2001 change timing belt or not?
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
Uzytkownik "Buying a Used Audi" wrote
>I reason I am saying driven by girl with care is that I think the way
> an engine is driven may have an effect over the suggested interval of
> timing belt change. You see if you rev the engine most of the time, it
> will make the belt do more rounds, ultimately more prone to breakage.
> You see its like, if you abuse an engine it might last for 100K
> while there are drivers that may run a similar engine for 200K?
> Does it make any sense to you guys?
Bare in mind, it's usually the tensioner that fails, not the belt itself.
As far as whether it's a good thing that the car's been driven by a girl and
serviced at regular intervals - well, this probably means the oil was only
changed every 10K miles and the oil was mineral (that's what the dealer
uses). If you have a turbo, I'd say that's a bad thing.
If you have the Audi Assured warranty up to 100K miles, then I guess you're
fine. If the TB/tensioner goes before that mileage, Audi will fix all the
damages under warranty. If you don't have Audi Assured, then you're taking
a big risk, IMO.
Cheers,
Pete
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
> If you have the Audi Assured warranty up to 100K miles, then I guess
you're
> fine. If the TB/tensioner goes before that mileage, Audi will fix all the
> damages under warranty. If you don't have Audi Assured, then you're
taking
> a big risk, IMO.
>
I thought the 10/100 warranty only applied to the original owner & that as
soon as the car changed hands it expires......(?)
rgds
I.
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
> If you have the Audi Assured warranty up to 100K miles, then I guess
you're
> fine. If the TB/tensioner goes before that mileage, Audi will fix all the
> damages under warranty. If you don't have Audi Assured, then you're
taking
> a big risk, IMO.
>
I thought the 10/100 warranty only applied to the original owner & that as
soon as the car changed hands it expires......(?)
rgds
I.
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
"Iain Miller" wrote
>
> I thought the 10/100 warranty only applied to the original owner & that as
> soon as the car changed hands it expires......(?)
Well, the way it works in the US (if that's where the OP is), the original
warranty is 4 years/50K miles, and is fully transferrable to the new owner.
However, if the used car is sold as an "Audi Assured" certified vehicle by
the dealer, it comes with a 10 year/100K mile warranty to the new owner.
That's just an incentive for people scared of high repair costs to get them
to buy a used Audi. Now, a certified Audi is more expensive, and we don't
know if the OP bought one like that or not. If he bought it directly from
that girl, then it's definitely not a certified vehicle and his warranty is
long gone.
Regards,
Pete
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
"Iain Miller" wrote
>
> I thought the 10/100 warranty only applied to the original owner & that as
> soon as the car changed hands it expires......(?)
Well, the way it works in the US (if that's where the OP is), the original
warranty is 4 years/50K miles, and is fully transferrable to the new owner.
However, if the used car is sold as an "Audi Assured" certified vehicle by
the dealer, it comes with a 10 year/100K mile warranty to the new owner.
That's just an incentive for people scared of high repair costs to get them
to buy a used Audi. Now, a certified Audi is more expensive, and we don't
know if the OP bought one like that or not. If he bought it directly from
that girl, then it's definitely not a certified vehicle and his warranty is
long gone.
Regards,
Pete
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
Robert,
I agree that the style of driving may affect the _actual_ lifespan of the
belt, like, say, a belt in an engine that never sees more than 2000 rpm
(driving like my next-door neighbour, she just turned 90) versus the belt in
a modified car that is raced on the track and often sees redline (say, drag
racing like Shirley Muldowney) - but any other factors come in to play as
well - rubber ages with heat (rubber also shrinks but steel expands with
heat...go fig), and it also does not like to be dormant for long periods
(hence you should be changing a belt after 5 years or so regardless of
mileage). As some have posted, it's often the tensioner that siezes and
takes out the belt as well, and so the effects of the environment (dust,
etc.) and manufacturing (quality of bearings, alignment of bearing with
rotation, etc.) come into play with the bearings of the tensioner. I'm sure
if you looked enough on the net you would find a site that would get into
the stats of belt breakage, showing (I'm guessing) a normal distribution of
belt failures, of which, with a confidence interval, of (a guess, again) 95%
that belt breakage will be, say, 75,000 miles. The probablility of a belt
failure at 20,000 miles with such a distribution is not zero, nor is it at
150,000 miles. The problem is that belts are changed more often than they
break (because the consequence of neglect in this case can be engine
destruction), so you'd probably never get a large enough sample size to
prove any hypothesis. (whooooaaa...flashbacks to stats....)
