Eric,
Sorry to hear about the loss of your timing belt (and, obviously, damage to
your car).
That said, and to all the newbies on this newsgroup, you should replace the
timing belt _and_ all associated seals and hardware such as tensioners,
water pumps, etc. at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
parked for 5 years and has zero miles on it, you should replace the belt.
It's not a trivial job - but failure is seldom a trivial event - possibly
resulting in the replacement of the engine and downstream stuff like
turbochargers, cats, etc. Belt failures often result from the failure of
the tensioner, which takes out the belt. "Inspection" of the belt will
generally tell you little, as the heavily reinforced belt will look great
from the outside. The objective is to remove a good working part and
replace it with a new part.
As JPF said in his reply in 2003 - ask Audi why the replacement mileage
interval is different in California than , say, Germany or England - it is
called "Handbook Engineering" - same belt and hardware, different interval
(to meet mandated servicing intervals in California).
Regardless, according to the Boston Globe article, in your case, are you not
covered for the repairs to 105k? You might want to contact the Globe to get
to their contacts about the suit.
60k Miles or 5 years for Timing Belt Service - period.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ - coming up on T-belt distance interval - need to change the
front crank seal anyway.
1980 Audi 5k - due for a T-belt based on date - it has sat for the last
couple of years
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes - a T-belt?....do they hold
T-pants up??
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)


<edavis@terawave.com> wrote in message
news:1134063735.336374.191960@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
>I found this article listed in this group:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...d39993f41cdb09
>
> Although the posting was from 2003, I'd like to inform everyone that
> this problem is still very much an issue today.
>
> I own a 2001 Audi TT Roadster and just experienced belt failure at 73K
> miles. Despite the fact that I have maintained the vehicle per Audi's
> spec's at the dealership, they are taking no responsibility whatsoever.
> The owner's manual for my car requires replacement at 80K miles.
>
>>From the research I've done, it seems clear that Audi knows about this
> problem and is not acknowledging it. Looking back, I find it strange
> that my service advisor reccomended that I should "think about
> replacing my belt" even though he did not say there were any signs that
> it would suddenly fail. I'm seeing this repeated all over various
> postings on the web.
>
> I have talked with a number of shops that specialize in Audi's and the
> common knowledge in this community is that Audi belts fail early. I've
> also found a number of informative sources on the matter and would
> appreciate it if anyone out there who knows more could reply to this
> group, especially related to the class action case.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric Davis
>
> Link to a news article in the Boston Globe (posted 7-17-2005) about a
> class action lawsuit that Audi settled related to early belt failures:
> http://www.boston.com/business/artic...gine_of_change
>
> Link to a helpful shop in LA that has experience with these failures:
> http://stuttgartauto.com/Stuttgart%2...tive%20Inc.htm
>

 

Eric,
Sorry to hear about the loss of your timing belt (and, obviously, damage to
your car).
That said, and to all the newbies on this newsgroup, you should replace the
timing belt _and_ all associated seals and hardware such as tensioners,
water pumps, etc. at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
parked for 5 years and has zero miles on it, you should replace the belt.
It's not a trivial job - but failure is seldom a trivial event - possibly
resulting in the replacement of the engine and downstream stuff like
turbochargers, cats, etc. Belt failures often result from the failure of
the tensioner, which takes out the belt. "Inspection" of the belt will
generally tell you little, as the heavily reinforced belt will look great
from the outside. The objective is to remove a good working part and
replace it with a new part.
As JPF said in his reply in 2003 - ask Audi why the replacement mileage
interval is different in California than , say, Germany or England - it is
called "Handbook Engineering" - same belt and hardware, different interval
(to meet mandated servicing intervals in California).
Regardless, according to the Boston Globe article, in your case, are you not
covered for the repairs to 105k? You might want to contact the Globe to get
to their contacts about the suit.
60k Miles or 5 years for Timing Belt Service - period.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ - coming up on T-belt distance interval - need to change the
front crank seal anyway.
1980 Audi 5k - due for a T-belt based on date - it has sat for the last
couple of years
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes - a T-belt?....do they hold
T-pants up??
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)


<edavis@terawave.com> wrote in message
news:1134063735.336374.191960@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
>I found this article listed in this group:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...d39993f41cdb09
>
> Although the posting was from 2003, I'd like to inform everyone that
> this problem is still very much an issue today.
>
> I own a 2001 Audi TT Roadster and just experienced belt failure at 73K
> miles. Despite the fact that I have maintained the vehicle per Audi's
> spec's at the dealership, they are taking no responsibility whatsoever.
> The owner's manual for my car requires replacement at 80K miles.
>
>>From the research I've done, it seems clear that Audi knows about this
> problem and is not acknowledging it. Looking back, I find it strange
> that my service advisor reccomended that I should "think about
> replacing my belt" even though he did not say there were any signs that
> it would suddenly fail. I'm seeing this repeated all over various
> postings on the web.
>
> I have talked with a number of shops that specialize in Audi's and the
> common knowledge in this community is that Audi belts fail early. I've
> also found a number of informative sources on the matter and would
> appreciate it if anyone out there who knows more could reply to this
> group, especially related to the class action case.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric Davis
>
> Link to a news article in the Boston Globe (posted 7-17-2005) about a
> class action lawsuit that Audi settled related to early belt failures:
> http://www.boston.com/business/artic...gine_of_change
>
> Link to a helpful shop in LA that has experience with these failures:
> http://stuttgartauto.com/Stuttgart%2...tive%20Inc.htm
>

