Belts

[Gate Keeper]

All the belts were changed in 2010 at 70,000 miles.
Since then, LJW has done 20,000 miles.
Do the belts need changing again, or would it be a waste of time and money.

Thank you

[Phil-T4]

Official figures are 90K miles or 6 Years which ever comes first Phil, the belts rarely fail, most of the time its the tensioner and idler pulley at fault.

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by Phil-T4

Official figures are 90K miles or 6 Years which ever comes first Phil, the belts rarely fail, most of the time its the tensioner and idler pulley at fault.

Thanks Phil for answering my question. Corin changed all the belts at 70,000. Am I right in thinking that if it ain't broke, there is no need to fix it?

[Phil-T4]

Originally Posted by Gate Keeper

Am I right in thinking that if it ain't broke, there is no need to fix it?

There are many thoughts on the subject of belt replacements, but they do have a service schedule for a reason and no, i don't think this schedule was just to make money for the dealers before anyone says anything!

The cost of engine replacement/repair can be far greater than the cost of replacing them.

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by Phil-T4

There are many thoughts on the subject of belt replacements, but they do have a service schedule for a reason and no, i don't think this schedule was just to make money for the dealers before anyone says anything!

The cost of engine replacement/repair can be far greater than the cost of replacing them.

I had a belt go, whilst driving over the Dartford Bridge in an MG tf, fortunately the car was rescued to a local garage who did the work there and then. No harm was done to the engine. But am mindful that it could have been much worse.

Phil, what do you think I should do?

[SD1too]

Originally Posted by Gate Keeper

Do the belts need changing again ...

Here's my unpopular, but I feel logical, approach to this question Phil.

No, they don't need changing again.

The belts have a life of 90,000 miles. This is stated in RAVE. It also says that if removed, they can be refitted if they've covered less than 45,000 miles.

The six year period is simply 90,000 miles divided by MG Rover's idea of the annual mileage covered by the average driver: 15,000 miles. This figure is chosen to be competitive in the new car market, not for engineering reasons. By this calculation, a driver who covers 10,000 miles p.a. can leave them for nine years.

The belt material does not spontaneously self destruct, or deteriorate simply by existing. Consider the 75 in the Gaydon museum. It is 17 years old. It is occasionally moved under its own power, for example a couple of years ago at a club event, with no problems at all.

Service schedules also list that items such as sparking plugs and air filters should be changed on a time basis. These things should be renewed according to their condition, not the passage of time. It is clearly ridiculous to throw awayan air filter which is not dirty.

I renewed the cambelt on our daily driver earlier this year. This car spends its life in stop-start motoring. I observed the mileage interval. The belt was thirteen years old, older than recommended by the manufacturer. It was in perfect condition. I posted a report on the forum about this. There was very little interest. One member said: "Ah, but it could have broken tomorrow" and that sums up the real reason for blind belief in the six year period: fear.
If you're the sort of person who buys more and more insurance policies because a good salesman convinces you that disaster is just around the corner, then you'll shell out for belt replacement.

I doubt that I have convinced you, have I Phil?

Simon

[COLVERT]

Phil.

I think you have arrived at the crossroads in belt replacement with the time and mileage you have.



I think it's a Heads or Tails situation so out with the coin and --Spin for it.--

[p2roverman]

Originally Posted by SD1too

The belts have a life of 90,000 miles. This is stated in RAVE. It also says that if removed, they can be refitted if they've covered less than 45,000 miles.

The six year period is simply 90,000 miles divided by MG Rover's idea of the annual mileage covered by the average driver: 15,000 miles. This figure is chosen to be competitive in the new car market, not for engineering reasons. By this calculation, a driver who covers 10,000 miles p.a. can leave them for nine years.

Thanks for this logical viewpoint, despite it being at odds with the views of many others.

Under these circumstances I'm now going to postpone my belt changes both on the 50k car, and on the 123k car, the latter of which had its belts done at 88k eight years ago.

Perhaps the 85k car does need looking at to see if the belt was changed due to age, unfortunately I've no service history. (The forth 120k car is an unknown, but as it was bought for spares and is unlikely to pass the mot more than a couple more times I'm not too bothered).

I accept that your argument is only valid if the belts remain uncontaminated with oil and there is alway the risk of tensioner failure, thought this is presumably difficult to predict.

[chris75]

I am also of the opinion that the belts do not appear to deteriorate with time . However , the question is that when the belts were last changed , were the idler and tensioner pulleys changed ? If they weren't , and some belt jobs do get done without changing the pulleys , then they probably won't last much longer

[Lord of Hog]

Have to say I agree with Simon's take on this: it's only when the engine is running that the belt, pulleys and tensioners are under any stress so it follows that the serviceable life must be more closely linked to mileage than simply the passage of time. Most manufacturers then average this mileage out on the basis of 12-15k miles a year to arrive at a time scale and then err on the side of caution by adding the "whichever is first" line. There is no conclusive evidence that any wear, damage or otherwise is caused simply by age.