Timing best and water pump in Chevy Metro

My car is Chevy Metro 1998. Today I had the timing belt replaced by a
mechanic. After that a friend of mine said that in this type of car, a
water pump was driven by the timing belt, so needed to be replaced too.
Or the timing belt will need to be replaced again when the water pump
fails later.

I didn't see the mechanic did anything to the water pump, so may have
to send the car back to him. But before that, I like to know whether
my friend is correct or not. Thanks.

On 17 Jul 2006 17:23:32 -0700, "Oak Pond" >
wrote:

>My car is Chevy Metro 1998. Today I had the timing belt replaced by a
>mechanic. After that a friend of mine said that in this type of car, a
>water pump was driven by the timing belt, so needed to be replaced too.
> Or the timing belt will need to be replaced again when the water pump
>fails later.

We always do timing belt and water pump both. The water pump may be
fine, but its not likely it will last until the next time the timing
belt service comes due. On this Metro the timing belt does not drive
the water pump but, same difference because the water pump is under
the timing belt and the timing belt has to be removed in order to
replace the water pump.

>I didn't see the mechanic did anything to the water pump,

An ill-advised attempt to save you money or, perhaps, get the job by
offering a low price.

Don
www.donsautomotive.com

> so may have to send the car back to him. But before that, I like to know whether
>my friend is correct or not. Thanks.

Don wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2006 17:23:32 -0700, "Oak Pond" >
> wrote:
>
> >My car is Chevy Metro 1998. Today I had the timing belt replaced by a
> >mechanic. After that a friend of mine said that in this type of car, a
> >water pump was driven by the timing belt, so needed to be replaced too.
> > Or the timing belt will need to be replaced again when the water pump
> >fails later.
>
> We always do timing belt and water pump both. The water pump may be
> fine, but its not likely it will last until the next time the timing
> belt service comes due. On this Metro the timing belt does not drive
> the water pump but, same difference because the water pump is under
> the timing belt and the timing belt has to be removed in order to
> replace the water pump.
>
> >I didn't see the mechanic did anything to the water pump,
>
> An ill-advised attempt to save you money or, perhaps, get the job by
> offering a low price.
>
> Don
I can't disagree with anything you said. Maybe the guy was shopping
price. If the mechanic charged him $62.50 for the whole job I'd be OK
with it and take my chances on the pump lasting a little while. Any
responsible shop would have advised the customer to change the pump
unless the customer said "Do the absolute minimum." How many times has
a shop heard these words?: "I'm just keeping this car for a few more
miles."

Al Bundy wrote:
> Don wrote:
> > On 17 Jul 2006 17:23:32 -0700, "Oak Pond" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >My car is Chevy Metro 1998. Today I had the timing belt replaced by a
> > >mechanic. After that a friend of mine said that in this type of car, a
> > >water pump was driven by the timing belt, so needed to be replaced too.
> > > Or the timing belt will need to be replaced again when the water pump
> > >fails later.
> >
> > We always do timing belt and water pump both. The water pump may be
> > fine, but its not likely it will last until the next time the timing
> > belt service comes due. On this Metro the timing belt does not drive
> > the water pump but, same difference because the water pump is under
> > the timing belt and the timing belt has to be removed in order to
> > replace the water pump.
> >
> > >I didn't see the mechanic did anything to the water pump,
> >
> > An ill-advised attempt to save you money or, perhaps, get the job by
> > offering a low price.
> >
> > Don
> I can't disagree with anything you said. Maybe the guy was shopping
> price. If the mechanic charged him $62.50 for the whole job I'd be OK
> with it and take my chances on the pump lasting a little while. Any
> responsible shop would have advised the customer to change the pump
> unless the customer said "Do the absolute minimum." How many times has
> a shop heard these words?: "I'm just keeping this car for a few more
> miles."

I had the car seen by a friend. He said the water pump was separate
from the timing belt. So if the pump fails in the future, it can be
replaced without touching the timing belt at all. But it may still be
a good idea to change the water pump when replacing the timing belt.

The technician provides service of coming to customer's house to work
on the car. He may charge less than a regular shop.

Thanks for your expertise and comments.

On 18 Jul 2006 14:21:16 -0700, "Oak Pond" >
wrote:

>Al Bundy wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>> > On 17 Jul 2006 17:23:32 -0700, "Oak Pond" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >My car is Chevy Metro 1998. Today I had the timing belt replaced by a
>> > >mechanic. After that a friend of mine said that in this type of car, a
>> > >water pump was driven by the timing belt, so needed to be replaced too.
>> > > Or the timing belt will need to be replaced again when the water pump
>> > >fails later.
>> >
>> > We always do timing belt and water pump both. The water pump may be
>> > fine, but its not likely it will last until the next time the timing
>> > belt service comes due. On this Metro the timing belt does not drive
>> > the water pump but, same difference because the water pump is under
>> > the timing belt and the timing belt has to be removed in order to
>> > replace the water pump.
>> >
>> > >I didn't see the mechanic did anything to the water pump,
>> >
>> > An ill-advised attempt to save you money or, perhaps, get the job by
>> > offering a low price.
>> >
>> > Don
>> I can't disagree with anything you said. Maybe the guy was shopping
>> price. If the mechanic charged him $62.50 for the whole job I'd be OK
>> with it and take my chances on the pump lasting a little while. Any
>> responsible shop would have advised the customer to change the pump
>> unless the customer said "Do the absolute minimum." How many times has
>> a shop heard these words?: "I'm just keeping this car for a few more
>> miles."
>
>I had the car seen by a friend. He said the water pump was separate
>from the timing belt. So if the pump fails in the future, it can be
>replaced without touching the timing belt at all.