I agree that the stats would be interesting, but qazimo should be shopping
around for a belt change.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"Robert" <rxobert.bxrown@txripnet.se> wrote in message
news:Owqld.8654$d5.73658@newsb.telia.net...
> Steve Sears wrote:
> > qazimo,
> > Why not try for a record - see if it reaches 300K!!! The belt cares not
> > about the driver's gender, and if it was "serviced at _VERY_ regular
> > intervals" dontcha think the belt would have been replaced already?
>
> ----8<---and original post was:
>
> > "Buying a Used Audi" <qazimo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a3f98bd2.0411111849.460dcd75@posting.google.c om...
> >
> >>Do you guys still recommend changing the timing belt at 60K miles. My
> >>car is a 2001 A4 with 83K miles on it, driven by a girl with care, and
> >>serviced at very regular intervals. Should I still change the timing
> >>belt now or let it past 100K? as it is a 2001 is it still falling
> >>under the notorious belt breaking? what do you suggest? Please advise
>
> Steve, your posting begs the question about what kind of driving causes
> the belt to fail, regardless of when it it should be changed:
>
> I'm convinced that someone driving nice and easy, seldom over 3000 rpm,
> never over 3500 rpm, should get much more life out of their timing belt,
> compared to someone regularly running their engine over 5000 rpm, often
> redlining.
>
> I'd like to know how many of the "nice 'n easy" drivers here have broken
> timing belts (assuming that their son or daughter isn't redlining it on
> weekends).
>
> /Robert
>
I agree that the style of driving may affect the _actual_ lifespan of the
belt, like, say, a belt in an engine that never sees more than 2000 rpm
(driving like my next-door neighbour, she just turned 90) versus the belt in
a modified car that is raced on the track and often sees redline (say, drag
racing like Shirley Muldowney) - but any other factors come in to play as
well - rubber ages with heat (rubber also shrinks but steel expands with
heat...go fig), and it also does not like to be dormant for long periods
(hence you should be changing a belt after 5 years or so regardless of
mileage). As some have posted, it's often the tensioner that siezes and
takes out the belt as well, and so the effects of the environment (dust,
etc.) and manufacturing (quality of bearings, alignment of bearing with
rotation, etc.) come into play with the bearings of the tensioner. I'm sure
if you looked enough on the net you would find a site that would get into
the stats of belt breakage, showing (I'm guessing) a normal distribution of
belt failures, of which, with a confidence interval, of (a guess, again) 95%
that belt breakage will be, say, 75,000 miles. The probablility of a belt
failure at 20,000 miles with such a distribution is not zero, nor is it at
150,000 miles. The problem is that belts are changed more often than they
break (because the consequence of neglect in this case can be engine
destruction), so you'd probably never get a large enough sample size to
prove any hypothesis. (whooooaaa...flashbacks to stats....)
I agree that the stats would be interesting, but qazimo should be shopping
around for a belt change.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"Robert" <rxobert.bxrown@txripnet.se> wrote in message
news:Owqld.8654$d5.73658@newsb.telia.net...
> Steve Sears wrote:
> > qazimo,
> > Why not try for a record - see if it reaches 300K!!! The belt cares not
> > about the driver's gender, and if it was "serviced at _VERY_ regular
> > intervals" dontcha think the belt would have been replaced already?
>
> ----8<---and original post was:
>
> > "Buying a Used Audi" <qazimo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a3f98bd2.0411111849.460dcd75@posting.google.c om...
