| Message |
From Tom Bell to IZCC email list on 11/18/05: I've changed two belts now on different cars. The sixteen year old
factory-installed belt on my TT had gone only about 53k miles when I
changed it, so my car qualifies under Peter's statement above. The
belt was sealed entirely - no uncoated rubber on the teeth, top or
edges. There was virtually no wear at all - not on the teeth, nor on
the top. No cracks or even lines where a crack could form. The
writing was a bit blurred from rubbing on the idler pulleys, but
still clearly readable. The belt matched exactly to the size of the
new one - no stretching.
If the group recalls, one of our members in Australia works for its
government in doing failure analysis of many types of materials. He
did an analysis of timing belts from Japanese cars back in the
mid-90's, when the first cars were reaching mileage change intervals,
and concluded that the belt's materials and construction were
probably good for double the change interval before they started to
deteriorate from use. Nissan changed the belt specifications in 1993
for the 1994 models (slightly different tooth configuration), and
pronounced them good for 100k miles - confirming what our Aussie's
study concluded. I didn't change the belts on my cars because I
thought they were worn out and ready to fail, but simply as a
precaution against future problems. I was much more worried about
the tensioner and the idler pulleys than the belt itself. Hope this helps! Tom Bell
IZCC 2802
Tom knows his Z stuff
 |
 |
