Timing Belt Pics at 16 years and 128,000 miles

I tore apart a 1.6 liter engine from a 1990 model with 128,000 miles and
decided to just cut the timing belt off.

The tensioners were going bad, the spring was rusty, and the water pump
was badly gunked up, but this original 16 year old belt looks like it
would have gone a lot longer.
It is very pliable and shows no signs of cracking and very little wear.
It would be interesting to measure it next to a new one, but I have a
feeling that it has not stretched that much either.
It is a bit dirty from being outside during our recent rain relief.

http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/timingbelt.jpg
http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/timingbelt2.jpg
http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/pat/timingbelt3.jpg

I wouldn't recommend waiting 128,000 miles to change the timing belt,
but doing the replacement at 60,000 miles seems like just another way to
give money to Mazda. These things are not that fragile.

Pat

I think you are correct Pat. I ( me ) think that 100,000 to 120,000 is
about right for the belts. It is the tentioners that will give you
problems. Again, I'm sure that some belts have failed at less than that.
The 60,000 mile mark is a safety net for Mazda. ( Also, cold weather
will do them in. If you live in a mild temp.area, the belts will last
longer.

Bruce RED '91

BRUCE HASKIN wrote:

> The 60,000 mile mark is a safety net for Mazda.

How so? Mazda warranties end at 3yrs/36k miles.

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,

Natman wrote:
> 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.

.... and the warranty had expired 25,000 miles earlier? I'd feel like
I had to pay for the service... regardless. I'm a pragamatist.


> "I was going to change it, but it
> hadn't even reached the recommended mileage! Those !%#^#! at Mazda
> don't know anything!" etc, etc.

Most Mazda enthusiasts would just blame Ford.

>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,

It's all Ford's fault.

Dana

Dana H. Myers wrote:

> It's all Ford's fault.
>
> Dana

Well, Ford is laying people off and closing factories for a reason, that
reason being that they design and build crappy cars.
I can't remember the last car with a Ford badge on it that I had any
interest in at all.

Of course, it isn't just Ford. We got to read about Tom's wonderful
experience with the Corvette. 4 weeks in the shop in roughly a year? The
first year at that.

I don't like the idea of a new car being in the shop nearly 10% of the
time the first year that I own it, especially if it is the company's top
sports car.

There is no reason that America *can't* produce vehicles that are as
well made as the Japanese cars, it is just that we *don't*.
I would love to be able to have pride in the vehicles made by my own
country, but a turd is a turd, no matter who makes it.

Pat

"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?

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 :-)

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:19:15 -0800, "Dana H. Myers"
> wrote:

>Natman wrote:
>> 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.
>
>... and the warranty had expired 25,000 miles earlier? I'd feel like
>I had to pay for the service... regardless. I'm a pragamatist.
>
>
>> "I was going to change it, but it
>> hadn't even reached the recommended mileage! Those !%#^#! at Mazda
>> don't know anything!" etc, etc.
>
>Most Mazda enthusiasts would just blame Ford.
>
>>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,
>
>It's all Ford's fault.
>
>Dana
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.

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.