> >
> >>Do you guys still recommend changing the timing belt at 60K miles. My
> >>car is a 2001 A4 with 83K miles on it, driven by a girl with care, and
> >>serviced at very regular intervals. Should I still change the timing
> >>belt now or let it past 100K? as it is a 2001 is it still falling
> >>under the notorious belt breaking? what do you suggest? Please advise
>
> Steve, your posting begs the question about what kind of driving causes
> the belt to fail, regardless of when it it should be changed:
>
> I'm convinced that someone driving nice and easy, seldom over 3000 rpm,
> never over 3500 rpm, should get much more life out of their timing belt,
> compared to someone regularly running their engine over 5000 rpm, often
> redlining.
>
> I'd like to know how many of the "nice 'n easy" drivers here have broken
> timing belts (assuming that their son or daughter isn't redlining it on
> weekends).
>
> /Robert
>
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
Robert,
I agree that the style of driving may affect the _actual_ lifespan of the
belt, like, say, a belt in an engine that never sees more than 2000 rpm
(driving like my next-door neighbour, she just turned 90) versus the belt in
a modified car that is raced on the track and often sees redline (say, drag
racing like Shirley Muldowney) - but any other factors come in to play as
well - rubber ages with heat (rubber also shrinks but steel expands with
heat...go fig), and it also does not like to be dormant for long periods
(hence you should be changing a belt after 5 years or so regardless of
mileage). As some have posted, it's often the tensioner that siezes and
takes out the belt as well, and so the effects of the environment (dust,
etc.) and manufacturing (quality of bearings, alignment of bearing with
rotation, etc.) come into play with the bearings of the tensioner. I'm sure
if you looked enough on the net you would find a site that would get into
the stats of belt breakage, showing (I'm guessing) a normal distribution of
belt failures, of which, with a confidence interval, of (a guess, again) 95%
that belt breakage will be, say, 75,000 miles. The probablility of a belt
failure at 20,000 miles with such a distribution is not zero, nor is it at
150,000 miles. The problem is that belts are changed more often than they
break (because the consequence of neglect in this case can be engine
destruction), so you'd probably never get a large enough sample size to
prove any hypothesis. (whooooaaa...flashbacks to stats....)
I agree that the stats would be interesting, but qazimo should be shopping
around for a belt change.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"Robert" <rxobert.bxrown@txripnet.se> wrote in message
news:Owqld.8654$d5.73658@newsb.telia.net...
> Steve Sears wrote:
> > qazimo,
> > Why not try for a record - see if it reaches 300K!!! The belt cares not
> > about the driver's gender, and if it was "serviced at _VERY_ regular
> > intervals" dontcha think the belt would have been replaced already?
>
> ----8<---and original post was:
>
> > "Buying a Used Audi" <qazimo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a3f98bd2.0411111849.460dcd75@posting.google.c om...
> >
> >>Do you guys still recommend changing the timing belt at 60K miles. My
> >>car is a 2001 A4 with 83K miles on it, driven by a girl with care, and
> >>serviced at very regular intervals. Should I still change the timing
> >>belt now or let it past 100K? as it is a 2001 is it still falling
> >>under the notorious belt breaking? what do you suggest? Please advise
>
> Steve, your posting begs the question about what kind of driving causes
> the belt to fail, regardless of when it it should be changed:
>
> I'm convinced that someone driving nice and easy, seldom over 3000 rpm,
> never over 3500 rpm, should get much more life out of their timing belt,
> compared to someone regularly running their engine over 5000 rpm, often
> redlining.
>
> I'd like to know how many of the "nice 'n easy" drivers here have broken
> timing belts (assuming that their son or daughter isn't redlining it on
> weekends).
