take the car in at 60 and
>> 90K for an "inspection", meaning you get 3 bills from the dealer
>> rather than one.
>
>I have never understood this.
>
>If you do take your car in for the 30K & 90K "inspection", and the belt
>breaks between 90,001 and 99,999 miles, is Mazda required by law to
>replace it for free on California cars at that point?

I don't know. I changed my belt at 75K (I bought the car with 68k), so
I don't intend to find out.
>
>If not, then what purpose does this California legal requirement serve?

It gave the California legislature the illusion that they were doing
something useful that day.

Leon van Dommelen wrote:

> You think that legal requirements satisfy logical purposes? How long
> have you had this problem?
>
> Leon

Weird,
for some reason I think that the legal requirements that you do not kill
people at random, not steal or destroy other people's property, not
drive your miata at 100 mph down a residential street, along with many
other legal requirements actually do have a logical purpose.

I guess I have had this "problem" for as long as I could reason.
I would think that a rocket scientist would have at least the same
reasoning capabilities as I did when I was 5 years old.

Pat

> Weird,
> for some reason I think that the legal requirements that you do not kill
> people at random, not steal or destroy other people's property, not
> drive your miata at 100 mph down a residential street, along with many
> other legal requirements actually do have a logical purpose.

You haven't got it quite right. "Not kill people at random" unless you have
enough money or government connections to beat the rap, or if the government
says it's ok. (Or did you just mean US citizens, other countries citizens
not counting?)(Ref: OJ, LBJ, Iraq, etc) "Not steal or destroy other peoples
property" unless you're the government, or doing it in the name of a cause
the government decrees is good. (Ref: inflation, debasement of currency,
central banks, eminent domain being used to take title of property for
commerical/taxable purposes, etc)

"Not drive your Miata at 100mph down a residential street" What if the
residents are all serving in an invasion of Iran, or all the owners have
been evicted so the area can be used for an unneeded megamall to generate
local taxes, or everyone is in a "quarantine camp" dying of bird flu? What
if it's in New Orleans? Then there's no logical purpose. (Contrived, yes,
but every one with precedent.)

Legal requirements are usually flexible depending on how well connected a
person is and whether it serves government ends or not. For example, the
legal debt limit ceiling on the US government has not only turned out to be
flexible, the media isn't even mentioning exceeding it. Laws may sound
logical, but that's so the legislature don't have the populace stringing
them up.

miker