Doesn't anyone think that changing a timing belt every 60K miles seems excessive? Is this need a result of poor design or poor quality parts? I have had many cars with well over 100K miles without a timing belt change. Is there an upgrade avaliable yet... maybe a gear drive...lol.

 

not excessive at all, there are many horror stories out there about early timing belt failures and full engine rebuilds, so we just don't go thru that.

 

I think it is this ist the dealers way of getting more money from audi owners. Just talked to another dealership about when to replace timing belt and she said 105,000. I had mentioned that I have heard of som many people having failures between 60,000 and 80,000 and she said that it just was not necessary. In fact she had not had anyone in ther service center with such a problem. I will play it safe, I have 12,000 miles left on a exteneded warrenty that covers such an issue. If it does not fail by then I will have it replaced around 76,000 miles.

 

Getting money out of you would be telling you to change it every 60K...
It's close to 1K to get it changed.

 

It is really hit or miss, i work for Chrysler and we recommend 60K but most people dont do it and nevrr have a problem. but when you do have one it will cost. I am not one opt talk I have a 97 with 78k on it nad ihave not changed it yet, and my buddy has a 96 with 98k have not changed it yet. i know I am lplaying with fire but it is a b*tch to do.

 

what was that service bulletin jest put up a while ago.. saying something about audi and the timing belt around 105k miles.. anyone


Bueller? Bueller?