Is replacing the timing belt at 60000 miles...

[goldenboy]

Hi
I have a kia rio 2006 with about 65000 miles,so far its been the best car i ever had not one problem so far since i got it new in 2006,except replacing the radiator cap.I was wondering is it really necessary to change the timing belt around 60000 miles,i am asking that because my last car when i changed it it had 110000 miles and i never replaced the timing belt and my father since i am a kid the 5 cars he had and he always kept them until they reached like 180000 miles+ and never changed is timing belt except for is mitsubishi galant he decided to change it at 60000 miles and the mechanic told him that the belt was like NEW.So do they say to change it at 60000 miles just so garages can make more money? and another way to make the economy work. thanks

[Ken99]

Originally Posted by goldenboy

So do they say to change it at 60000 miles just so garages can make more money? and another way to make the economy work.

You can pay $300 to 500 now to have the belt replaced or wait. What is the risk? Look here:

http://www.kia-forums.com/kia-rio-fo...tml#post236438

Some belts do last an increditable number of miles, but most do not. I think the pictures in the link where from an engine with 77K on the odometer. It comes down to how lucky do you think you are. As far as making money is concerned, the garage would prefer to sell you a new engine over the one or two belts you would buy during the life of the car in your hands.

[goldenboy]

Thanks for the link.But from what i have been reading all the people with broken Timing Belt have kia's from 2002-2004 and everybody know that Kia was crap before 2006.I know because i know 2 people with a 2004 and 2003 Kia and they had all kind of problems.But when they resigned them in 2006 everything seems to be very good.So what i am saying is that probably the TB broke because the cars where not well made.I am not saying that a kia 2006 & up will never have a TB break but it would surprise me if it happens before 120000 miles.Like i said before my father always had Chrysler and buick and never changed a TB in is cars.So i am saying to myself why would it be different on a well made Kia car.

[pulsar86]

It is always a good idea to replace timing belts as recommended by the manufacturer. Most belts will last a lot longer, but it is a relatively cheap insurance against a belt breaking and wrecking the engine. Think how many revs a belt does in 60000 mile and the heat cycles it goes through. You will not get a second chance if a timing belt breaks, you may be right and get 120000 no problems but then again you may not, why risk it? In my work I have seen the results of broken timing belts in many different makes of cars, and believe me it is not pretty and definitely not cheap to fix the damage that is caused. Also you can't tell a belts real condition by just how it looks, I have seen belts that look ok everywhere but at the part where they broke.

[Ken99]

Originally Posted by goldenboy

Thanks for the link.But from what i have been reading all the people with broken Timing Belt have kia's from 2002-2004 and everybody know that Kia was crap before 2006.I know because i know 2 people with a 2004 and 2003 Kia and they had all kind of problems.But when they resigned them in 2006 everything seems to be very good.So what i am saying is that probably the TB broke because the cars where not well made.I am not saying that a kia 2006 & up will never have a TB break but it would surprise me if it happens before 120000 miles.

Yes, the redesigned Rio is a much better car overall since 2006. The motor in your car (the DOHC version of the Hyundai Alpha engine) has been in production for ~15 years. Yes, there have been modest improvements to the engine, but the timing belt setup hasn't changed at all. Both time and miles contribute to degradation of the rubber timing belt, but I'd wager miles contribute far more.

One more thing to consider, the warranty. Being the first owner of the car, you benefit from having a 10 year/100K powertrain warranty. Failure to replace the timing belt at ~60,000 mile negates that coverage.

[PLP]

well, no, you do not have to change timing belt.
you do not have to change oil either.

just some idiots said that TB has a lifetime of 60k miles, and some other idiots said that oil should be changed between 3k and 10k miles (depends on car and oil).

I do not listen to them at all. I do not buy gas, because there is no need to.


If you saw the engine in the link, you know what may happen. And this will be your own fault...

And overall - I am tired of people asking if TB replacement is necessary. It is like having no tread and wires sticking out on tires and thinking if they were designed that way, or they should be replaced...

[goldenboy]

thanks guys for your feedback.

[jcwit]

The mfg. has suggested milage for maintence for a reason. Might be wise to follow it.

Please fill out your profile.

[BSeward]

Cheap insurance. No reason to destroy an engine to satisfy your curiosity as to how long a belt will last. The belt may well last many miles past 60K, but I will guarantee you that the engine will die one revolution of the crankshaft after the belt breaks.

[scythefwd]

Timing belts snap. The one on my VW snapped at 24k. 4500 dollars later, the car had a new head, and it has been running well since. Got the belt replaced at 100k (they said it was a 100k belt... they lied and it was a 60k belt) and it was in very bad shape. Replaced that belt at 200k, and it was wearing down as well, but it was a 100k belt.

That said, yes, belts will last longer than they are rated for... but they do wear out. Do you think you engine will be covered under warranty if you don't replace the belt? 5-700 dollars for a new belt is a whole lot cheaper than a new/rebuilt head or engine. Trust me on that one.