| I already listed one specific case where one would change the belt before 60k (cracks). You evidently have poor reading comprehension. I confess I don't understand how one confuses what the manual says with facts. What the manual says is what the manual says. It is thus a fact that it says that. Your thought is half-formed. Finally, changing your belt every week won't give you a 100% guarantee either. But if the odds of failure are vanishingly small for both weekly and 60k changes, it is very difficult to say that one is better than the other, so why would you do it weekly? This same argument just becomes stronger if you propose to do it annually, biannually or every 5 years because the odds of failure approach the 60k scenario anyway. (In fact, your odds of finding a bad belt become larger with more frequent changes. It isn't a big deal, but it probably offsets the gains you hope to achieve anyway.) The engineers have found no need to change the belt earlier than 60k, assuming it is undamaged. These engineers have not only information from the belt manufacturer, but also many years of reports from their dealer service network. A mechanic will have 1/100,000th of that data, and likely that data is diluted with information from belts of differing construction. Not sure why you guys are mad at me. I simply state facts. An inconvenient truth, perhaps.
- John
|
20:48:40 12/11/09