>
> /Robert
>
I agree that the style of driving may affect the _actual_ lifespan of the
belt, like, say, a belt in an engine that never sees more than 2000 rpm
(driving like my next-door neighbour, she just turned 90) versus the belt in
a modified car that is raced on the track and often sees redline (say, drag
racing like Shirley Muldowney) - but any other factors come in to play as
well - rubber ages with heat (rubber also shrinks but steel expands with
heat...go fig), and it also does not like to be dormant for long periods
(hence you should be changing a belt after 5 years or so regardless of
mileage). As some have posted, it's often the tensioner that siezes and
takes out the belt as well, and so the effects of the environment (dust,
etc.) and manufacturing (quality of bearings, alignment of bearing with
rotation, etc.) come into play with the bearings of the tensioner. I'm sure
if you looked enough on the net you would find a site that would get into
the stats of belt breakage, showing (I'm guessing) a normal distribution of
belt failures, of which, with a confidence interval, of (a guess, again) 95%
that belt breakage will be, say, 75,000 miles. The probablility of a belt
failure at 20,000 miles with such a distribution is not zero, nor is it at
150,000 miles. The problem is that belts are changed more often than they
break (because the consequence of neglect in this case can be engine
destruction), so you'd probably never get a large enough sample size to
prove any hypothesis. (whooooaaa...flashbacks to stats....)
I agree that the stats would be interesting, but qazimo should be shopping
around for a belt change.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"Robert" <rxobert.bxrown@txripnet.se> wrote in message
news:Owqld.8654$d5.73658@newsb.telia.net...
> Steve Sears wrote:
> > qazimo,
> > Why not try for a record - see if it reaches 300K!!! The belt cares not
> > about the driver's gender, and if it was "serviced at _VERY_ regular
> > intervals" dontcha think the belt would have been replaced already?
>
> ----8<---and original post was:
>
> > "Buying a Used Audi" <qazimo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a3f98bd2.0411111849.460dcd75@posting.google.c om...
> >
> >>Do you guys still recommend changing the timing belt at 60K miles. My
> >>car is a 2001 A4 with 83K miles on it, driven by a girl with care, and
> >>serviced at very regular intervals. Should I still change the timing
> >>belt now or let it past 100K? as it is a 2001 is it still falling
> >>under the notorious belt breaking? what do you suggest? Please advise
>
> Steve, your posting begs the question about what kind of driving causes
> the belt to fail, regardless of when it it should be changed:
>
> I'm convinced that someone driving nice and easy, seldom over 3000 rpm,
> never over 3500 rpm, should get much more life out of their timing belt,
> compared to someone regularly running their engine over 5000 rpm, often
> redlining.
>
> I'd like to know how many of the "nice 'n easy" drivers here have broken
> timing belts (assuming that their son or daughter isn't redlining it on
> weekends).
>
> /Robert
>
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
qazimo,
Although the belt is probably more stressed from acceleration and
deceleration, rather than from straight rpm itself, that will have _NO_
effect on the _SUGGESTED_ interval. (Ref: my reply to Robert's posting)
The standing suggestion is 60k miles - if you go over that, you're on your
own.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"Buying a Used Audi" <qazimo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3f98bd2.0411141806.52f5e76f@posting.google.c om...
> I reason I am saying driven by girl with care is that I think the way
> an engine is driven may have an effect over the suggested interval of
> timing belt change. You see if you rev the engine most of the time, it
> will make the belt do more rounds, ultimately more prone to breakage.
> You see its like, if you abuse an engine it might last for 100K
> while there are drivers that may run a similar engine for 200K?
> Does it make any sense to you guys?
Although the belt is probably more stressed from acceleration and
deceleration, rather than from straight rpm itself, that will have _NO_
effect on the _SUGGESTED_ interval. (Ref: my reply to Robert's posting)
The standing suggestion is 60k miles - if you go over that, you're on your
own.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"Buying a Used Audi" <qazimo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3f98bd2.0411141806.52f5e76f@posting.google.c om...
> I reason I am saying driven by girl with care is that I think the way
> an engine is driven may have an effect over the suggested interval of
> timing belt change. You see if you rev the engine most of the time, it
> will make the belt do more rounds, ultimately more prone to breakage.
> You see its like, if you abuse an engine it might last for 100K
> while there are drivers that may run a similar engine for 200K?
> Does it make any sense to you guys?
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
qazimo,
Although the belt is probably more stressed from acceleration and
deceleration, rather than from straight rpm itself, that will have _NO_
effect on the _SUGGESTED_ interval. (Ref: my reply to Robert's posting)
The standing suggestion is 60k miles - if you go over that, you're on your
own.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"Buying a Used Audi" <qazimo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3f98bd2.0411141806.52f5e76f@posting.google.c om...