Not according to the procedures and pictures in AllData and Mitchell.
I looked it up for 1.0 and 1.3 both as you did not choose to share
with us what engine is in your car. The majority of the water pump
housiong is underneath the timing belt in both cases.

Don
www.donsautomotive.com

> But it may still be
>a good idea to change the water pump when replacing the timing belt.
>
>The technician provides service of coming to customer's house to work
>on the car. He may charge less than a regular shop.

You get what you pay for.

>Thanks for your expertise and comments.
>

Don wrote:

> We always do timing belt and water pump both. The water pump may be
> fine, but its not likely it will last until the next time the timing
> belt service comes due. On this Metro the timing belt does not drive
> the water pump but, same difference because the water pump is under
> the timing belt and the timing belt has to be removed in order to
> replace the water pump.

Why would you do that? If the water pump isn't driven by
the timing belt, I see no need (nor would I recommend) changing
the water pump unless it was leaking or noisy or it felt rough or
loose. Just because you have to remove the timing belt to access
that water pump (which takes all of 2 seconds on a Metro...I've
done plenty of them) doesn't mean that you attempt to sell the
customer on a water pump.

Now if the pump is "driven" by the belt...then yes, it makes good
sense....especially if the engine is an interference engine.

Ian

"shiden_kai" > wrote in message
news:2Oevg.209656$Mn5.79635@pd7tw3no...
> Don wrote:
>
>> We always do timing belt and water pump both. The water pump may be
>> fine, but its not likely it will last until the next time the timing
>> belt service comes due. On this Metro the timing belt does not drive
>> the water pump but, same difference because the water pump is under
>> the timing belt and the timing belt has to be removed in order to
>> replace the water pump.
>
> Why would you do that? If the water pump isn't driven by
> the timing belt, I see no need (nor would I recommend) changing
> the water pump unless it was leaking or noisy or it felt rough or
> loose. Just because you have to remove the timing belt to access
> that water pump (which takes all of 2 seconds on a Metro...I've
> done plenty of them) doesn't mean that you attempt to sell the
> customer on a water pump.
>
> Now if the pump is "driven" by the belt...then yes, it makes good
> sense....especially if the engine is an interference engine.
>
> Ian

I agree 100% Ian. People seem to lump all jobs together even though there
are many different engine configurations. Everyone is quick to assess blame
to what a shop did or didn't do when in reality every job and situation is
different. The time to question what any particular job entails is before
you give the okay to have it done.... not after you've consulted with the
internet experts to see what they think should have been done. Armchair
mechanics are no better than armchair quarterbacks..... they all think they
know what should have been done after the game is over. In this case if the
pump felt good and wasn't leaking I wouldn't have replaced it either. I
would have mentioned (not recommended) the possibility to the customer
though, after all, it's his car, his money and his decision.
Bob

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:12:46 GMT, "shiden_kai" >
wrote:

>Don wrote:
>
>> We always do timing belt and water pump both. The water pump may be
>> fine, but its not likely it will last until the next time the timing
>> belt service comes due. On this Metro the timing belt does not drive
>> the water pump but, same difference because the water pump is under
>> the timing belt and the timing belt has to be removed in order to
>> replace the water pump.
>
>Why would you do that? If the water pump isn't driven by
>the timing belt, I see no need (nor would I recommend) changing
>the water pump unless it was leaking

Sooner or later most water pumps leak!

> or noisy or it felt rough or
>loose. Just because you have to remove the timing belt to access
>that water pump (which takes all of 2 seconds on a Metro...I've
>done plenty of them) doesn't mean that you attempt to sell the
>customer on a water pump.
>
>Now if the pump is "driven" by the belt...then yes, it makes good
>sense....especially if the engine is an interference engine.

So if the water pump is timing belt driven, fails and the valves bend
that's NOT good and the water pump should have been preemptively
replaced? Correct!

If the water pump leaks, the motor overheats and cracks the head the
water pump should NOT have been preemptively replaced??

What difference does it make if the water pump is underneath the
timing belt or driven by the timing belt? In either case the water
pump cannot be serviced without removing the timing belt. No its not
a very hard timing belt, but its also a VERY EASY water pump with the
timing belt off!

The recommended T-belt replacement interval is every 100k miles per
AllData for 1.0 I didn't check 1.3 I don't have a whole lot of
faith that any water pump will go 200k.

Too many times to count I have had customers come in with bad cam
seals, crank seals, water pumps, 4 cyl. Camry oil pump cover "O" ring
leaks, occasional failed T-belt tensioners or idlers not long after a
timing belt replacement. They are rarely happy with how the previous
shop saved them money on their T-belt service. We do it all and will
warranty it all way beyond the 1 year\12k warranty standard --
something we almost never have to do by being throrough and also very
picky about the parts used.

If its a little more pricey but stays fixed for a long, long time most
people can live with that. If it needs to be done over its too pricey
regardless of the dollar amount. Most often any warnings about a less
than thorough service are forgotten in the bitterness about rework
required.

Don
www.donsautomotive.com

>Ian
>