 

Eric,
Sorry to hear about the loss of your timing belt (and, obviously, damage to
your car).
That said, and to all the newbies on this newsgroup, you should replace the
timing belt _and_ all associated seals and hardware such as tensioners,
water pumps, etc. at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
parked for 5 years and has zero miles on it, you should replace the belt.
It's not a trivial job - but failure is seldom a trivial event - possibly
resulting in the replacement of the engine and downstream stuff like
turbochargers, cats, etc. Belt failures often result from the failure of
the tensioner, which takes out the belt. "Inspection" of the belt will
generally tell you little, as the heavily reinforced belt will look great
from the outside. The objective is to remove a good working part and
replace it with a new part.
As JPF said in his reply in 2003 - ask Audi why the replacement mileage
interval is different in California than , say, Germany or England - it is
called "Handbook Engineering" - same belt and hardware, different interval
(to meet mandated servicing intervals in California).
Regardless, according to the Boston Globe article, in your case, are you not
covered for the repairs to 105k? You might want to contact the Globe to get
to their contacts about the suit.
60k Miles or 5 years for Timing Belt Service - period.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ - coming up on T-belt distance interval - need to change the
front crank seal anyway.
1980 Audi 5k - due for a T-belt based on date - it has sat for the last
couple of years
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes - a T-belt?....do they hold
T-pants up??
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)


<edavis@terawave.com> wrote in message
news:1134063735.336374.191960@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
>I found this article listed in this group:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...d39993f41cdb09
>
> Although the posting was from 2003, I'd like to inform everyone that
> this problem is still very much an issue today.
>
> I own a 2001 Audi TT Roadster and just experienced belt failure at 73K
> miles. Despite the fact that I have maintained the vehicle per Audi's
> spec's at the dealership, they are taking no responsibility whatsoever.
> The owner's manual for my car requires replacement at 80K miles.
>
>>From the research I've done, it seems clear that Audi knows about this
> problem and is not acknowledging it. Looking back, I find it strange
> that my service advisor reccomended that I should "think about
> replacing my belt" even though he did not say there were any signs that
> it would suddenly fail. I'm seeing this repeated all over various
> postings on the web.
>
> I have talked with a number of shops that specialize in Audi's and the
> common knowledge in this community is that Audi belts fail early. I've
> also found a number of informative sources on the matter and would
> appreciate it if anyone out there who knows more could reply to this
> group, especially related to the class action case.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric Davis
>
> Link to a news article in the Boston Globe (posted 7-17-2005) about a
> class action lawsuit that Audi settled related to early belt failures:
> http://www.boston.com/business/artic...gine_of_change
>
> Link to a helpful shop in LA that has experience with these failures:
> http://stuttgartauto.com/Stuttgart%2...tive%20Inc.htm
>

 

In article <KC0mf.8841$kt5.656455@news20.bellglobal.com> Steve Sears,
steve.sears@SHOESsoil-mat.on.ca writes:
> at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
>parked for 5 years

oh dear, better move that job up the priority list on my 1988 A100!
38000 miles, 11 years.

G.

 

In article <KC0mf.8841$kt5.656455@news20.bellglobal.com> Steve Sears,
steve.sears@SHOESsoil-mat.on.ca writes:
> at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
>parked for 5 years

oh dear, better move that job up the priority list on my 1988 A100!
38000 miles, 11 years.

G.

 

In article <KC0mf.8841$kt5.656455@news20.bellglobal.com> Steve Sears,
steve.sears@SHOESsoil-mat.on.ca writes:
> at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
>parked for 5 years

oh dear, better move that job up the priority list on my 1988 A100!
38000 miles, 11 years.

G.

 

In article <KC0mf.8841$kt5.656455@news20.bellglobal.com> Steve Sears,
steve.sears@SHOESsoil-mat.on.ca writes:
> at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
>parked for 5 years

oh dear, better move that job up the priority list on my 1988 A100!
38000 miles, 11 years.

G.

 

"ovalking" wrote

>> at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
>>parked for 5 years
>
> oh dear, better move that job up the priority list on my 1988 A100!
> 38000 miles, 11 years.

Does your '88 100 have the 1.8T engine??? Because that's what we're talking
about here. Well, maybe the 2.8 to some extent, too...

Cheers,

Pete

 

"ovalking" wrote

>> at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
>>parked for 5 years
>
> oh dear, better move that job up the priority list on my 1988 A100!
> 38000 miles, 11 years.

Does your '88 100 have the 1.8T engine??? Because that's what we're talking
about here. Well, maybe the 2.8 to some extent, too...

Cheers,

Pete

 

"ovalking" wrote

>> at 60k miles or 5 years - yes, even if the car has been
>>parked for 5 years
>
> oh dear, better move that job up the priority list on my 1988 A100!
> 38000 miles, 11 years.

Does your '88 100 have the 1.8T engine??? Because that's what we're talking
about here. Well, maybe the 2.8 to some extent, too...

Cheers,

Pete