> I reason I am saying driven by girl with care is that I think the way
> an engine is driven may have an effect over the suggested interval of
> timing belt change. You see if you rev the engine most of the time, it
> will make the belt do more rounds, ultimately more prone to breakage.
> You see its like, if you abuse an engine it might last for 100K
> while there are drivers that may run a similar engine for 200K?
> Does it make any sense to you guys?
Although the belt is probably more stressed from acceleration and
deceleration, rather than from straight rpm itself, that will have _NO_
effect on the _SUGGESTED_ interval. (Ref: my reply to Robert's posting)
The standing suggestion is 60k miles - if you go over that, you're on your
own.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"Buying a Used Audi" <qazimo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3f98bd2.0411141806.52f5e76f@posting.google.c om...
> I reason I am saying driven by girl with care is that I think the way
> an engine is driven may have an effect over the suggested interval of
> timing belt change. You see if you rev the engine most of the time, it
> will make the belt do more rounds, ultimately more prone to breakage.
> You see its like, if you abuse an engine it might last for 100K
> while there are drivers that may run a similar engine for 200K?
> Does it make any sense to you guys?
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2001 change timing belt or not?
How does a tensioner fail? Unless I am mistaken, the useful life of a
tensioner is from the time you pull the pin to the time you lock the
tensioner bolt. After that, I suppose you could remove the tensioner and
throw it away. Or does the Audi tensioner work differently than other
engines on which I have replaced the timing belt? I am referring to the 1.8T
(ATW) engine.
Thanks,
Ken
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cn9obn$hu7$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
>
> Uzytkownik "Buying a Used Audi" wrote
> >I reason I am saying driven by girl with care is that I think the way
> > an engine is driven may have an effect over the suggested interval of
> > timing belt change. You see if you rev the engine most of the time, it
> > will make the belt do more rounds, ultimately more prone to breakage.
> > You see its like, if you abuse an engine it might last for 100K
> > while there are drivers that may run a similar engine for 200K?
> > Does it make any sense to you guys?
>
> Bare in mind, it's usually the tensioner that fails, not the belt itself.
>
> As far as whether it's a good thing that the car's been driven by a girl
and
> serviced at regular intervals - well, this probably means the oil was only
> changed every 10K miles and the oil was mineral (that's what the dealer
> uses). If you have a turbo, I'd say that's a bad thing.
>
> If you have the Audi Assured warranty up to 100K miles, then I guess
you're
> fine. If the TB/tensioner goes before that mileage, Audi will fix all the
> damages under warranty. If you don't have Audi Assured, then you're
taking
> a big risk, IMO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
>
tensioner is from the time you pull the pin to the time you lock the
tensioner bolt. After that, I suppose you could remove the tensioner and
throw it away. Or does the Audi tensioner work differently than other
engines on which I have replaced the timing belt? I am referring to the 1.8T
(ATW) engine.
Thanks,
Ken
"Pete" <escape2music@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cn9obn$hu7$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
>
> Uzytkownik "Buying a Used Audi" wrote
> >I reason I am saying driven by girl with care is that I think the way
> > an engine is driven may have an effect over the suggested interval of
> > timing belt change. You see if you rev the engine most of the time, it
> > will make the belt do more rounds, ultimately more prone to breakage.
> > You see its like, if you abuse an engine it might last for 100K
> > while there are drivers that may run a similar engine for 200K?
> > Does it make any sense to you guys?
>
> Bare in mind, it's usually the tensioner that fails, not the belt itself.
>
> As far as whether it's a good thing that the car's been driven by a girl
and
> serviced at regular intervals - well, this probably means the oil was only
> changed every 10K miles and the oil was mineral (that's what the dealer
> uses). If you have a turbo, I'd say that's a bad thing.
>
> If you have the Audi Assured warranty up to 100K miles, then I guess
you're
> fine. If the TB/tensioner goes before that mileage, Audi will fix all the
> damages under warranty. If you don't have Audi Assured, then you're
taking
> a big risk, IMO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
>